30 May 2001 Legislative Assembly 1217

WEDNESDAY, 30 MAY 2001

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

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Abortion Law Mrs Liz Cunningham from 11 petitioners, requesting the House to (a) not decriminalise abortion, nor amend Sections 224, 225, 226 and 282 of the Queensland Criminal Code and (b) take all steps to facilitate the enforcement of the Queensland Criminal Code on abortion.

Lagoon Street, Sandgate Mr Nuttall from 119 petitioners, requesting the House to prevent the closure of Lagoon Street, Sandgate for the purpose of a private development.

School Buses, Seatbelts Mr Pitt from 320 petitioners, requesting the House to take immediate steps to (a) halt the practice of allowing school children to stand in buses travelling on the highway where the statutory speed limit exceeds 80km per hour, (b) phase in a requirement for all new buses carrying school children on roads where the statutory speed limit exceeds 80km per hour to be outfitted with seatbelts and (c) require all existing buses carrying school children on roads where the statutory speed limit exceeds 80km per hour to be outfitted with seatbelts within a period of 10 years.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Job Creation; CBD Building Projects; Biotechnology Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: My government has a comprehensive range of policies designed to create jobs and attack unemployment in Queensland. We are working hard to boost trade opportunities, encourage investment, add value to our primary produce and resources, and attract more tourists. We have to be innovative and develop our biotechnology and information technology industries—something the government is doing. We need to increase the skills of our work force and we have to have programs that help our most vulnerable unemployed people—the mature aged and young unemployed people—find jobs and enter the work force. Just last week my colleague the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth briefed cabinet on the implementation plan for four new programs aimed at reducing unemployment among these mature aged and young people. Planning is now well advanced and it is now time to rename those programs to make them more user friendly and descriptive for those who will be involved in them and benefit from them. The first of the two programs that will target the needs of the mature aged unemployed will be known as the Back to Work program. The other, the wage- subsidy program, is to be known as Experience Pays. The two programs for the younger unemployed will be known as Get Set for Work and Youth for the Environment and Local Communities. The four new programs will begin operating from 1 July. They deliver on an election commitment to increase spending on the highly successful Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative to $470 million to help create more than 56,000 jobs over the first two terms of the Beattie government. These new programs will operate alongside others already in place under the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. They will help to deliver on the government's No. 1 priority of jobs for Queenslanders. The Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative has already helped create more than 26,000 jobs, many of them for the most disadvantaged in the labour market—the long-term unemployed. Importantly, many of them have been in rural and regional areas of Queensland, areas which traditionally have the greatest difficulty in creating jobs. My ministerial colleague Matt Foley will release more details about these new programs, but there are some general comments I would like to make about the federal government's approach to unemployment, particularly as it contrasts with our own. The federal budget delivered last week 1218 Legislative Assembly 30 May 2001 does virtually nothing for the unemployed. In fact, they are budgeting for an increase in unemployment of almost one per cent, without budgeting for innovative new programs to help unemployed people develop new skills and find jobs. In other words, the federal government has said that under its policies unemployment will rise by almost one per cent. While the federal government is making it harder for unemployed people, the Queensland government is listening and responding to the needs of unemployed people. The federal government has been dragging the chain on funding for TAFE places, effectively denying thousands of young Queenslanders access to vocational and educational training. It also cut funding to the Full Service Schools program aimed at helping young people in danger of dropping out of school. The minister tells me a total of 2,421 year 11 and year 12 students at 95 schools across the state will be affected by the funding cut. It was disappointing on budget night to see that the Howard government has again missed the mark. It should be out there working with us to create jobs. Instead, it is virtually silent on the matter, other than acknowledging that there will be an increase of almost one per cent in unemployment in Australia. Notwithstanding the poor performance of the federal government, I am very optimistic about the Queensland economy and its prospects for the future. While we have seen some mixed economic indicators in recent times, I can assure the House that there is a real buzz in the Queensland business community, particularly the property industry. Just yesterday I attended the launch of the new $100 million office building now under construction at 175 Eagle Street. Although the 20-storey building is still in the early stages of construction, office space in the building is already 60 per cent leased. And that is indicative of what is happening with office space in Brisbane, with the industry currently experiencing its best absorption rates in a decade. In fact, 175 Eagle Street is the first premium commercial office block to be constructed in the Riverside sector of Brisbane's CBD in almost 10 years. There are also two major office blocks due for completion this year, the Ariadne Australia Millennium Square at 119 Charlotte Street and Forrester Kurts' Hall Chadwick Centre at 120 Edward Street. We also have work progressing on Riparian Plaza, probably better known to members as the Riverside 2 project. There is also commercial development under way at Macarthur Central on the corner of Queen and Edward Streets. Clearly, big things are happening and it is a good pointer to future growth in the Queensland economy. The word from the property sector is that new office space is being quickly absorbed by new tenants and expanding businesses, so there is clearly a high level of confidence in the business community about Queensland's future growth. The building project at 175 Eagle Street has been dubbed Australia's first 'thinking' building and takes an innovative approach that exemplifies the spirit of the Smart State. The 'intelligent' and 'thinking' theme of the building will be reflected in its innovative approach to integrating building management systems with web-driven technology. This technology will control lifts, airconditioning, security, data, lighting and power, communications and a conference centre and catering facilities. The building at 175 Eagle Street will be a prototype, a model of what we expect will be standard features of city buildings for this new century. This is about conserving energy. It is a very sound model for future buildings. The reality is that the modern world is moving faster and we have to innovate or stagnate. Developments like this introduce cutting-edge technology to Queensland. On the issue of future jobs, which is important to this government, last week I had the honour of delivering in Melbourne the keynote address to the Eureka Project's National Forum on the Future Development of Biotechnology in Australia. All the leading players in the research and commercialisation of biotechnology were there from scientists, to manufacturers, to bankers and venture capitalists. I gave them a simple message: innovation is the fundamental dynamic force which underpins growth across our economy. Queensland is pursuing the Smart State vision, because if we do not innovate we will stagnate and we will miss out on the investment and jobs that we need to grow as a community. Australia is the only mega-diverse country in the world with a developed economy, advanced infrastructure, transport and communications systems, research and development capabilities, and a highly skilled work force. We are perfectly placed to be at the forefront of the biotechnology revolution that will sweep through this 21st century. This is a matter that Paul Lucas, the minister, is working on at the moment. I told the Victorians that, while they are doing well in developing a biotechnology industry, Queensland is breathing down their neck. According to a recent bioindustries work force survey, Queensland was home to 7,690, or 28 per cent, of the industry's 27,000-strong national work force. That is not far behind Victoria, with 8,352 people working in the industry, and New South 30 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 1219

Wales, with 7,856 bioscience employees. However, our state has the largest number of people involved in bioscience research and development, at 3,111 people last year. That compares with 2,500 in New South Wales and 2,101 in Victoria. That is a clear demonstration of our leading edge. I provided this important national audience with the following comprehensive run-down of all the things that Queensland is doing to advance our biotechnology sector— establishing a new ministry of Innovation and Information Economy—with a very talented minister, I might say; establishing the Queensland Innovation Council; establishing the Queensland Bioindustries Task Force, which is overseeing our 10-year, $270 million biotech strategy; drafting a code of ethical practice to ensure that only appropriate research is conducted, and that draft has already been released; committed $97.6 million last year to cooperative research centres, or CRCs, over seven years, six of which are involved in research incorporating biosciences, particularly tropical agriculture, medicine and environmental management; and lodging with the Commonwealth a bid for a synchrotron, which generates light beams, which opens new doors of discovery in analysing biological properties, and we will be competing with Victoria for the synchrotron. The return to Queensland from this comprehensive strategy is millions of dollars of investment in Queensland, creating new industries and new jobs for the future. For example, Astrazeneca has already committed a total of $60 million in pharmaceutical research through a joint venture with Griffith University. I noticed that there was some criticism of this on Radio National yesterday and that the minister will be responding publicly to it. I think that the program on Radio National fails to understand the direct investment benefits which are coming to Queensland and the arrangement we have reached with AIMS under which a percentage of the research benefit returns specifically to Queensland. Merck, Australia's leading manufacturer of generic drugs, has just announced that it will spend $22 million in Queensland through its subsidiary, Alphapharm, on drug research and development. That is why it is important that Queensland continues to compete aggressively to encourage our state as a biotechnology hub. That is why I will again be leading a Queensland delegation to the Bio 2001 World Conference to be held in San Diego in late June. The Australian delegation will be 200 strong, and I am pleased to see that the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, and Minister John Brumby will be there demonstrating the commitment Australian governments have to being a part of the biotech revolution. I met with Premier Bracks when in Melbourne last week, and we agreed that it was valuable to have a rivalry between the states to spur each of us on to greater heights. At the same time, we also agreed that it was important to ensure that competition did not become destructive and counterproductive. That is something that we both agreed on. There will be opportunities for collaboration between the states, and I will be corresponding further with the Victorian Premier, putting forward specific proposals in that regard where Queensland and Victoria can cooperate. I table for the information of the House a copy of my address to that conference in Melbourne.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr F. Albietz Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: On 10 May 2001, I was pleased to announce the reappointment of Mr Fred Albietz as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations, known as the Ombudsman, for a term of three months. Mr Albietz, who has held the position of Ombudsman for 10 years, will retire in August 2001. Mr Albietz has an extensive background in government and will continue to bring considerable legal and managerial expertise to the position. Mr Albietz, who is the International Ombudsmen Institute's Vice-President of the Australian and Pacific region, will host the Australasian and Pacific Regional Meeting of Ombudsmen here in early August 2001, which is why we agreed to this extension. The recruitment process for Mr Albietz's successor commenced in 2000 and will be finalised by the end of Mr Albietz's term. 1220 Ministerial Statement 30 May 2001

I lay upon the table of the House copies of the appropriate correspondence between me and the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee of the 49th and 50th Parliaments, and of the former Leader of the Opposition and the current Leader of the Opposition regarding the appointment, together with Mr Albietz's curriculum vitae. I simply note that and table it for the information of the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Immigration Detention Centres Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday the federal Immigration Minister, Phillip Ruddock, told an audience of schoolchildren that Queensland needs a detention centre to house illegal immigrants who arrive in Australia as tourists. I want to advise the House of our position in relation to detention centres. The frank reality is that the federal government is trying to foist an immigrant detention centre on Queensland without consulting the state government—the Queensland government—or the people of Queensland. It is yet another example of the short-sighted way that the federal government deals with illegal immigrants, refugees and, of course, state governments. I have long opposed—and so has the state government—the federal government for its introduction of temporary protection visas. These temporary visas, which last for three years, were introduced in October 1999 as a supposed deterrent measure to counter a sudden influx of unauthorised boat arrivals instead of stopping them from arriving in the first place, which is what the federal government should be doing. But it has created two classes of refugees as a result. The federal government refuses to give these temporary visa holders vital help in finding work or in learning English. They give them the visa and then they will not support them. That is just crazy in anyone's language. It has also resulted in massive cost shifting to the states. The Queensland government and the other state governments around Australia are forced to pick up the bill. Those people should be stopped from coming here in the first place. That is the bottom line. Now comes news of a decision to place a detention centre in Brisbane, Ipswich, the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast. I have written to the Federal Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Minister, Mr Ruddock, and told him that I am concerned about the social impact of having an immigration detention centre in Queensland. Controversy is already being created at this early stage among stakeholders. We do not want the sorts of riots in Queensland that we have seen elsewhere. I am particularly disappointed that no formal consultation has taken place with the Queensland government on whether or not a centre should be placed in Brisbane or nearby, such as at Ipswich, the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast. I am told that the main purpose of the centre in the first instance is to house deportees but that the potential of placing asylum seekers there cannot be ruled out. While I recognise the need for deportees to be placed in suitable holding facilities, I am not in favour of having a detention centre for asylum seekers in Queensland. It is that simple. I have therefore requested that a joint working party should be established immediately between appropriate Commonwealth and state government officials to address these issues. We need to focus on stopping the illegal immigrants coming here in the first place. My letter to Mr Ruddock, which is dated 28 May, states— Thank you for your letter of 28 March 2001, informing me that your Department is now at the stage of identifying potential sites for a new Immigration Detention Facility in the Brisbane area. I am concerned about the social impact of such a facility and the controversy which is already being created at this early stage among stakeholders in Queensland. Consequently I am particularly disappointed that no formal consultation has taken place with the Queensland Government on the desirability of placing such a centre in Brisbane. When they wrote to us initially we sought informal discussions to try to have that level of consultation. That simply was not supported by the federal government, and I have been forced to write as a result. The letter goes on— I am informed that the main purpose of this centre in the first instance is to house deportees, but that the potential of placing asylum seekers there cannot be ruled out. Whilst I recognise the need for deportees to be placed in suitable holding facilities, I would not be in favour of having a detention centre for asylum seekers in Queensland. I therefore request that from now on a joint working party be established between appropriate Commonwealth/State Government officials to address issues arising from the development of this project. Queensland deserves better consultation from the Commonwealth in relation to this facility. 30 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 1221

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fuel Subsidy Scheme Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.48 a.m.), by leave: Firstly, can I point out that the new Leader of the House, like the previous Leader of the House, is obviously not a racing and betting person, having picked Melbourne Cup day for a parliamentary sitting day. For the benefit of the new members I will own up: I did it last year. I am pleased to announce a significant improvement to the way many licensed bulk end users can claim Queensland's fuel subsidy. These new arrangements to the subsidy scheme will simplify compliance for most licensed bulk end users without affecting the integrity of the scheme. A bulk end user who claims up to $500 a year in subsidy will now receive a provisional subsidy for the full financial year by 1 October of that year. This means that they will have access to their subsidy at least nine months in advance. To obtain a provisional payment, a licensed bulk end user must have been licensed for the preceding financial year or, in the case of the first year of the new scheme, from 1 October 2000 to 30 June 2001. For the first year the licence must have been issued by 17 April of this year and have been effective from 1 October 2000. The bulk end user must have lodged a claim and an annual return for the preceding financial year or from the period from 1 October 2000 to 30 June 2001. They must have claimed no more than $500 in subsidy during the preceding financial year for bulk end user fuel used. The bulk end user making the claim must also intend to continue using the bulk end user fuel for the next financial year. This change to the existing scheme will do away with monthly or quarterly claims for those who receive less than $500 a year in fuel subsidy. It will significantly reduce compliance costs for about 50 per cent of Queensland's licensed bulk end users, many of whom are primary producers. This change is aimed squarely at the heart of regional Queensland. It comes after an extensive review of the scheme to simplify it wherever possible while still protecting Queensland's subsidy from unscrupulous operators who would take advantage of Queensland's no fuel tax policy. It is a fair change which will allow Queensland's bulk end users better and easier access to subsidised fuel while still ensuring that the integrity of the scheme as a whole is not compromised. Our government will continue to closely monitor the use of the scheme to ensure that it is sustainable over the long term and to ensure that Queenslanders reap the benefits they are entitled to as residents of the no fuel tax state. I add that I met with the Queensland Farmers Federation last night. It informed me that it is happy with the new scheme and will be putting out a media release to its members this morning to advise them of the change.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Education Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.52 a.m.), by leave: In rising to make a ministerial statement, I note that I have taken one too many leaves out of the book of the previous Leader of the House. I apologise to members for transgressing one of the unwritten codes of the parliament and assure members that it will be rectified as soon as possible. Like the Premier, I am happy to stand in this chamber today and report on our achievements in education over our first 100 days in office. We have wasted no time in getting down to delivering on key election commitments, with the announcement of the first three of eight centres of excellence for education in maths, science and technology. These centres are part of the Beattie government's Smart State strategy for education in equipping young Queenslanders for the workplaces of the future. These new centres will be based at Ironside State School, Helensvale State High School and Redcliffe State High School. These schools will act as hubs and build networks with schools in their clusters to share new resources and expertise. They will create connections with local business and tertiary institutions to ensure that teachers and students are receiving the latest in learning in the areas of maths, science and technology. During the election campaign we promised to deliver six of these centres, and we will deliver eight. I look forward to announcing a further five centres in regional Queensland in the very near future. Over the past 100 days we have continued to boost the export of Queensland's education to the world through the signing of an overseas contract with China and continued work with East Timor to help re-establish its education system. We have also increased our efforts to promote Queensland's excellent state schools overseas with the launch of Education Queensland International's new and expanded information kit on Queensland state schools. Our commitment to strengthen the legislative framework has also continued. Cabinet has renewed its support for 1222 Ministerial Statement 30 May 2001 the accreditation of non-government schools and draft legislation is now being prepared. Consultation on the green paper on student achievement has also been completed and a cross- sectoral task force is being established to clarify final options for government consideration to improve the structure of our statutory authorities and the educational outcomes of Queensland students. We have continued our push for extra university places to ensure that young Queenslanders have the same chance to go to university as their brothers, sisters and counterparts interstate. We have presented Queensland's case to the Commonwealth to increase the number of funded university places in Queensland by 15,000 over the next five years. However, recent federal budget announcements show that we will have to continue this push if Queensland hopes to maintain its university participation rates at the current level. Queensland alone needs 15,000 extra funded undergraduate places over the next five years just to keep up with our population growth. Last week Treasurer Costello pledged 5,226 places over four years to be shared by the whole country. While we are grateful for any additional places, this small national allocation of places is irresponsible and short-sighted. Unfortunately, that appears to be the hallmark of the Howard government's approach to education. Funding to schools did not rate one mention in the Treasurer's budget speech. It is a very depressing signal of the Howard government's priorities. Again under the federal budget Queensland public schools missed out. Under Commonwealth-state funding agreements, which have recently been signed, we have successfully negotiated improvements to help ease the punitive measures embedded in the federal government's funding arrangements. However, despite vigorous debate with Queensland and other states, those agreements will not provide Queensland state schools with the funding they fully deserve. The divide between private and public school funding will continue to grow. I am committed to continuing to put Queensland's case strongly to the Commonwealth and to speak out against its divisive approach to education funding. Despite these pressures, state schools across Queensland celebrated their achievements during State Education Week last week. The showcase of excellence marked this government's commitment to building a strong state education system. I congratulate the thousands of staff, teachers, students and parents involved in these activities. I look forward to building on our continuing achievements in education as we work to implement our 2010 vision and continue to stoke education as the engine room of the Smart State.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Criminal Justice System Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.56 a.m.), by leave: Late last week the Criminal Justice Commission submitted its report card on Queensland's criminal justice system. I am pleased to report that, when launching this document, the chair of the CJC, Mr Brendan Butler, described our criminal justice system as being in relatively good shape. I am of the firm belief that all Queenslanders should take comfort in the fact that we have made substantial improvements to our criminal justice system over the past 10 years. Indeed, we have progressed considerably since the dark old days of the pre-Fitzgerald era when systemic corruption was rife. While the CJC report did suggest that there have been increases in some forms of crime, it did note that much of the growth has been the result of increased police enforcement. This is a clear demonstration of the fact that the Beattie government is getting tough on crime. I was interested to hear comments by members of the coalition last week who criticised the government for not spending enough on police. In fact, the member for Southern Downs claimed on radio that it was the coalition who had 'ramped up' funding for police during its term of government. Given these strong views, I thought I would take the opportunity to look at the coalition's record in relation to police spending. Under a coalition government, the estimated actual expenditure budgeted for police during the 1996-97 financial year was $648 million. In 1997-98, the estimated actual expenditure was $664 million. In 1998-99, it was $699 million. This represents an increase of only 7.3 per cent in police spending during the life of the last coalition government. By way of contrast, under a Beattie government the estimated actual expenditure for police in the financial year 1999-2000 was $755 million. I am advised that in this financial year the 30 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 1223 estimated actual expenditure for police will be approximately $827 million. This represents a real increase in police spending of 15.5 per cent since the Beattie government came to office in 1998. This is more than double what the coalition did when it was in office. As these figures show, the Beattie government is spending more on police than the coalition government ever did. What is more, we are putting a record number of police officers on the beat. At the last election we committed to increase police numbers by about 300 officers per year with a view of reaching the target of 9,100 sworn officers by the year 2005. This will be complemented by the development of more police beats and shopfronts, more specialist squads and ongoing capital works. The report also highlighted a number of other positives in our criminal justice system: Queensland prisons operated below capacity for the first time since 1995; the government increased spending on law courts and corrective services; and, following the introduction of an amnesty, admissions of fine defaulters into prisons decreased in 1999-2000. The government will not rest on this record alone. We are determined to improve the system further, and this is why we continue to make law and order one of our key priorities. The coalition talks big, but when it was in government it simply could not deliver. The Queensland public will never forget this.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Georgina River Bridge Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.00 a.m.), by leave: I am very pleased to report that my two departments, Transport and Main Roads, have shown a maturity and a willingness to move forward in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Through such a partnership we have been able to develop good policies and deliver better services. Main Roads and Queensland Transport are working on a number of important projects in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Some are individual projects, while others are linked to whole-of-government initiatives such as the Cape York partnership plan and the 10-year partnership. The local Indjilandji-Dithanoo people of Camooweal have a cooperative arrangement with Main Roads in the construction of a new bridge over the Georgina River, west of the township. The Camooweal bridge project is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when the Queensland government works in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. True reconciliation is reached through understanding and respect, and a deeper understanding and respect for Aboriginal cultural heritage has grown out of this project. An archaeological dig within the bridge easement has led to the discovery of a large number of important Aboriginal artefacts. The artefacts in the Georgina River, unearthed during a study initiated by Main Roads, are considered to be one of the most significant historical records of the Indjilandji-Dithanoo people. More than 17,000 artefacts were unearthed. They include scrapers, knives, sharpening tools, grinding implements, woodworking tools, spear points, axes, hammers, scoops, spoons, ceremonial implements and ochre used by both men and women. The artefacts are now being catalogued and analysed by both archaeologists and the traditional owners. The Georgina River bridge project has unearthed one of the most archaeologically significant finds in Australia. The artefacts, which are mostly of stone, are providing detailed information for archaeologists to examine Aboriginal stoneworking techniques from a worldwide perspective. I am advised that we expect these artefacts to be dated at up to 10,000 years old. It appears that the local Aboriginal craftsmen used very specialised stoneworking methods to manufacture and resharpen their stone tools and weapons. A number of tools so far discovered in the excavation have not been described in historical accounts previously. This excavation will add to worldwide knowledge of the nature and use of these rare tools. Transport and Main Roads recognises and respects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage, and by providing education, training and employment opportunities they are helping to build communities of which we can be proud. The arrangement covers stage 1 foundation works, which includes provision for training, specific targets for employment and opportunities for the Dugalunji Corporation to supply goods and services. Main Roads will also consider the Dugalunji Corporation's views when selecting the major tenderer for stage 2 of the project. 1224 Ministerial Statement 30 May 2001

Work on the first stage of this project began in February. Stage 2, which includes the remainder of the bridge project and the road approaches, will be completed before the 2002 wet season, at a total cost of $14 million. The bridge includes a centre span of some 42 metres to take into account the cultural significance of the spirit of the rainbow serpent. It is also built to Q50 standard. That is, it should flood, on average, only once every 50 years. The project is providing employment for approximately 35 indigenous people from the Camooweal area, made possible by an agreement between the traditional owners and a number of Queensland government departments—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Main Roads and Employment and Training—as well as the federal departments of Transport, Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. People employed on the project have been largely drawn from the long-term unemployed and are being provided with skills that will give them work opportunities in the future. Main Roads is also carrying out important work in a number of other areas: an education to employment scholarship scheme, which provides opportunities for young indigenous people to participate fully in community life; and a range of skills development and training initiatives which the department is implementing in collaboration with indigenous communities. These initiatives include things such as career days; management training, through DETIR programs; skills development and training, through the Remote Communities Services Unit; the Thompson River project, which includes the skills audit, training and employment; and the Gracevale project, which is also providing training and employment. The Georgina River bridge project is a clear demonstration of this government's commitment to reconciliation.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT National Reconciliation Week Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: Last Wednesday the Federal Court gave its consent to a native title agreement returning seven islands in the Torres Strait to the Kaurareg people. It was an historic day for the Kaurareg, closing the chapter of more than 120 years of dislocation and separation from their land. It was also another demonstration of our government's policy success on native title—our focus on negotiation rather than expensive and protracted litigation. What better proof than the fact that, of the 18 native title consent determinations Australiawide, 15 have now been negotiated right here in Queensland? Our attitude is one of compromise, of genuine negotiation. Our government is demonstrating that an approach based on goodwill can achieve real results, transforming the principle of coexistence into a practical and substantial reality, not just for indigenous Queenslanders but for all Queenslanders. This is National Reconciliation Week, and it is a reminder that in looking to the future we learn the lessons of the past. Our government is genuinely committed to the reconciliation process. We have apologised to indigenous Australians for the atrocities of the past and have taken a partnership approach in the development of policies. This is in stark contrast to the Howard government. It is still burning bridges and building roadblocks. The Prime Minister will not say sorry and even denies the fact of the stolen generations. We have moved on from that mean-spirited, intractable attitude. We are getting on with the job. We introduced a successful native title regime in Queensland, investing hundreds of hours into negotiating a fair and balanced outcome that recognises the needs of the mining sector and economic development, creates jobs and allows indigenous people to benefit. We have signed the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement. We are in the process of compensating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were underpaid by previous National Party governments between 1975 and 1986. We have legislated to enable elders to give advice to the courts on cultural considerations relating to sentencing. We are training indigenous JPs to enable them to get more involved in the justice process. And we have taken a leadership role on Cape York partnerships. The Queensland of today is remarkably different from the Queensland of 20 years ago, of 10 years ago and even five years ago. Our government governs for all Queenslanders. Our proud record on native title and other actions I have outlined today demonstrate that fact. Unfortunately, the Howard government and some of his supporters in the opposition want to hold our nation in the past. The Prime Minister refuses to move on. For him, the 21st century has yet to arrive. 30 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 1225

In this special week, National Reconciliation Week, I call on the Prime Minister to reflect our nation's maturity: apologise to indigenous Australians and put in place policies and actions that recognise that living standards of many indigenous Australians require urgent attention.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Environmental Protection Agency Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.08 a.m.), by leave: In the first 100 days of the second Beattie Labor government my department, the Environmental Protection Agency, has registered significant successes. Lead is no longer permitted to be used as an octane extender in petrol manufactured in or imported into Queensland. This became effective on 1 March and will remove the largest source of lead in our urban air environment. Exposure to lead has been shown to result in reduced IQ for children. Queensland and Western Australia are the first states to eliminate the use of lead in petrol in Australia. My department has introduced tough new powers for local governments to protect their environment from littering and waste dumping. Local governments now have the power to issue on-the-spot fines. In our first 100 days we have declared more forest reserves under the Nature Conservation Act. Forty-three former state forest areas, totalling about 165,972 hectares, were gazetted on 4 May. The extent of this interim tenure is now more than 400,000 hectares. To assist in the allocation of protected area tenure to south-east Queensland forest agreement forests, five new forest working groups have been established. Membership includes traditional owners, recreational users, conservation groups and local government; and commercial interests, such as grazing leases, have been consulted. Boundaries have been agreed in preparation of the declaration of forest reserve over 37 areas covering more than 400,000 hectares of state forest within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. These forest reserves will be allocated a protected area tenure. The government has now achieved full implementation of a policy commitment to extend the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The final 10 coastal areas of the 28 areas originally left out of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were endorsed by cabinet in May. This followed negotiation of boundaries of the 10 areas following consultation with port authorities to ensure that regions of high port activity were not included within the marine park. Together with 18 new areas that the Queensland government agreed to incorporate into the marine park last year, the new inclusions have added an extra 6,000 square kilometres to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In the first 100 days we made a significant investment from the coastal acquisition fund. An agreement was reached between the state and the Gold Coast City Council for the inclusion of almost 136 hectares of significant coastal land to the South Stradbroke Island Conservation Park and for council to become trustees of the conservation park. My department is committed to providing a coordinated response to blue-green algal lyngbya blooms in Moreton Bay. A joint stakeholder, the Lyngbya Steering Committee, chaired by the EPA, has commenced to address the short-term impacts, and an investigation program to identify causes of lyngbya blooms in Moreton Bay coastal waters is ongoing. A lyngbya management strategy is due for completion mid this year. The sum of $230,000 in funding was released under the Queensland Community Heritage Incentive Program to support cultural heritage conservation and community history projects in rural and regional Queensland. I have also launched a number of breeding programs for endangered species, in particular the northern hairy-nosed wombat and the endangered mahogany glider, as well as opening the bilby fence at the Currawinya National Park. I thank my predecessor, the honourable and learned Attorney-General, for the groundwork he did as minister which enabled so much to be achieved in our first 100 days.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT State Purchasing Advisory Council Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: I wish to advise that the State Purchasing Advisory Council will meet in Toowoomba next month. The meeting follows representations to me from the member for Toowoomba North. I was pleased to agree to the honourable member's request, and the 1226 Ministerial Statement 30 May 2001 council will meet in Toowoomba on Wednesday, 13 June. The council is the government's key advisory group on purchasing. It consists of representatives of the state government, industry and professional groups, and unions. The 13 June meeting is good news for suppliers in the Toowoomba area and the wider Darling Downs region. It offers a chance for them to express their views and raise ideas about the government's State Purchasing Policy or other matters related to government purchasing. I congratulate the member for Toowoomba North on his interest in the State Purchasing Policy and the potential benefits the council meeting offers suppliers in Toowoomba and the wider Darling Downs region. I am pleased there is at least one member representing Toowoomba who takes an interest in these matters. Honourable members may recall that the Leader of the Opposition recently raised doubts about the local benefits flowing from construction of the new correctional centre near Maryborough. He implied that locals were missing out on contracts associated with the project. His comments appeared in the Fraser Coast Chronicle on 18 May under a headline 'Nationals knock work chances at prison'. This is a headline that is bound to be repeated many times in the next three years. Clearly, the National Party's substitute for developing their own purchasing policy is to knock anything the government does to help local businesses. Every newspaper in Queensland should have a headline ready for use in the next three years: 'Nationals knock whatever the Beattie government does'. That was their approach in the first term of this government. It is the way they are already heading this term. The opposition leader has not won any friends in the Maryborough and Hervey Bay region by implying that locals are losing out on the correctional centre project. I have pointed out that almost 30 local firms are already working on contracts associated with its construction. But it is the local community that has savaged the opposition leader's knocking approach. The Fraser Coast Chronicle also reported comments by a member of the community-based consultative committee established as part of the Maryborough project. Ted Weber said that Maryborough and Hervey Bay subcontractors had been well represented on the project. Mr Weber said the opposition leader's comments were more 'knocking from the National Party'. He went on to say— Mr Johnson: Why are you shaking? Mr Seeney: What are you shaking for? Mr SCHWARTEN: The Leader of the Opposition knows why I have a shake in my hands. It is an hereditary problem that we have in our family. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, it was not the Leader of the Opposition who made the comment, it was me. And I do apologise. Mr Palaszczuk: Your turn, Callide. Apologise as well. Come on. Get up. Mr SCHWARTEN: I would not accept an apology from him. I thank Mr Johnson. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr SCHWARTEN: I do have some respect for Mr Johnson. But obviously the member for Callide is one of those people who likes to throw off at people with some form of disability. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The member can laugh. He is a very, very rude individual who takes a lot of delight out of poking fun at other people. We know where he is coming from. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Weber said the opposition leader's comments were more 'knocking from the National Party'. He went on to say— This has been their standard procedure since the prison contract was won. At one stage they were saying it would not be built. Now they are on about the contract. Just stop the knocking. I remind honourable members that those are not my statements. They reflect the views of the local community in the Maryborough/Hervey Bay area. I also point out to honourable members that during the development of the new State Purchasing Policy, the interest level of the opposition leader, as the member for Toowoomba South, was less than zero. He took no part in developing the new State Purchasing Policy, attended no forums and made no submissions. He was clearly happy with the old policy that 30 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 1227 made no reference to local benefits or local jobs. Yet now, he tries to score cheap political points by wrongly suggesting that locals are being frozen out of major projects. He scores 10 out of 10 for hypocrisy. The business operators and people of Maryborough and Hervey Bay know that the National Party knocks but never delivers. The business operators and people of Toowoomba know the same. They also know that, among their local representatives, it is the member for Toowoomba North who takes a genuine interest in this subject and a genuine interest in developing opportunities for local suppliers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Juvenile Offenders Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt— Australian Labor Party) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services) (10.17 a.m.), by leave: An extensive reform program in the area of juvenile justice began in the first term of the Beattie Labor government and has continued apace throughout the first 100 days of our second term. I am pleased to announce that the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill will be released for targeted public consultation in coming weeks in accordance with the commitment made in the February election campaign. The draft bill is the result of a review of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992, the Bail Act 1980, the Childrens Court Act 1992 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 which was undertaken in order to provide clear and consistent policy and practice in youth justice in Queensland. Among the recommendations of the extensive 12-month review was the recommendation for judges to have the capacity to name juvenile offenders convicted of heinous crimes such as murder, manslaughter and rape. The bill will also provide a new charter of juvenile justice principles that will stress, among other things: the accountability of juvenile offenders for their crimes; the responsibility of parents for the supervision of their children; and rights for the victims of crime to have a say in the process of dealing with juvenile offenders. As the situation currently stands with regard to juvenile justice issues under this government, about one in three of our juveniles who have previously been repeat offenders, and who were referred to our pilot Youth Justice Services, did not subsequently re-offend. On 11 July this year, one of the most shameful chapters in the state's history will finally end with the official opening of the Brisbane Youth Detention Centre. It not only signals the end of an era now associated with childhood misery but also sets the direction for the future of Queensland's youth detention centres. The Brisbane Youth Detention Centre, which forms the major component of cabinet's $63 million, 10-year Youth Detention Centre Infrastructure Plan, is based on dual notions of ensuring security and providing opportunities for rehabilitation of young offenders and incorporates the recommendations of the Forde inquiry and the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators Design Guidelines and Standards. It was also the outcome of extensive consultations with representatives of other state government departments, such as Education Queensland, Queensland Health, the Department of Employment and Training and relevant community organisations. The centre was completed on 9 January 2001. The construction program was compressed to 34 weeks and was undertaken by Watpac. Generally, a project of this size would have taken approximately 42 weeks to complete. The total capital budget for the new centre was approximately $44 million. However, despite the compressed timetable, we were determined not to blindly repeat the mistakes of the past. Let no-one be under any illusion about the Brisbane Youth Detention Centre. Young people are punished for their offending by being placed in detention and being deprived of their liberty. They are also given the opportunity to become responsible young Queenslanders, which is a major investment in our society's future. The design and operation of the centre has a 4.5 metre high perimeter fence with electronic surveillance and internal security systems that combine active staff supervision and the use of electronic equipment. Young people's activities are closely observed, and there are serious sanctions for misbehaviour and transgression of rules. Equally, it is recognised that many of the resident young people have serious deficits in education, pre-vocational training and self-management, which 1228 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001 must be addressed if they are to contribute successfully to the community upon release. Therefore, facilities must be provided at the centre for appropriate education, training and recreation. The Forde inquiry said that— Children and young people in care should expect to receive adequate education, vocational training, general and mental health care, leisure and recreation, contact with the community and family and a range of programs that prepare them to function independently and risk-free upon discharge. Neglect of these needs places young people at great disadvantage for the rest of their lives. This centre has an on-site registered school managed by Education Queensland that has been designed to local high school standards that apply in the community. The classrooms are not airconditioned. It also has designated areas for the provision of training in industrial arts, horticulture and construction, art and home economics, which have been built to normal community standards. Facilities such as the swimming pool, sports hall, music room and sporting field are used for teaching in areas such as teamwork, literacy skills, lifesaving and physical education. An opposition member: What's the point? Ms SPENCE: Detention centres in Queensland and interstate have had such facilities for many years. There have been some misconceptions about the centre's operations which need to be laid to rest; that is the point. Last week a local radio station broadcast an anonymous email from a police officer who said he was 'amazed at the facilities available to the little grubs who were fortunate enough to be incarcerated in this magnificent facility'. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I was able to locate in our files— Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. It has been one of the fair systems in this place that the other side of the House is given a reasonable amount of time to make private members' statements. It is now 25 past 10. We have another minister rambling on and on and on, as they all have this morning with their statements. It is about time there was a bit of integrity in this parliament. Ms SPENCE: I would have thought that the opposition would have been interested in the facts of the youth detention centre, given that some of them have been on radio talking about the falsehoods that have been propagated about this place. I located in the Courier-Mail archives the article on the opening of the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Detention Centre, which occurred in 1971. Here it is. It is headed 'Luxury style detention'. What we saw was the then Health Minister, Mr Tooth, looking at the new heated pool with the vacuum showing. It is sad that, after 30 years of experience and a long and very public examination of our mistakes in this area, we still respond in the same way. The facts about this facility are simple. Young residents' units are not airconditioned, except for the officers' stations. Claims that pizzas and Kentucky Fried Chicken are purchased and brought into the centre for young people are not true. There is no delivery service. Young people access computers at the school. This is now considered a routine part of education. Young people do not have access to laptop computers outside the school. The youth detention program has undergone a major change since 1998 and has won major commendation from the Forde Monitoring Committee. These changes have been achieved without compromise to security. The Brisbane Youth Detention Centre seeks to combine the importance of the safety of young people and staff, the protection of the community and the provision of programs that help young people successfully reintegrate into the community. But the Beattie government is more focused on developing a package of prevention programs to stop young people falling into the kinds of behaviours that see them ending up in detention centres. As a society, we cannot afford to replicate the brutality that characterised many of the old-style institutions. We must now work constructively with young offenders and the broader community to bring about the very best outcomes that we can.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.26 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, for this day's sitting, the House can continue to meet past 7.30pm. 30 May 2001 Distinguished Visitors 1229

Private Members' motions will be debated between 6 and 7pm. The House can then break for dinner and resume its sitting at 8.30pm. Government business will take precedence for the remainder of the day's sitting, except for a 30-minute adjournment debate. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (10.26 a.m.): I second the motion. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.26 a.m.): It is quite obvious why the government has, with only four minutes remaining until question time, moved a motion like this, which has not even been distributed to the House. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what is. Ms BLIGH: I rise to a point of order. I discussed this matter with the member for Beaudesert yesterday. If he cannot remember it, that is not something for which I can be held responsible. Mr LINGARD: I wish to speak to that motion. In changing the business of this House, the government has demonstrated its arrogance. The Leader of the House is now bringing on government business to replace debate on private members' bills on a Wednesday night. Ever since the 50th Parliament has commenced, we have seen the limitation of the opposition by the government. This is another example. The only mechanism that the opposition has to be effective is to move motions and debate private members' bills on a Wednesday night. I have here the document regarding the agreements on the order of business which was presented to the Leader of the Opposition. It states— The time for private members' bills will be utilised if there are private members' bills, and that will be on a Wednesday night. Not many members would understand that, in moving this motion, the government is bringing on government business to replace debate on private members' bills. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what is. When the coalition government was in power, the then Labor opposition had the ability to move motions every sitting day. It could give notice of as many motions as it wanted. Because some of those motions were never discussed, we changed the system to allow the opposition to move a motion every day. It did not matter how many motions were given notice of; they could be moved every day. One of those motions was discussed every night at 6 o'clock. Since this parliament has commenced, the government has limited that procedure so that the opposition can give notice of a motion only on a Wednesday morning, and that motion is discussed at 6 o'clock on a Wednesday night. That is the only day on which that debate can occur. Mr Speaker, by your ruling, which never applied in previous parliaments, you have allowed that motion to be negated. Recently we moved a motion which censured the government. Mr Speaker, you allowed the removal of the words 'censures the government' and their replacement with 'commends the government'. That was the direct opposite. So the only chance that the opposition now has to move a motion can be directly negated by the government. It has been agreed that we can debate private members' bills on a Wednesday night. There are three private members' bills sitting on the table—those introduced by the member for Southern Downs, the member for Toowoomba South and the member for Nicklin. However, what also subtly happens is that a private member's bill falls off the notice paper after 90 calendar days. We go through to 1 August— Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. That statement is incorrect. After 90 days, it must be debated. Why does the member not read the sessional orders? Mr LINGARD: It falls off as far as the debate is concerned. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member must now adjourn the debate. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Before question time, I ask members to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a delegation from the Standing Committee of the Shanghai Municipal People's Congress, led by Deputy Secretary-General Mr Lu Zheng Hua. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 1230 Questions Without Notice 30 May 2001

NOTICE OF MOTION Daylight Saving Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.29 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That the Queensland government commission an independent report to assess the social and economic consequences for all Queenslanders of a proposal to establish daylight saving in south-east Queensland and that this report be presented to state parliament before the end of the year.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Drugs Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Honourable Premier to the worsening drug epidemic in Queensland demonstrated by the doubling of free needle distribution under this government. I ask: will the Premier now admit that, on figures readily available to the government, his policies have failed to curb illegal drug use? When will he implement the family focused, community focused, rehabilitation focused, crime prevention focused National Party anti-drug policy as agreed to in the motion passed without division by this House on 4 April? Mr BEATTIE: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when he was Health Minister the distribution of needles doubled. As a result of that he understands the difficulty confronting any modern community involving drugs. That is why we have come forward with a very comprehensive strategy to deal with the issue of drugs. I will go through it in a minute. I make this point right at the beginning: this is a challenge to every western society in the world. Indeed, it is a challenge to all communities in the world, not just to western societies. I am a parent, as are many members. We are concerned about drugs affecting our children. I am a parent of three teenage children and this is a matter that my wife and I spend a lot of time discussing. My government signed up for some assistance from the Howard government, because one of the most important things that we can do is what the federal government has suggested in its advertising, that is, discuss these issues with our children. On that matter John Howard and I have the same view, and I have told the Prime Minister that. These issues are about communicating with young people and trying to deal with the issue in an educative way. That is not easy. If the member wants, we can talk about needle distribution. We can say, 'You doubled it,' and we can talk about what we have done. The truth of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition did his best to deal with the drug problem, and that is what we are doing. We should take the politics out of it. A lot of silly nonsense can go on, but let us take the politics out of this issue. I will tell the House what the government is trying to do. Firstly, our Positive Parenting Program is designed to assist parents with children with behavioural problems. Secondly, the Minister for Health is employing in our schools nurses to assist children at vulnerable stages in their lives. How many have we employed? Mrs Edmond: There are about 80 at this stage. Mr BEATTIE: At the moment, there are 80 to 100, in rough terms. Therefore, those children have access in the schools to nurses to advise them in relation to drug problems, eating disorders and all sorts of things that can affect self-esteem. As everyone knows, self-esteem and drug addiction are clearly related. Thirdly, we have introduced the drug courts. We are focusing on rehabilitation. We are focusing on getting people off drugs by breaking the drug cycle. That is why we signed up for the money that is available from the Commonwealth to aid rehabilitation programs. At the COAG meeting, I told the Prime Minister that I wanted the Department of Health to allocate that money to agencies, because it has a better idea of who should get the money. The federal government did not want to do that, because it wanted the political credit of allocating the funds to the particular groups or agencies. Notwithstanding our reservation, we signed up. Why? Because we believe that money should go into rehabilitation! We did have some reservations about who was getting the money, but overwhelmingly we thought it was worth while. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with drugs. It is not perfect, but we will refine it and improve it. 30 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 1231

Inala Civic Shopping Centre, Sale of Heroin Mr HORAN: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to confirm media reports that shops at the Inala Civic Shopping Centre, which is owned by the state government, are being used as a front for the sale of heroin? Does his department undertake any probity checks in relation to its tenants? What action will he take against known drug dealers operating out of government-owned facilities or has he, like the government, surrendered to the problem? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thought I had pointed out yesterday that I was the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing. Some of the member's questions should be directed to my good friend and colleague the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. I can confirm the report in the Courier-Mail on Saturday— Mr Bredhauer: Writing their strategy again. Mr SCHWARTEN: Obviously they are getting their information from the Courier-Mail. In relation to the shopping centre in Inala, there is a lease on land that is owned by the state government. That is an historic arrangement that, as I understand it, was made in the days of the government of the Leader of the Opposition. That is the origin of the agreement. Certainly, a subleasing arrangement has been entered into and the facts as stated in the Courier-Mail are pretty well correct. Mr Mackenroth: In fact, the lease was owned by somebody in the Liberal Party. Mr SCHWARTEN: I was just about to say that, if one really wants to dig around and have a look at the history of those premises, one will find that it has pretty close connections to the Liberal Party. I do not say that those people were involved in any shady deals—at least, not in relation to this. Elsewhere they certainly have been. The truth of the matter is that the honourable member is expecting me to send Department of Housing officers out there to run police checks on people. He wants us to put on some sort of undercover gear and, instead of worrying about housing people, start worrying about what sort of people are in the tenancies. I wish that we did not have those tenancies and I am sure that the honourable local member agrees. If the member opposite wants to provide bipartisan support to find a way of getting rid of the leases altogether, we will do it. I would be quite happy to do that. Sometimes people take out leases over a whole range of things and they end up being shady. We will evict those people if that is the case. I have not been advised by my colleague and there have been no police reports, as far as I am aware, stating that people are doing that. If there is evidence of that, we will act and those people will be evicted. The subleases will be removed. As I say, the long-term problem is that we do not want to be involved in shopping centres. We want to house people. Had the coalition government not gone down the path of signing up leases for shops instead of putting people in decent housing, we would not have the problem in the first place.

South East Busway Mr REEVES: My question is directed to the Premier. As the No. 1 South East Busway ticket holder, I conducted a test on Monday in which I drove my car to Parliament House from Garden City. I left at 7.30 a.m. and arrived here at 8.05 a.m., which was a 35 minute trip. That compares to my previous trip on bus No. 136, where I boarded the bus at 7.40 a.m. and arrived here at 7.55 a.m., which was a 15 minute trip. With this test as proof of the success of the busway, I ask the Premier to comment on the forecasts of doom and gloom put forward by the opposition. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to take this question from the No. 1 ticket holder. I have some great facts that I want to share with the House, because they show what a can-do government can achieve. My government is getting on with the job of creating a public transport system for south-east Queensland and the minister is justly proud of it. The South East Busway has proved successful since being launched more than a month ago. More than 10,000 new passengers used the core busway routes in the first week of operation. That means there were 9,999 users other than the member for Mansfield. Mr Bredhauer: He wasn't a new busway user. Mr BEATTIE: I thought we got him out of his car. 1232 Questions Without Notice 30 May 2001

This amounts to an additional 2,185 commuters a day and an extra 44 buses a day for Brisbane Transport alone. Strong patronage increases were evident from the first morning of operation. The Eight Mile Plains park and ride was over 60 per cent full after the first morning of peak operation and has grown to about 70 per cent full. Logan City bus services have indicated that early figures show patronage has increased by 10 per cent to 15 per cent. Sunday patronage for Logan City bus services has trebled now that they can service the South Bank precinct. For the State of Origin match at Lang Park, Brisbane Transport carried double the usual figure from Garden City to the game, and good loadings were experienced on the Origin shuttles at Holland Park West and Greenslopes. It was envisaged that people would learn over time that busway stations presented a viable transport option for special events such as the State of Origin, but I am pleased to report that people grasped this in the first week of services. The new 142 Bullet, which runs non-stop from Browns Plains via the Logan Motorway, Gateway Motorway and Busway to the city has been an enormous success—something to which the member for Logan can attest. It is achieving peak period travel times that could never be matched by a private car. Brisbane Transport has already added another service in the morning peak to cater for demand, and demand on the existing Browns Plains service has also increased. While increases in patronage were expected in the peak because of the reliable running times on the busway, the pleasing indicator is that off-peak patronage has also increased. People are taking advantage of the improved access to destinations serviced by the state-of-the-art busway stations. Overall bus patronage on the busway has been sustained and continues to climb at a rate of about one per cent a week. So the trend is heading in the right direction. Members have heard the statement 'heading in the right direction' before. Queensland is heading in the right direction and so is the busway. These figures are extremely positive and I look forward to continued increases in bus patronage. The capacity of the busway to carry a large number of people will be an asset for many decades to come, and early indications from the first month of operation are that bus patrons appreciate being given priority. The busway is an investment for the future. Into the next century this corridor will be servicing the needs of commuters in south-east Queensland, providing them with a quick, comfortable and accessible link between Eight Mile Plains and the city. Under my government, Queensland is well on the way to becoming the Smart State. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Gregory, I welcome to the public gallery students, parents and teachers from the Runcorn State School in the electorate of Mount Gravatt.

Drugs Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Premier to a newspaper article in the Daily Mercury on 22 May which identified the need to establish rehabilitation facilities in regional Queensland in conjunction with the drugs court program and to his Minister for Justice's confirmation that 66 people from the pilot program in south-east Queensland were awaiting a rehabilitation bed, and I ask: what action does his government propose to take to address the need for additional rehabilitation facilities so that the Drugs court pilot program can be properly evaluated, or has he surrendered on this project? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. I know he has a genuine interest in these issues, because I have spoken to him privately about this and I know he shares my concern. What I promised during the election campaign—and which we will deliver—is extra beds for north Queensland. The detail of that has to be finalised, but I gave that commitment in the election campaign and we will deliver on it. As at 30 April 2001, after 10 months of operation, 325 referrals had been made to the drugs court. This is the first time we have had drugs courts. The whole emphasis behind them is to break the heroin and other drug cycle. We are doing this in various stages. There are two programs—the drugs courts and also sentencing opportunities for the courts. That is why the rehabilitation programs are important. That is why we signed up with John Howard. That is why it is so important that we have rehabilitation beds. The member has hit the nail on the head. That is a core issue in this. We understand the pressure that is on. This has never been trialled before and inevitably there is a significant amount of pressure. But I will go through the details out of respect for the honourable member, because I think he is entitled to the information. 30 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 1233

As at 30 April, as I said, after 10 months of the operation—it is a 30 month trial—325 referrals had been made to drugs courts. Of these, 109 have been intensive drug rehabilitation orders—they have been made—72 defendants await a drugs court decision on eligibility or for residential beds to become available, and 82 ineligible defendants have been remitted to the Magistrates Court or sentenced in the drugs courts. As the member knows, people have to fit within certain criteria. If they have been involved in certain assaults or breaking and entering and so on, there are certain exclusions. I do not have that detail with me. This program is not available to everyone. Seventy-two are actively participating in IDROs, and the list goes on. I am happy to keep the member advised, both privately or through the House, about the success of the trial. As I said, the trial is running in the Beenleigh, Southport and Ipswich Magistrates Courts. The first defendants appeared before the courts on 26 June 2000. Let me come back to the issue about beds. We understand that with any new system like the drugs courts there will be pressures on the system. That is one of the reasons for the trial. We will assess this as time goes on. Money was allocated to the three departments involved—Health, the Attorney-General's Department and I think Corrective Services was the other one, off the top of my head. That was allocated in the last budget. I can give the member an early leak on the budget—and I know the Treasurer will not mind: that funding will continue in this budget, because we are serious about breaking that cycle. We will continue to fund these beds and increase their numbers. I am pleased we have an agreement with the Commonwealth. As I said, it is not exactly where we wanted to go, but at least it is heading in the right direction.

Small Business Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to opposition attacks about this government's commitment to small business, and I ask: is he aware of any recent analysis about the impact of government policy on small business, and how does this compare with the assessment of small business' views about the performance of other governments? Mr BEATTIE: I am only too delighted to do that, because of the importance of small business to the state of Queensland. I know the honourable member has had an association from a family point of view in the past with small business and will therefore understand what I am talking about. I am aware of some analysis on the impact of government policies on small business. The Yellow Pages Business Index for small to medium enterprises was released yesterday. The Yellow Pages survey included an assessment of government policies in the eyes of small business. This is their view about governments. It found that small business in Queensland had the most positive outlook towards its state government than that in any other mainland state. Only 18 per cent of small businesses in Queensland believe the policies of this government work against their interests. So 82 per cent of small business had the other view—that is, they were positive about us. By comparison, around a quarter of small businesses believe the policies of other state governments work against small business. Bearing in mind that our figure was 18 per cent, let us look at the other figures: 25 per cent in New South Wales; 24 per cent in Victoria; in the Liberal State of South Australia, 28 per cent; and 25 per cent in Western Australia. According to small business, the best major state for small business is Queensland. Let me say to small business: invest. We encourage you to invest; we are keen to see your growth and your jobs. The worst performing government in the eyes of small business is—guess who—the Howard-Costello government. Interestingly, a full 49 per cent of small businesses believe the Howard government's policies work against small business. That is almost one in two—almost half. Mr Terry Sullivan: That's supposed to be his natural constituency. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. That is up from 34 per cent only six months ago. Does the honourable member know what is behind that? The GST, business compliance—all of those issues! The Liberal Party calls itself the party for small business, but half of the small business community clearly disagrees. And who can blame them? Why would small business think favourably about a federal government that slugged them with a GST and the compliance costs that go with it? Why would they support a government that heartlessly increased the fuel excise when business was already suffering under the burden of record high fuel prices? What was in last week's federal budget for small business? Absolutely nothing! The Liberal Party, and its National Party acolytes, have abdicated their claim 1234 Questions Without Notice 30 May 2001 to be the parties of small business. John Howard has abandoned small business, and small business has abandoned him. The truth is that only the Labor Party is the party of small business. I will give members a couple of other indicators. It is important that we appreciate the strength of the Queensland economy. Let us look at the latest indicators. Last month in Queensland skilled vacancies grew while nationally they declined. While business investment is declining nationally, it is levelling off in Queensland. Exports are up 25 per cent—higher than the national average. Retail sales are up 10 per cent—the strongest in the nation. Housing finance commitments are up nine per cent—double the national average. The total value of investment projects was up six per cent in the March quarter to a total of $55 billion worth of projects.

Daylight Saving Mr QUINN: I refer the Minister for Tourism to her calls earlier this week for the federal government to do more for Queensland's tourism industry and to her support for daylight saving, and I ask: how will she translate her support for daylight saving into action so that she actually does more for the tourism industry in south-east Queensland? Mrs ROSE: Over the past 10 years I have made no secret of the fact that I have always been a supporter of daylight saving. That has not changed. The electorate of Currumbin is the most southern electorate in the state. We sit on the border with New South Wales. We are very much a border community. We have a community of interest with the Tweed. There have even been calls from some local government sectors to amalgamate the Tweed Shire Council with the Gold Coast City Council because we do have a strong community of interest. We in this State do not change our clocks. Victoria and New South Wales do. When they change their clocks, of course that has an impact on the south-east corner; of course it has an impact on the Currumbin electorate. I have been a member on the Gold Coast now for about eight and a half years, and in all those years I have never, ever heard the member for Robina come out and take a position either way on daylight saving. I remember when the opposition was in government for two and a half years that they had three ministers and the Premier representing the Gold Coast, but I do not recall them ever taking a stand one way or the other on daylight saving. As I look around this chamber, I see that I represent one electorate out of 89. When the daylight saving debate has been prominent in the media I have looked around this chamber at the members whose electorates do not support daylight saving. The member opposite wants to talk about the social impacts of daylight saving on the Gold Coast or its impact on tourism on the Gold Coast. However, we cannot do that without looking at the impacts on the whole of Queensland, and we are a government for the whole of Queensland. The member also talks about the tourism industry. As he knows, this is something that has been debated in the media post the election. As Tourism Minister, I have had tour operators from central Queensland, north Queensland, far-north Queensland and western Queensland who have said that they do not support daylight saving. So even in my capacity as Minister for Tourism I come across operators who do not want it. It is one of those issues that is difficult and divisive. It is an issue that has to be determined for the whole of Queensland.

Diabetes Mr PURCELL: I refer the Minister for Health to the Howard government's budget backflip on charging diabetics more for their essential medical items, and I ask: what is the Beattie Labor government doing to help people manage this disease? Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for his question. Because of the demographics of his electorate he is, of course, renowned for his keen interest in health, particularly as it relates to chronic illness and the elderly. Diabetes has been referred to as the accelerating epidemic. Type 1 diabetes, in which insulin is required for survival, accounts for 10 per cent of all people with diabetes in Australia. It can appear at any age, although it usually appears before a person is aged 40 years. As patron of Diabetes Australia (Queensland), I was pleased to announce last September that the Beattie Labor government was extending a helping hand to Queensland's 23,000 insulin dependent diabetics. Since 1 January the state government has been meeting the patients' share of the cost of needles and syringes supplied through the National Diabetic Supply Scheme. The government has subsidised Diabetes Australia's distribution of about 1.6 million needles and 30 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 1235 syringes for the first quarter of the year. During the 1999-2000 financial year, diabetics in Queensland were provided with approximately four million syringes through the National Diabetics Supply Scheme. Clients of the scheme were paying $8 per 100 needles, or $5 per 100 needles for pensioners and holders of health care cards. Diabetes Australia (Queensland), or DAQ, was delighted with the Beattie government's decision. It is in line with the Queensland government's priorities to provide safer and more supportive communities and a better quality of life for all Queenslanders, wherever they live. It follows my request to the Commonwealth government to meet the costs as part of its health care obligations to people with chronic conditions. We were amazed to think that it was even considering rolling back some of those benefits. Typical of its mean-spiritedness, the Commonwealth refused. At that time I sought Dr Wooldridge's assurance that the Commonwealth government would at least not reduce its level of subsidy towards a supply of syringes to people registered with the subsidy scheme. Along with Queensland's 23,000 diabetics, the Beattie government welcomes the backflip. This government is also focusing on preventing diabetes through initiatives such as Health Promotion Queensland. More information about the free syringes is available from Diabetes Australia on 1800 177 055.

Drugs Mr SEENEY: I refer the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to the rampant drug dealing in Brisbane's western suburbs that is so obvious that it was observed and reported by Courier-Mail reporters last weekend, and I ask: under his administration of the Police portfolio, does he accept his responsibility to detect and identify drug dealers, or has that responsibility been totally surrendered to the media? Mr McGRADY: I acknowledge the question from the shadow minister. It is quite amazing that, from memory, this is the second question that he has asked me in this parliament, yet he spends his time running around claiming that I do not answer questions. I cannot answer questions unless they are asked. The only other question he has asked, which I refused to answer, related to a person who was dead and whose family had not been informed. Those are the depths to which this member has sunk. This member should understand—and the member for Keppel, who is a former Minister for Police, stipulated this last night—that there are certain areas which are operational and which are the responsibility of the police and the commissioner. The member for Callide has also been commenting about the problems last week when some ammunition was stolen from one of the police stations. He is claiming that there is one rule for the police and one rule for every other person in this state, which is completely untrue. He holds the minister responsible for the theft of ammunition, but when the Queensland Police Service apprehended a number of people, does he give credit to the minister for that? Not at all! Of course, the question he has asked here today deserves a reply. Mr Seeney: Too right! Mr McGRADY: Too right! In this chamber last night I made perfectly clear my personal opposition to drugs. Whether those types of people live in Inala or whether they live in London or Rome or anywhere else, they are the scum of the earth. The Premier explained to this House today the moves that this government is taking to try to bring down the incidence of drug-related crime in this state. However, the question of drugs is not one for Queensland alone. Every single city in the world has exactly the same sorts of problems. Mr Seeney: How come the media can find them but you can't? Mr McGRADY: I ignore the member because, as far as I am concerned, he is a political pygmy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That remark is unparliamentary. Mr McGRADY: I will apologise to the Speaker. 1236 Questions Without Notice 30 May 2001

Shailer Park, Public Housing Ms STONE: I refer the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to recent statements made by Councillor Darren Power of Logan City Council in relation to a Department of Housing development in Shailer Park. I ask: is the minister aware of Councillor Power's statements critical of the project? Can the minister outline the facts about this proposed affordable housing project? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge the fact that she is ensuring that people in her electorate who cannot afford to buy a home are not discriminated against. Judging by the remarks of members of the opposition endorsing Councillor Power, I can only draw the conclusion that they learned nothing from the last election. In the lead- up to the last election the opposition continually beat this drum. Councillor Power does not want any more of 'those people' living in his area. Do members know how many houses are owned by the Department of Housing in Shailer Park? It is 13. We are talking about a small development of some cluster housing. From memory, about 19 have been built in Logan city in the last three years. Councillor Power said that instead of building them there we should move them out, and he was rewarded at the last election for those views, because he got a room temperature result. He did not even make 20 per cent. That shows clearly where the National Party stands on this issue with people in the community who believe that not owning one's own home is not a crime. They do not believe in the stigmatisation by the National Party and the Liberal Party of people whose only sin, if I dare say that, is that they cannot afford to purchase a home. Members opposite do not like hearing this, but we will continue to oppose the likes of Councillor Power who, due to pig ignorance, defy the idea of an equitable Queensland. As other ministers have said this morning, we are a government for all Queenslanders. It is not a crime to not be able to afford one's own home. We do not need people like Councillor Power beating the anti-home owner drum. We do not need it, and will not tolerate it. I say this to Councillor Power: get used to it. Councillor Power should do his homework. He had a chance to object to this. It is not like the days of the old National Party. Do members remember the days when it just went and built a heap of cheap homes whether the council liked it or not? There is now the provision for people to object, but lazy Councillor Power could not even be bothered to take up an objection, because he does not have the guts. He is talking about people; he is not talking about homes, because there are no planning grounds on which to object. There are no amenity issues, because the houses we build are by far some of the best housing in this state. So he is not talking about the houses; he is talking about the people who live in them. This side of politics does not have that view at all. We will keep providing decent accommodation. I commend the honourable member for her strong stand in this regard. She will continue to represent people who cannot afford a house.

Gold Coast Convention Centre Mr BELL: I refer the Premier to the Gold Coast convention centre. Depending on the answer, it may be a dorothy dixer. Government members interjected. Mr BELL: I am hopeful of a certain answer. One of the impediments to commencement of the construction of the convention centre is a native title claim on the land which is, as yet, not proven. I ask: will the government invoke compulsory acquisition provisions so that the convention centre can proceed? If so, when? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Surfers Paradise for what is a very important question about a matter that the government has been working on very closely. In fact, it is the member's first question and I give him my congratulations. Mr Schwarten: It is something positive, too. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, it is positive. As the member knows, the government promised that we would deliver a convention centre for the Gold Coast, and we will. It is $100 million of government funding. I have indicated that there will be something like $30 million in the budget that the Treasurer will bring down on 19 June towards the convention centre. Mr Mackenroth: You keep leaking it. 30 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 1237

Mr BEATTIE: I keep leaking the budget details on the Treasurer. There will also be another $70 million in successive budgets. So the first instalment of $30 million will be in the budget— Mr Springborg: Two leaks in a day. Mr BEATTIE: I ask those opposite for a bit of courtesy. This is a very important question from the member for Surfers Paradise. Because it is his question, I think he is entitled to a full answer, which he will get. In the budget on 19 June— Mr Seeney: He will never get another one! Mr BEATTIE: Give him a go and a bit of respect, if members opposite do not mind. We respect Independents; they may not. The budget will come down on 19 June and there will be $30 million in it for this project. Yes, there are problems with native title; the member is quite correct. There have been negotiations with Jupiters. The Department of State Development, Tom Barton and I have discussed this. The Department of State Development has been working closely with Jupiters. The minor delays associated with this project are not the fault of either the state government or Jupiters but the processing of native title claims. If I recall correctly—and I am now going from memory—an agreement was reached with one group of indigenous Australians, and that agreement was almost finalised. We thought that would be the end of the matter. However, another group of indigenous Australians appeared on the scene and did not accept the initial negotiated outcome. We always want agreement to be reached. That is what we would prefer. That is the philosophy of the government. We endeavour to reach agreement. However, as was the case with Century Zinc, if the government needs to take compulsory action to in fact, if you like, extinguish native title, we will take that action. I indicate that that is not our preferred position. Members may recall that with Century Zinc we made provision for a powerline to connect Century Zinc mine to make it a reality. If we need to take similar action in relation to the Gold Coast convention centre, we will take that action. That is not our preferred position. However, there are two areas: one relates to native title and the other relates to waterway issues. Only two weeks ago I convened a meeting of the Cabinet Budget Review Committee about this issue and also the pedestrian bridge. Both Tom Barton and the Minister for Transport, Steve Bredhauer, were in attendance. We discussed how we could expedite and finalise the early works in relation to the convention centre. Certain work was to be done within just over two weeks. I expect that report to come back to me very shortly. That will give us an indication of how to proceed in relation to native title. It is a problem. We know how to resolve it. There are difficult choices, but we will move to resolve it.

Marine Industry Mrs CROFT: I ask the Minister for State Development: have there been any recent developments with regard to the state's marine industry? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question. Last week I had the great pleasure of officially opening the 13th annual Sanctuary Cove International Boat Show in the electorate of the member for Broadwater. She was present and graced the place with her youth and vigour in mixing with key people present at the opening and demonstrating this government's commitment to that marine precinct and the Sanctuary Cove Boat Show, which has already put itself on the international stage alongside other major boat shows around the world at Genoa and Fort Lauderdale in Florida. This year's boat show was the largest ever at Sanctuary Cove. There were 340 exhibitors, which was 25 more than last year. It showcases Australia's marine products and firms such as the Gold Coast-based Riviera, which once again won awards such as Modern Boating's Boat of the Year and Builder of the Year. The show is held at the Gold Coast and Riviera was showcasing its products to the world, as were many other suppliers, because the show is not just about boats; there are also the winches, the davits, the engines and other material from our marine precincts around this state. The show was a major venue for launching major new Australian products. It exposes Queensland's boat building industry and suppliers to an international audience. A large number of people from overseas attended, and I had meetings with some of them last Thursday. Those people are there not just to purchase but also to look at investment in our state through the boating industry. This boat show is the premier boat show in the Asia-Pacific region. The show 1238 Questions Without Notice 30 May 2001 was not held only at Sanctuary Cove this year; because it was so huge part of the show was held at the Gold Coast Marine Precinct. We will continue as a government to be a strong supporter of the state's marine industry. We believe it has great long-term potential. The Department of State Development has acquired land at the Gold Coast Marine Precinct. We have been involved in establishing the Gold Coast Marine Precinct Task Force, along with Gold Coast City Council, which is a major supporter of this, and major industry stakeholders. We are currently working through stage 2 of the Gold Coast Marine Precinct. It will ultimately utilise 250 hectares of land and provide 3,000 jobs. I must say that it is already providing 1,000 jobs in the member's electorate, and she is very supportive of that. My department is working on investment attraction for other international and local firms to come and create jobs and build their businesses on the Gold Coast in that marine precinct, as it is doing in places such as Cairns and the central Queensland coast.

Proceeds of Crime Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Attorney-General to the government's continuing lethargy in its failure to introduce new confiscation of criminal assets legislation, including civil forfeiture laws, and the Crime Commissioner's revelation of the dismal record for confiscation of criminal profits in Queensland, consisting of $3 million in the last five years compared with $33 million confiscated in New South Wales over the same period, which confirms his admission that the current system is a failure. Will the minister give an absolute guarantee that he will present to parliament and have passed by the end of the year new civil forfeiture laws in order to crack down on the growing drug trafficking problem in Queensland? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for his question. The member's question continues the comments he made on radio the other day when he suggested that the government was slow to introduce these laws. He says that, in comparison with New South Wales, Queensland has been slow in the last five years. With respect, within the last five years the honourable member was in government and I do not recall him rushing to the barricades to pass laws with respect to civil confiscation. The simple fact of the matter is that it is pointless to make comparisons between Queensland and New South Wales when New South Wales has certain laws and Queensland does not. That simply shows that Queensland does not have those laws. It does not show that those laws would be any more or less effective in Queensland than they are in New South Wales. It certainly does not prove that the laws in New South Wales are fully effective as a means of combating drug trafficking in New South Wales. The confiscation of a criminal's assets is in my view a very powerful adjunct to criminal proceedings, but the confiscation of assets alone is not a panacea. It does not solve the crime problem if a deal is done to take part of a criminal's assets, only to let the criminal out to replay the game. There are a number of issues that I think need to be considered in this context. The very best laws in the world will not guarantee that crime is stamped out simply by confiscating assets. I believe it is a powerful tool—it is one of a range of tools that can be in the tool box of law enforcement agencies—but it is not a panacea, and it does ultimately require a capacity to gather evidence. It does not matter what laws we have, whether they are laws for convicting criminals or laws for confiscating their assets; without the right evidence we cannot achieve either. Queensland already has very powerful confiscation laws, so it is not the inadequacy of the laws that has necessarily resulted in the value of assets confiscated in the last five years. It may be simply a question of evidence. It may be simply a question of better coordination between police and prosecuting authorities to make sure that the investigation of criminal offences also focuses on gathering evidence in relation to assets that are available. We acknowledge that civil confiscation is a potentially valuable tool to be used in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking in particular. I have said, as I did during the radio discussion that was held the other morning, that we are looking at the measures that are already in place in New South Wales and Victoria, and I do intend by the end of this year to bring legislation before the parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Fitzroy, I welcome to the gallery a second group of students, parents and teachers from the Runcorn State School in the electorate of Mount Gravatt and also students, parents and teachers from Edens Landing State School in the electorate of Waterford. 30 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 1239

Heritage Trails Network Mr PEARCE: I refer the Minister for the Arts to ongoing work on the Queensland Heritage Trails Network, and I ask: can the minister explain what benefits there are for Queensland in this project? Mr FOLEY: The benefits for Queensland are to be found in the enhanced respect shown for Queensland heritage and culture and, most importantly, in the jobs boost to the bush. This Queensland Heritage Trails Network conveys a spectacular range of cultural and environmental attractions right across Queensland. It is the program which the Premier described in the House earlier this month as providing the biggest boost to rural tourism this state has ever seen. The Queensland Heritage Trails Network is a Centenary of Federation initiative funded by the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. The two levels of government will inject $87 million, with more than $20 million coming from local government and the private sector. What it is creating is cultural tourism infrastructure. Across the river the massive Australian Tourism Exchange is going on. The feedback I have had from some of the organisers is that buyers from overseas, in particular Europe and North America, are particularly interested in culture and in discovering indigenous culture. These heritage trails will help them to do just that. There will be attractions at 32 rural and regional locations, and these attractions will present the stories, the characters, the buildings and the natural heritage that shape Queensland. This is all about delivering to rural and regional Queensland. To those economies that are doing it tough this provides a massive boost, originally within the portfolio of the Premier and more recently within my portfolio. It is a very significant shot in the arm for those rural and regional communities. Let me mention two projects, by way of illustration. There is the Ulysses Link Walk at Mission Beach in far-north Queensland. In recent weeks I have had the pleasure of visiting that walk, just south of Innisfail. It has attracted schoolchildren, older residents and the local indigenous and arts communities who are participating in its development. The track provides a 1.5 kilometre link along the foreshore at Mission Beach. When completed it will be an environmental, cultural and educational attraction. The other project I mention is one dear to the heart of the member for Fitzroy himself. I speak of the Mount Morgan experience. One million dollars from the Queensland Heritage Trails Network and a further half a million dollars from the Millennium Arts Regional Program is being invested to interpret the entire township. It will be a museum without walls. Mount Morgan is a town which has been doing it tough, but it is a town steeped in history. It is famous for being the richest single gold mine in the world, not to mention the place where my grandfather and great grandfather worked down the mine—they got a lot of dust in their lungs and suffered miner's phthisis—and Mount Morgan will benefit significantly from this.

Fine Defaulters Mr FLYNN: My question is directed to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. At the risk of sounding repetitive, there remains a large element of public confusion with regard to fine defaulters. I previously questioned the minister in connection with the amnesty, but a response was somehow avoided. In his previous reply the minister stated that indeed offenders guilty of indictable offences may be fined and fall within the ambit of the amnesty. I ask the minister to confirm that offences such as assault occasioning bodily harm, burglary, wilful destruction and unlawful use of motor vehicles are indeed examples of indictable offences covered by the amnesty. Does he agree that the public at large have an expectation that offenders committing such serious offences will be jailed rather than fined? Mr WELFORD: To be perfectly clear, I state that the amnesty is not an amnesty against charging people or an amnesty that allows people to commit offences and avoid appropriate punishment. What the honourable member needs to remember is that the penalty imposed, whether it is a fine or a custodial sentence, is a matter for the court. It has nothing to do with the amnesty or the government. The courts are in the best position to determine the appropriate penalty having regard to all the evidence that is before the court. Mr Flynn interjected. Mr WELFORD: It depends on the penalty that the court imposes. If the court imposes a financial penalty—a fine—then the amnesty allows that fine to be paid without incurring the additional costs of fine recovery or, in default, imprisonment. I think there is general agreement 1240 Questions Without Notice 30 May 2001 among members of the House on all sides that, by and large, we should not fill our prisons with people who simply fail to pay a fine. If, however, a person is brought before the court on an offence for which a custodial sentence is justified and they are imprisoned, then of course that is appropriate. All I am saying is that there is nothing in the administrative arrangements for the amnesty that would determine that someone whose imprisonment was justified would escape that imprisonment. That is a matter for the courts to determine on the evidence in each case.

Internet Gambling Mr SHINE: I direct my question to the Honourable Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading. With respect to the federal government's Internet gambling legislation and its effect on the Queensland racing industry, and given the large numbers of clubs in regional and country areas, I ask: what are the possible ramifications to rural areas of the federal government's legislation banning Internet wagering by Australian companies? Mrs ROSE: I acknowledge the honourable member's interest in the racing industry, the health of the racing industry and the serious ramifications of the federal government's bill before the Commonwealth parliament on Internet wagering. However, firstly I would like to acknowledge the very quick response of the Leader of the House to remedy an oversight and to make sure that the one event which stops this nation can go ahead and not be interfered with by a parliamentary sitting day. I note that she has adjusted the parliamentary sitting days accordingly. The legislation of the federal government will have a huge impact, particularly on racing in rural and regional Queensland. More than 70 per cent of revenue for Australian racing comes from TAB funding, and any measure that negatively impacts on wagering automatically has a negative impact on the racing industry. Around 100,000 Australians are employed directly in the racing industry—some 24,000 Queenslanders—and most of those jobs are in regional Queensland. Breeding and racing are very labour-intensive activities. They provide employment in a wide range of jobs: jockeys, trainers, strappers, farriers, stable hands, track work riders, stud masters, racecourse curators, barrier attendants, starters, judges and stewards. So racing creates jobs in regional Queensland. If the federal government gets this legislation through, it will mean that money from wagering that would have come to Australia will go overseas. People use Internet gambling these days. This is new technology, and it is technology that people, particularly in regional and rural Australia, want to use. At the racing ministers conference only weeks ago, we agreed to a resolution that has been sent to Senator Richard Alston. I have written to him several times about the impact that this legislation will have on the racing industry. It could destroy country racing in Australia. I call on all members in this House, particularly National Party members who represent rural and regional Queensland, to lobby the federal government to stop this legislation going through. It really is very serious. Racing currently contributes some $6 billion per annum to the Australian economy. Time expired.

Flying Fox and Bird Control Mr ROWELL: I refer the Minister for Environment to his consideration of an application to cease using damage mitigation permits for the control of flying foxes and birds on fruit and vegetable crops. Farmers are already being denied the use of certain flying fox and bird control devices. What alternative measures will his government make available to farmers to protect their crops worth millions of dollars? Mr WELLS: Information has become available to the Environmental Protection Authority to indicate that some of the species of flying foxes that have been subject to electrocution by preventive devices erected by certain farmers are threatened species, in the sense that their numbers are declining to the point that the species itself could be in danger. Mr Rowell: Is that advice reliable? Mr WELLS: That advice is being worked through and strategies are being worked through. Mr Rowell: What about the farmers? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked the question. We will now hear the answer. 30 May 2001 Budget Estimates 2001-02 1241

Mr WELLS: The question that the honourable member has asked is important, and I think it was asked in a sense of genuineness. When he asks what alternatives need to be made available, I respond by saying that before anything is done to put into effect any decision that may be taken with respect to this matter, alternatives need to be made available. I am interested in talking to the fruit farmers. I understand that my director-general was in touch with them yesterday. I am interested in speaking to their representatives. I would also be very happy to speak to the honourable member opposite about this matter. It is something that we have to work through carefully and deal with. But at the same time, the biodiversity of this state must be protected. That is part of our mission. I am sure that the honourable member who asks the question would be keen to preserve the biodiversity of this state and, in particular, to preserve threatened species. The area that the honourable member represents is much sought after by visitors—tourists—who go there for the environment, and it is important to preserve that environment. At the same time, we have to recognise that it is important to look after the interests of the farmers.

Domestic Violence Ms BARRY: I refer the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to this government's commitment to support people affected by domestic violence, and I ask: what steps are being taken to provide training for legal and support services to ensure they deal effectively with these matters? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for her question and her keen interest in ensuring that families affected by domestic violence are provided proper services, particularly when they have to deal with our courts. Two years ago, the Legal Aid Office took on board community concerns about the way in which domestic violence victims and people from diverse cultural backgrounds were being treated by our legal system. It brought together people involved in working with clients affected by domestic violence, including magistrates, psychologists, representatives from the Women's Legal Service and the Family Court. Last week I was delighted to launch a booklet which provides guidelines for lawyers and others who deal with clients who are affected by domestic violence. There are five different sets of best practice guidelines for different groups who work with domestic violence victims, including family report writers, lawyers, staff of the Legal Aid Office Queensland client service centre, children's representatives and conference chairs. This is another first for Queensland. Nowhere else in Australia have relevant groups come together in such a coordinated and cooperative way to develop best practice guidelines for lawyers to help ease the anxiety that domestic violence victims and their families face. I am pleased to say that there has been overwhelming support from the legal profession and the community organisations for this new approach. It is an approach that is practical, realistic and instructive—a tool that most practitioners can use on a daily basis. These straightforward approaches will ensure that people affected by domestic violence are not further traumatised when they seek assistance through the family law system. The guidelines will be regularly revised and updated to keep abreast of legislative changes and best practice developments. Staff from Legal Aid Queensland will be travelling around the state to introduce the guidelines to relevant groups, as well as the legal community, and explain how they can be used. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

BUDGET ESTIMATES 2001-02 Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.30 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— Appropriation (Parliament) Bill and Appropriation Bill 1. That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Rules and Orders and Sessional Orders— (1) the Budget Estimates for the 2001-2002 financial year for the purpose of debate in the Legislative Assembly shall be in the form of an Appropriation Bill and an Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; (2) the Appropriation Bills be introduced on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 and, following the Minister's second reading speech on each Bill, the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills be resumed on Thursday, 21 June 2001; and 1242 Budget Estimates 2001-02 30 May 2001

(3) the Appropriation Bills be treated as cognate Bills for their following stages— (a) one question being put in regard to the second reading; (b) the consideration of the Bills together in Committee of the Whole House; (c) one question being put for the Committee's report stage; and (d) one question being put for the third reading and titles. Appointment of Committees 2. The following estimates committees are appointed— Estimates Committee A Estimates Committee B Estimates Committee C Estimates Committee D Estimates Committee E Estimates Committee F Estimates Committee G Role of Committees 3.(1) The proposed expenditures stated in the Appropriation Bill and Appropriation (Parliament) Bill are referred to the estimates committees immediately after each of the Bills has been read a second time. (2) Estimates Committees A to D are to examine and report by no later than Monday 30 July 2001 on the proposed expenditures for the organisational units allocated to them. (3) Estimates Committees E to G are to examine and report by no later than Tuesday 31 July 2001 on the proposed expenditures for the organisational units allocated to them. Estimates Committee A 4. The following organisational units are allocated to Estimates Committee A— Office of the Governor Legislative Assembly Queensland Audit Office Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations Criminal Justice Commission Commissioner for Children and Young People Public Service Commissioner Department of the Premier and Cabinet Department of State Development Treasury Department Any other organisational units within the portfolios of the Premier, the Deputy Premier and Treasurer or the Minister for State Development Estimates Committee B 5. Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are allocated to Estimates Committee B— Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Minister for Police and Corrective Services Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading Estimates Committee C 6. Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are allocated to Estimates Committee C— Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing Minister for Innovation and Information Economy Estimates Committee D 7. Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are allocated to Estimates Committee D— Minister for Local Government and Planning Minister for Emergency Services Minister for Environment Estimates Committee E 8. Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are allocated to Estimates Committee E— Minister for Health Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines Estimates Committee F 9. Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are allocated to Estimates Committee F— Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts Minister for Education Minister for Industrial Relations 30 May 2001 Budget Estimates 2001-02 1243

Estimates Committee G 10. Organisational units within the portfolios of the following Ministers are allocated to Estimates Committee G— Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services Government Owned Corporations 11.(1) A reference to the organisational units within the portfolio of a Minister is deemed to include Government Owned Corporations reporting to the Minister. (2) In respect of Government Owned Corporations, a member of a committee may ask any question which the committee determines will assist it in its examination of the relevant Appropriation Bill or otherwise assist the committee determine whether public funds are being efficiently spent or appropriate public guarantees are being provided. Membership of Committees 12.(1) Each estimates committee consists of seven Members of whom four are to be nominated by the Leader of the House and three by the Leader of the Opposition. For the purpose of these Sessional Orders, those Members nominated by the Leader of the House are called Government Members and those Members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition are called Non-Government Members. (2) The chair of each committee is to be a Government Member nominated by the Leader of the House. (3) The committee is to elect a deputy chair, who is a Non-Government Member. Dates for Hearings 13. The estimates committees are to meet to hear evidence in accordance with the following schedule— Estimates Committee A—Tuesday 10 July 2001 Estimates Committee B—Wednesday 11 July 2001 Estimates Committee C—Thursday 12 July 2001 Estimates Committee D—Friday 13 July 2001 Estimates Committee E—Tuesday 17 July 2001 Estimates Committee F—Wednesday 18 July 2001 Estimates Committee G—Thursday 19 July 2001 Committee Membership 14. Members be appointed to estimates committees as follows— Estimates Committee A— Mr Purcell (Chair), Ms Keech, Messrs Shine, Choi, Horan, Johnson and Mrs E Cunningham Estimates Committee B— Mr Wilson (Chair), Ms Jarratt, Messrs Lawlor, English, Seeney, Flynn and Springborg Estimates Committee C— Mrs Lavarch (Chair), Ms Phillips, Messrs Strong, McNamara, Johnson, Malone and Wellington Estimates Committee D— Mr Mulherin (Chair), Mrs C Sullivan, Ms Molloy, Messrs Cummins, Hobbs, Malone and Hopper Estimates Committee E— Mr Pearce (Chair), Mrs Smith, Ms Barry, Mrs Reilly, Mr Seeney, Miss Simpson and Dr Kingston Estimates Committee F— Ms Struthers (Chair), Mrs D Scott, Messrs Fenlon, Rodgers, Lingard, Lester and Ms Lee Long Estimates Committee G— Mrs Attwood (Chair), Ms Stone, Ms Male, Ms Nolan, Messrs Rowell, Copeland and Mrs Pratt Illness or inability to attend 15.(1) In the case of illness or inability to attend by a member of an estimates committee, where the member is a Government Member, the Leader of the House may appoint another Member to attend that committee and where the member is a Non-Government Member, the Leader of the Opposition may appoint another Member to attend that committee. (2) Where a Member is appointed in accordance with (1) above, that Member has all the rights of the Member replaced. (3) Where the member of the committee who is replaced is the chair, the Leader of the House may appoint another Member to be chair. When committees may meet 16.(1) Estimates committees may meet whether the House is sitting or adjourned. (2) Where a committee meets whilst the House is sitting, the meeting of the committee must take place within the parliamentary precinct. Open hearings 17. Hearings of an estimates committee are open to the public unless the committee otherwise orders. 1244 Budget Estimates 2001-02 30 May 2001

Presiding Member 18.(1) The chair of an estimates committee presides at all committee proceedings at which the chair is present. (2) If the chair is not present at a committee proceeding and the Leader of the House has not appointed another person to be chair, the committee's deputy chair presides. (3) If both the chair and deputy chair of a committee are not present at a committee proceeding, the committee member chosen by the committee members present at the proceeding presides. Quorum and voting at proceedings 19. At a proceeding of an estimates committee— (a) four committee members form a quorum; (b) a question is decided by a majority of the votes of the committee members present and voting; and (c) each committee member present has a vote on each question to be decided and, if the votes are equal, the presiding member also has a casting vote. Sub-committees 20. Estimates committees may not delegate any of their powers to sub-committees. Opening hearing procedure 21.(1) In an estimates committee hearing about proposed expenditure— (a) the presiding member is to call over the estimates about the proposed expenditure and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination; and (b) the presiding member is to put the question 'That the proposed expenditure be agreed to'. (2) Unless the committee determines otherwise, the Minister or Mr Speaker may make an opening statement lasting up to five minutes. This may be extended with the committee's leave. General hearing procedure—organisational unit other than Legislative Assembly 22. In an estimates committee hearing about proposed expenditure for an organisational unit other than the Legislative Assembly— (a) the responsible Minister is to be present at all times and may have advisers present to assist; (b) a committee member may ask the Minister questions; (c) a Member who is not a member of the estimates committee may, with the committee's leave, ask the Minister questions; (d) advisers may answer questions referred to them by the Minister; and (e) subject to the above provisions, a Member may ask any question which the committee determines will assist it in its examination of the Appropriation Bill. General hearing procedure—Legislative Assembly 23. In an estimates committee hearing about proposed expenditure for the Legislative Assembly— (a) Mr Speaker is to be present at all times and may have advisers present to assist him; and (b) a committee member may ask Mr Speaker questions; and (c) a Member who is not a committee member may, with the committee's leave, ask Mr Speaker questions; and (d) advisers may answer questions referred them by Mr Speaker; and (e) subject to the above provisions, a Member may ask any question which the committee determines will assist it in its examination of the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill. Notice of examination in detail 24.(1) A committee may advise a Minister or Mr Speaker prior to the hearing of its intention to examine a proposed expenditure in detail. (2) In response to notice of the type expressed in (1) above, the Minister or Mr Speaker should ensure that appropriate advisers are available to assist the Minister or Mr Speaker to answer committee questions. (3) It is a matter for the Minister or Mr Speaker as to which advisers attend the hearing. Time for questions and answers in a hearing 25. In an estimates committee hearing— (a) questions must be no longer than one minute; (b) unless the member asking the question otherwise agrees, answers must be no longer than three minutes; (c) where a member agrees to an extension of time for an answer in accordance with (b) above, further extensions of time must be agreed to by the presiding member after every interval of two minutes has elapsed; (d) the presiding member is to ensure the fair allocation of time available for questions and answers and ensure that at least half the time available for questions and answers in respect of each organisational unit is allocated to Non- Government members; and (e) any time expended when committees deliberate in private is to be equally apportioned between Government and Non-Government Members. Questions on notice prior to the hearings 26.(1) Members of an estimates committee may, at a reasonable time prior to public hearings, put a combined total of twenty questions on notice to each Minister and to Mr Speaker; and (2) Of the questions referred to in (1) above, at least ten questions are to be allocated to non-Government members. (3) The Minister or Mr Speaker shall provide answers to the questions referred to in (1) above, at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing. 30 May 2001 Budget Estimates 2001-02 1245

(4) The chair shall ensure that the questions referred to in (1) above, do not place unreasonably onerous research requirements on an organisational unit and are not unnecessarily complex. (5) Each question referred to in (1) above, is not to contain sub-parts or to in effect ask more than one question. (6) The Minister or Mr Speaker may refuse to answer questions which place unreasonable research requirements on their portfolios or are unnecessarily complex. (7) All answers to questions on notice shall be in writing unless the committee otherwise allows. Questions taken on notice at the hearing and additional information 27.(1) A Minister or Mr Speaker may, at their discretion, tell an estimates committee at the hearing that an answer to a question, or part of a question, asked of them will be provided later to the committee. (2) A Minister or Mr Speaker, at their discretion, may also give the committee additional information about an answer given by them or on their behalf. (3) The answer or additional information— (a) is to be written; (b) is to be given by a time decided by the committee; (c) is taken to be part of the proceedings of the Parliament; (d) may be included in a volume of additional information to be laid on the Table of the House by the committee; and (e) may be authorised for publication by the committee prior to the material being tabled in the House. (4) A Minister or Mr Speaker may decline to answer a question in which case the committee may report that fact in its report. Availability of Hansard and tabled documents 28.(1) The Chief Hansard Reporter is authorised to release the Hansard of a committee hearing as it becomes available, subject to any other express direction of the committee. (2) Any document tabled at the hearing, by the leave of the committee, is deemed to be authorised for release by the committee unless the committee expressly orders otherwise. Power of the chair to order withdrawal of a disorderly Member 29.(1) At an estimates committee hearing, the chair may, after a warning, order any Member whose conduct in their opinion continues to be grossly disorderly or disruptive to withdraw for a stated period. (2) A Member ordered to withdraw in accordance with (1) above shall immediately withdraw for the stated period. Committee hearing—sitting times 30. Estimates committee hearings are to be held within the times 8.30am and 7.30pm on the day or days allocated. However, a committee shall hold no more than a total of nine hours of hearings. Estimates committee must report 31.(1) An estimates committee must make a report at the end of its deliberations. (2) However, Estimates Committee A must make two reports, that is, one for the Legislative Assembly and another for the other organisational units allocated to it. (3) Reports by all estimates committees may be bound and published in one or more volumes. Content of report 32.(1) An estimates committee's report must state whether the proposed expenditures referred to it are agreed to. (2) A reservation or dissenting report by a committee member may be added to the committee's report after it is adopted by the committee. Effect of failure to report 33. If an estimates committee does not report on all of the proposed expenditures referred to it, the committee is taken to have made a report agreeing to the proposed expenditures that it does not report on. Tabling and consideration of reports—Appropriation Bill 34.(1) The chair of each estimates committee must lay their committee's report on the proposed expenditures stated in the Appropriation Bill on the Table of the House together with the minutes of their committee's meetings and any other additional information which the committee agrees to table. (2) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the chair of each estimates committee is deemed to have satisfied the requirements of (1) if they present the committee's report, minutes and any other additional information with The Clerk when the House is not sitting in accordance with Standing Order 201 and the report is deemed to have been tabled on the date it is presented to The Clerk. (3) The report is to be received by the Legislative Assembly without debate and its consideration deferred until the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House. (4) One whole sitting day must elapse between the committee's report being tabled and its consideration in Committee of the Whole House. (5) The Committee of the Whole House must complete the consideration of the reports by no later than Thursday, 2 August 2001. Tabling and consideration of report—Appropriation (Parliament) Bill 35.(1) The chair of Estimates Committee A must lay the committee's report on the proposed expenditures stated in the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill on the Table of the House. (2) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the chair of Estimates Committee A is deemed to have satisfied the requirements of (1) if the chair presents the committee's report, minutes and any other additional information with 1246 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001

The Clerk when the House is not sitting in accordance with Standing Order 201 and the report is deemed to have been tabled on the date it is presented to The Clerk. (3) The report is to be received by the Legislative Assembly without debate and its consideration deferred until the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House. (4) One whole sitting day must elapse between the committee's report being tabled and its consideration in Committee of the Whole House. (5) The Committee of the Whole House must complete the consideration of the report by no later than Thursday, 2 August 2001. Effect of consideration in Committee of the Whole House 36. Consideration of an estimates committee's report in Committee of the Whole House is taken to be consideration of the provisions of the Appropriation Bill or Appropriation (Parliament) Bill so far as the provisions authorise the proposed expenditures referred to the estimates committee. Procedure in Committee of the Whole House 37. In Committee of the Whole House, for each estimates committee— (a) the Chairman of Committees must put the question 'That the report of be adopted'; (b) a Member may speak for no longer than five minutes on the question; (c) in reply to the debate each responsible Minister may speak for no longer than five minutes; and (d) the debate is to continue for no longer than sixty minutes. Receipt of material by nominated officers of the Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition 38. Unless a committee otherwise expressly orders, or a Minister or Mr Speaker has requested confidentiality, its research director is authorised to release copies of the following documents as they become available to an officer from the offices of the Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition— the committee's pre-hearing questions on notice; questions taken on notice by Ministers or Mr Speaker during its hearing; responses from Ministers or Mr Speaker to the committee's pre-hearing questions on notice and questions taken on notice during its hearing; and additional information provided by Ministers or Mr Speaker to supplement answers given by them, or on their behalf, at the committee's hearing. Application of Standing Rules and Orders and practice 39.(1) The Standing Rules and Orders, Sessional Orders, other orders and practice of the Legislative Assembly also apply to estimates committees and to Committee of the Whole House acting under these orders. (2) However, if there is an inconsistency on some matter, these orders prevail. Motion agreed to.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Resumed (see p. 1229). Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (11.30 a.m.), continuing: Before question time I was talking about the fact that, as a matter of courtesy, it has always been accepted that if a motion is to be moved generally that motion is distributed around the chamber. We have just seen a particularly long motion get passed which has been on the table for at least an hour, which has given us some time to look at it. There is no doubt that the significance of the motion moved earlier this morning by the Leader of the House—which concerns government business taking precedence tonight, a Wednesday night—would not be appreciated by many government members, unless there had been a discussion in caucus this morning. Not many people would have realised that government business was going to be brought on tonight and that a private members' bills session would not proceed. I say to the Leader of the House that courtesy should have dictated that her motion be distributed to all members. I heard the Leader of the House state something about discussing this matter with me yesterday. The member for Gladstone and I have checked through Hansard to see whether anything along those lines was said yesterday. Certainly, nothing was said on the record. However, I do admit that outside this chamber yesterday, when we were having a general discussion on things, I thought the Leader of the House said that government business was going to be debated on Tuesday night and Thursday night. I accepted those two nights. If it was the case that she said Tuesday night and Wednesday night, I sincerely apologise. But I would have been particularly upset if the Leader of the House had said Wednesday night. I do not know what the deputy leader and the Leader of the Opposition decided to do about motions and the business for tonight, but many weeks ago the Leader of the House and I discussed a particular document which stated— Time for private members' bills will only be utilised if there are private members' bills able to be debated. 30 May 2001 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 1247

Then it said quite clearly— If no private members' bills are available for debate, the House will adjourn at 7 p.m. That means that the House sits for another half-hour and finishes at 7.30. It is clearly stated that if no private members' bills are available for debate, the House will adjourn at 7 p.m. The Leader of the House and I agreed on that point. But I would not have agreed to the concept that three private members' bills would sit on the table for 90 days while government business takes precedence on a Wednesday night. That was certainly not the intent of our agreement. I have no doubt that when discussing the issue with the Deputy Premier and all of those on the Sessional Orders Committee previously, the Leader of the Opposition would not have agreed to three motions—that is, one per sitting day—being reduced to just one motion on a Wednesday morning and there being one debate on a Wednesday afternoon if there was any suggestion that the debate on private members' bills on a Wednesday night would be suspended and government business would take precedence. That is what we have been asked to agree to tonight. I have read the sessional orders, and I heard the Deputy Premier's comment about the 90 days, and I admit that the position has changed. If 90 calendar days go past, then debate on a private member's bill must be brought on. But that does not overcome the fact that the Leader of the House and I agreed that if a private member's bill is available for debate it should be discussed. The member for Southern Downs wants to bring on his private member's bill, as do the members for Toowoomba South and Nicklin. Those private members' bills will probably have to sit there for 90 days while we debate government business. If the Leader of the House wants to make decisions on a Tuesday night, that is okay. I heard the banter between her and the Deputy Premier the other day about such things never occurring when he was Leader of the House. If the current Leader of the House wants to bring on government business on a Tuesday night and cop the wrath of her own backbenchers, who have to sit here until midnight on Tuesday night or 1 o'clock on Friday morning, then she can do so. That is her responsibility. But she should not take up opposition members' time, which is the time set aside for debate on private members' bills. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.34 a.m.): I wish to speak to this motion. Today, within one hour, we saw suggested sitting days for the rest of this year changed. First the Leader of the House tabled a draft sitting days agenda for July, August, September, October, November and December. Within one hour, we saw 9 November included. We saw a significant change in the sitting days of this parliament. On the very same day, we see a deliberate attempt by this government to prevent Independents and members of the opposition debating their bills, which are just as dear to our hearts as the government's may be to its heart. By crikey, the government has a large majority; it has an undeniable mandate. Yet there is a proposal that tonight—which is supposed to be our chance to have our material debated—government business should take precedence. If the government's business is so dear to its heart, why the heck can't the Leader of the House come into this chamber and say, 'We are not just going to include 9 November as an additional sitting date but will include some more'? The Leader of the House showed us how easily she could put in another day and take out 6 November. I challenge her to show us how easy it is for her to add some other days and allow us to continue to have our time to debate the bills and matters that are dear to our hearts and the hearts of our constituents. Earlier the Premier went to great lengths to try to convince Queenslanders how the practices of his government are different from some of the rorts and excesses of previous governments. Well, by crikey, I hope all Queenslanders see what this government is now trying to do. It is trying to mirror some of the rorts and excesses of previous governments, and I do not think Queenslanders deserve that. I believe that Queenslanders deserve a better level of government than the attempt today to scuttle and deliberately remove the opportunity for our constituents' concerns to be heard in this place. I certainly will not be supporting this motion. I hope that Queenslanders throughout the length and breadth of this state see clearly tomorrow what this government is trying to do to corrupt the process. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.36 a.m.): The increasing arrogance of the Beattie government has to be seen to be believed. We have seen week after week in this parliament that we are treated like a dirty doormat. The government comes in here and walks all over us and all over the integrity of the parliament. It does what it 1248 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001 wants to do with no respect whatsoever for the fact that this is a people's parliament. There are two sides to this House, and one side represents many of the people of Queensland. Today we have seen a shackling of the parliament and a shackling of the rights of many people in Queensland who want to have their voice heard. One of the most important innovations in this parliament in recent times has been the introduction of a system that allows private members' bills to be introduced and then debated on a set night each week in parliament, that being Wednesday night. That debate occurs in the period between 8.30 and 11 each Wednesday night. That has been a big improvement in the parliament and is one step forward in endeavouring to gain some respect for the parliament as an institution and as a forum that actually hears the voice of the people rather than just the voice of the government of the day. That has been a positive innovation and a big step forward, and already we see it being trampled upon. This measure would have been fair enough at the start of this parliamentary term, when there were no private members' bills on the table. But there are now three such bills before this parliament. The first one was introduced on 1 May by the shadow Attorney-General and Justice spokesman, the member for Southern Downs. What we have seen in this parliament recently must start to be noted by the people of Queensland and the media of Queensland. Let us go back to the Fisheries Amendment Bill introduced by the Primary Industries Minister. Sixty-six out of 89 members of this parliament represent the government, and not one of them was prepared to speak on the important issue of fishing and trawling, even though about a dozen of them represent trawling ports along the coast of Queensland. The Industrial Relations Bill came into this parliament. A substantive amendment bill which stripped the powers of the President of the Industrial Court was dropped into this parliament after the shadow minister had made his speech. With the local government bill, we saw the way in which this government has endeavoured to put a major hurdle before the democratic rights of one group of Queenslanders—local councillors—in an effort to prevent them from standing against the Labor Party. I could go on with more and more examples. I could cite many examples of the poor performance of this government, its backbenchers and its ministers. I remember, in the days of the Goss government, how well organised things were. Every minister had a certain number of speakers to support their legislation, each of whom delivered a 20-minute, well-prepared speech. They actually worked as a government that was trying to do something. Here we see a ragtag exhibition. Sometimes a member gets up to speak for five or 10 minutes. The government has 66 members to pick from, yet this is one of the most pathetic performances I have ever seen in the parliament. It means that bill after bill passes through a lot faster, because only a handful of people speak, and mostly they speak for only five or 10 minutes and then sit down. There is no preparation, no backup from the government and no backup from the minister. Ms Spence: Look at this! Mr HORAN: The minister should look at what happened with the fishing bill. Even though livelihoods of families were affected by the bill, not one member opposite was prepared to stand up and speak. Now the government has moved this motion to stop the private members' bills being debated tonight. There is no need to do that. If we look at the order of business for the parliament, we see that 17 bills are before the parliament and we are likely to pass six of them today. They are not big bills and they are being attended to by both sides of the House in an efficient manner. Therefore, what is the reason for this? Why is the government trying to keep us out of the parliament? One bill has been introduced by our shadow minister, the Racial and Religious Offences Bill. That is a good bill. I have introduced the Prostitution Amendment Bill, which is important for councils and people throughout the state who care about their communities . Another important private member's bill was introduced by the member for Nicklin, the Electoral (Travellers' Advance Votes) Amendment Bill. They are all good bills. Private members' bills give the parliament the opportunity to be truly representative of the people as they give a voice, albeit only on Wednesday night, to non-government members. Those of us who have been here for a few years remember what it used to be like. Members stood up and introduced private members' bills. Both sides of the House were guilty of that. Mr Fouras: For 20 years we never had the chance to do it. 30 May 2001 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 1249

Mr HORAN: Both sides were guilty of it. They would just sit there and nothing ever happened. It was a farce and it was undemocratic. The introduction of the system for private members' bills was a step forward and an improvement. I remember that that move was forced by the fact that at the time the member for Nicklin held the balance of power. The government was all too happy to do something when it needed his support but, now that it has a big majority, it is so arrogant that it just tramples over this place as if a certain number of people in Queensland do not exist. If we are going to get some integrity into this place, this is the sort of process that we have to stick to. Wednesday nights must be kept for debating private members' bills. During the previous week of parliament, the Premier introduced his six fundamental principles. The first one was about the integrity of parliament. It did not take him long; it has been only two weeks and the Premier has walked all over that principle already. There is no integrity in this place if members do not abide by a standard rule and regulation that is designed to give the place some integrity and a small measure of fairness and, most importantly, that is designed to give the people of Queensland a voice through private members' bills that are introduced by non- government members of this parliament. We have seen broken promises with the picnic tax, the public tax and many other things that the government has turned its back on. Now we see the integrity of the parliament compromised. It makes me really wonder whether the six fundamental principles that were introduced by the Premier were just another charade. Was it just another publicity stunt by the Premier if the government will not act upon what it says it believes in? If the government believed in the integrity of this parliament, it would know that it is important for non-government members, on behalf of the people of Queensland, to put forward private members' bills. Through moving this motion, the government is trying to handcuff, shackle, stifle and shut up the non-government members of this House. Yet there is absolutely no need for it. We sat until 12 o'clock last night. We are not frightened to sit late at night if there is work to be done. We have proved that over and over again by our professional performance since the last election. On this side of the House, we stand up and speak to every bill. We give it everything we have. If the parliament has to sit later on Thursday night, we will be there and we will fight right down to the wire, no matter what time we sit to. We are not frightened of hard work or long hours. To deny the non-government section of this parliament a meagre two and a half hours on Wednesday night when we represent people who are not represented by government members is an absolute travesty of the integrity of the parliament. The government should stand condemned for that. I say to government backbenchers that if they have any fortitude or integrity at all, they will support our motion. If they support those fundamental principles, if they believe that the integrity of the parliament is important and if they believe that we have to lift our game so that there is a bit of respect amongst the people of Queensland for the institution of parliament and the members of parliament, they will vote with us. If they do not, it is just another example of the smoke and mirrors tactics of this government. The government says, 'We have fundamental principles' and the next day it walks all over the top of them as if they do not exist. That exposes the sham, the hypocrisy and the charade of the Premier. We know all about that. There are lots of strategies, lovely words and arms akimbo, but when it comes to doing what it preaches, nothing happens. If this motion is passed, it will be just another step down the ladder in the integrity of this parliament. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.45 a.m.): I do not rise happily to speak to this motion, but I have to say that I have witnessed first-hand the Premier and the Deputy Premier going back on their word. The Leader of the Opposition and I met with those two people, the leaders of this state, in the Executive Building. We agreed that Wednesday night would be kept to debate private members' bills and other issues relevant to the people represented by those on this side of the House. This morning, we witnessed first-hand another sell-out of opposition members in relation to two-minute statements. This morning government business took priority again. It has always been an unwritten rule in this place that members on this side of the House and some members on the government side could voice concerns relative to their electorates in two-minute statements. This morning, we saw a total sell-out of that unwritten rule. Nobody made a two-minute statement because we heard so many ministerial statements. Wednesday nights are absolutely sacred to members of the opposition and the Independents. They provide an opportunity for us to voice concerns through private members' bills. Members on this side of the House have canvassed the relevant issues pretty well today. 1250 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001

This House now has a number of Independents who are elected through the proper democratic process by the people of their respective electorates to represent— Mrs Lavarch: And you're not and we're not? Mr JOHNSON: I recognise that every member in this parliament is elected through the democratic process. There are members on the government side, members in parties affiliated with the opposition and there are Independents who are not affiliated with the opposition or with government parties. Those people have a right to voice their concerns through the democratic process. The democratic process is sacred to the democracy of this state. What are we going to see now? What we are witnessing today is a shutdown of the democratic process in Queensland. The agreement about Wednesday nights that was made between the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and me has been thrown out the door. I am pleased to see that the Premier has come back into the chamber now. As I see it, this is democracy gone crazy. Today, we are seeing a dictatorship taking over. We have witnessed the government making policy on the run and it is also making standing orders on the run to suit the business of the government of the day. Government members should look very closely at where they sit and pay attention to what their constituents are thinking, because we are going to expose to the majority of Queenslanders exactly what has taken place this morning. Government members should look very closely at their responsibilities and why they are here. It is not for their own good but for the good of the people they represent. Whether we are Labor, National, Liberal or Independent members, we have a right to be heard and voice concerns so as to benefit the people we represent. Whether we be government, Opposition or Independent members, we should be given that right. I urge all honourable members to vote according to their conscience and support the opposition's and the Independents' stand on this issue. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (11.50 a.m.): I endorse very strongly the comments of opposition members on this motion this morning. There has been a general reduction in opportunities for the opposition to raise matters of concern. Without going over everything that has already been said, I can give members some examples. As a former minister, I would often not have an opportunity to make a ministerial statement because at 10 past 10 the then opposition—the now government—was given the opportunity to make private members' statements. As the Leader of the Opposition said, there are 17 bills on the Notice Paper. Under General Business three bills are listed—the Racial and Religious Offences Bill, the Prostitution Amendment Bill and the Electoral (Travellers' Advance Votes) Amendment Bill. The government is being a bit too tricky by half when with a 40-odd seat majority it is stealing our time to put its own legislation in place—legislation that is designed to gazump ours. It is trying to put up its legislation first in order to gazump what we are seeking to achieve. It has a 40-odd seat majority. Why is it bothering? Why does it not allow the democratic process to continue and give the opposition a reasonable go so as to give some semblance that the parliament of Queensland is working fairly for everybody? Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (11.51 a.m.): The whole issue revolves around the involvement of opposition and crossbench members. I am surprised that Mr Lingard would want to lead a debate— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I am surprised that the Leader of Opposition Business would want to lead the debate; his record of accountability under the Westminster system is pathetic. Opposition members interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Perhaps some of the newer members think that what they see here has been the norm in this place. I can inform them that during governments under members opposite, because the opposition was using the Parliamentary Library so much the opposition office was moved down to Mary Street. That was because Ed Casey used the Parliamentary Library— Mr Wellington: That doesn't excuse what you're doing now. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: It is not an excuse. What I am trying to say is that members need to look at the historical context in order to judge the norm. I am prepared to develop this a bit. The member, as an Independent, and other Independents, the Liberal Party on the crossbenches and the opposition can ask a certain number of questions. When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Horan, was the Health Minister, he would not allow— 30 May 2001 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 1251

Mr Johnson interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: No, this concerns the opportunity for the opposition and the crossbenchers to have their say and put their point of view. The member can put his point of view in a question, a statement and in a debate. The current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Toowoomba South, used to read out six and eight-minute ministerial statements as an answer to a question, as did his colleague the former member for Clayfield. I say to the members opposite who are complaining that we have a system here whereby they can ask more questions than was the case under a coalition government and they have a greater chance to have involvement. That is because of what this side of politics has done. Opposition members are saying that we are destroying democracy. Their record is an absolute disgrace. I invite the members of the press gallery to review the last six months of the previous parliament. The member for Nicklin will be aware of this, too. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: The member for Callide is one of the key players in this. From about July last year there was a deliberate slowing down of the process of parliament. The member for Toowoomba South said that in the old days there used to be 20-minute speeches and people now— Mr Wellington interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: The member for Nicklin should try to listen, as I did to him. You should have some respect as well, Mr Wellington. Mr Seeney: He's right and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will cease interjecting. The member for Stafford will address his remarks through the chair; that might prevent what is occurring at the moment. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I listened in silence to the member for Nicklin and I am surprised that he is not prepared to listen to me with even some relative calm. There was a deliberate slowing down of the parliament towards the end of last year. We remember National Party member after National Party member standing and reading 20-minute speeches that they had had no hand in preparing. There was a similar literary style— Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. This is totally irrelevant. The previous Labor government closed down the 49th Parliament. And the member talks about democracy! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I will listen very carefully, however, on the point of relevance. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Members of the press gallery had to listen to those debates and the 20-minute prepared speeches saying the same thing over and over again to deliberately slow down the parliament. That was so that, by the end of the year, when we applied the guillotine, they were able to jump up and squeal, 'You've dudded us.' Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. In most cases when the guillotine was applied the Labor government actually brought on those bills, like the dairy and water bills, at about 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock on Thursday or Friday night. That is how they treated this place—like a dirty doormat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: The interjection from the member highlights what they did during the normal business day. They procrastinated, filibustered and delayed. They knew what was on the Notice Paper. Mr Horan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: We all get the Notice Paper. Of course something will be brought on at 8 o'clock at night if during the main working day there is filibustering. Of course that is going to happen. Members opposite cannot complain about something that happens at 8 o'clock on a Thursday night without acknowledging what happened during the day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Members opposite know that that occurred. They read speeches and did not know what they were talking about. That also occurred during debate on the clauses. The press gallery has had enough experience over the years to know what occurs in debate on the clauses. There will be times when there is prolonged debate over key issues. We have seen this developing from about July last year, and we saw an example of it last night. It is not only the opposition's right but 1252 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001 also its duty to raise concerns. However, the issue is the manner in which that is done. They do so by using the 10-minute and 5-minute time frame over and over again. It would be easy to research it by simply doing a check of certain phrases that appear time and time again in the same repetitive questioning by members opposite. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting, otherwise I will take action under the standing orders. Mr Johnson: There are two sets of rules here; one for them and one for us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I trust the member is not reflecting on the chair in that statement? Mr Johnson: I wouldn't do that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is good. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: We follow the Westminster tradition, and under that tradition the government has to govern. As the member for Stafford, I have no more and no less right to speak than does any member opposite. When I was both in government and in opposition, I knew that under the system in which we operate the government has to govern. Her Majesty's loyal opposition opposes things that the government does that they believe are not in people's best interests. Under the Westminster tradition, the opposition and the Independents do not have the right to run the parliament. That is what the parliament is about: the majority rules. The question is how much say the opposition and Independents have. In conclusion, I noted with interest the comments of the member for Gregory before when he said that Independents must be able to voice their concerns. I agree with him. Mr Johnson: We don't have the right. You're a hypocrite. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: It is interesting that this has come from the very party which in the previous government—and the member for Nicklin knows this—denied those One Nation members on the crossbenches who then became CCA members their rights. Those particular members had to actually approach the Speaker because the National Party refused to give them one in four of their speaking spots. They refused to give them one in four questions, one in four speeches in the Adjournment debate and one in four speeches in MPI debates. They had to go to the Speaker as a group and say, 'We demand our one in four,' and the Speaker gave a ruling. So it is absolutely hypocritical of the members opposite, who just two years ago stopped those on the crossbenches from having their say, to now get up and portray themselves as the supposed champions of democracy. Their hypocrisy stands out. They filibustered the last time. They do not want this parliament to work, and that is why they are doing this today. They are a disgrace. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (12.01 p.m.): After listening to the ramblings of the honourable member opposite I have been incited to make a contribution. I do not know what he is on, but I do not want to be on it. I have sat in this place now for about 12 years and I have listened to a lot of things and I have heard these debates go backwards and forwards and all over the place. It is quite obvious to me from the contribution of the honourable member for Stafford that he is living up to the old adage of the Labor Party, that is, to be absolutely and totally revenge driven. Since 1995 in this parliament we have seen some significant reforms that provide opportunities for members of parliament to be able to participate and to be able to represent their electorate. The motion that has been moved in this parliament today is turning back that opportunity; it is taking us back to where things used to be in the past. At the end of the day, if the government wants to live in the past we can all live in the past. However, we are talking about living in the future. The honourable member opposite stood here a moment ago and talked about a couple of ministers in the Borbidge government who answered seven and eight-minute questions. Sure, they might have done that but, as was pointed out by the member for Warrego, come 10 past 10 with regard to the private members' statements, the Speaker cut off our ministers and allowed the opposition the opportunity to participate and to give their speeches that they needed for their media opportunities and to represent their electorates. I sat in here for the six years of the Goss administration as well. I remember former Premier Goss and a range of his ministers, including Ed Casey, treating this place with absolute contempt. They took 20-odd minutes to answer questions. If honourable members want to go back and look at the history books, they will see that many interesting things are written which they may choose 30 May 2001 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 1253 to overlook for some reason or another, whether it be sublime ignorance or whatever. At the end of the day that is the record of that particular administration. We are talking here today about going forward and we are talking about filibustering. That is a tactic that is perpetrated in this parliament by all sides of politics, and it is going to be used in the future. At the end of the day, some of the incidents that the honourable member for Stafford talked about occurred as a consequence of the arrogant mishandling of this parliament by the former government. If they drop something in here on Tuesday—a significant bill that has major implications for many electorates throughout Queensland—and expect that it is going to be debated and passed two days later and they suspend the standing orders to allow it to be debated, then they are going to have a fight on their hands. We will continue to fight that. There has been no deliberate slowing down of the parliamentary process by the opposition in this term. In actual fact, we have been extremely constructive. If honourable members look at the bills that have gone before this parliament, they would see that at least 80 per cent, if not 90 per cent, have been passed with the bipartisan support of all members of this parliament. The other interesting thing is that generally only one or two opposition members have spoken to them and they have not taken their full time. That is an area where the parliament has worked reasonably well. The honourable member talks about people coming in here reading speeches and not having a clue about what they are talking about. He should have a look at his backbench; they cannot even pronounce the words. Come on! At the end of the day this parliament is a robust place. Members are supposed to be capable of coming in here, standing up on their own two feet and making some sort of contribution, erudite or otherwise—and most of them are certainly not in the former category. Most of the members opposite do not have the capacity of individual intellectual thought to be able to make their own speech. If the honourable member wants to talk about that sort of thing, I have to say, as somebody said, those who live in glass houses should not cast stones. The Borbidge government started some very significant reforms to the parliamentary process and, to the credit of the Beattie government, it enhanced some of those things in its first term. However, what we see now as a consequence of a 43-seat majority is a winding back of those significant advancements that have been made for proper participatory democracy in this state. When we were in government from 1996 to 1998 there was an opportunity for us to make private members' statements in the morning and there was an opportunity for three Matters of Public Importance debates throughout the week. We have actually acceded to allow this government to wind that back to one debate, because we felt that we needed one quality debate during the course of the week. That is a significant concession on the part of the opposition. At the end of the day we have not conceded to the winding back of the opportunity for the opposition to use that time, which is recognised in the standing and sessional orders of this parliament, to debate private members' bills—something that is extremely important and has been an innovation of the past three or four years. We should not let go of it; we should hold it very, very dearly. There are private members' bills listed on the Notice Paper. There should be an opportunity for them to be debated. No-one can say that this week is going to be a frustrating opportunity for the government because, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, we are probably going to debate in full and pass through this parliament at least six bills today. That is significant. We dealt with three bills yesterday, although there was some major contention with them. There were times in the previous sitting week when a great range of bills went through parliament. While there is always a degree of urgency in government legislation and government business, it does not mean that the government should come in here and take away the ever-reducing opportunity for the opposition to make a significant contribution. The honourable member for Nicklin feels very strongly about the bill that he introduced into this parliament. I feel strongly about mine. I think it could have been debated last week or we could debate it this week. I do not want to see the opposition deprived of the first real opportunity to sit past 8.30 in the evening to debate private members' bills. I do not want to see the opposition and non-government members deprived of the opportunity to have their say on private members' bills, which on every occasion to date has been provided to the opposition. It has not been sought to be expunged or modified in any way. I think that that is a very, very sad indictment on the way in which this government is operating. 1254 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001

The real concern for the people of Queensland is that what we are seeing is a growing arrogance of the Beattie Labor government. I would have thought that it would have taken somewhat longer than this to happen, but we saw it start to happen in the first few days and weeks of this government's term. Now we are three or four months down the track. Of course, the Premier is going to go out there, wring his hands, clutch his heart and tell people how he is a good bloke and, 'You can trust me. I'm really good. I smile a lot,' and all of that sort of stuff. A lot of people are taken in by that and they do not see the way that he is running the parliament. They do not see the lack of opportunity that has been provided to the opposition. They do not see that the opposition has generally been extremely constructive in the way that it has debated legislation that has been passed in this parliament. He will go out there and he will talk about all these wonderful sorts of principles. It is not a matter of 'do as I do' for the Premier, it is 'do as I say'. It is all smoke and mirrors, as the Leader of the Opposition said. It is all this process of obfuscation so that nobody really knows what is going on, so that he can push things here and there. When he is put on the spot down the track, he will create another diversion. If this motion is passed today it will be a very, very sad indictment on this parliament. It will mean that something that has been established for a number of years in this parliament—progressive reform by the Borbidge-Sheldon government and also by the Beattie- Elder government—is now being wound back. We can all hark back to the old days, but there is no good reason for this motion today. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if parliament sits tomorrow evening more bills will be passed. I have just given an indication to the Attorney-General that three bills of importance to the proper administration of the Corporations Law will be able to pass through all stages of parliamentary debate in a cognate debate in a matter of five or 10 minutes. The government cannot accuse us of not being constructive. If the government runs this furphy argument that the parliament cannot operate because of the number of bills on the Notice Paper, it needs to be judged by that. That argument is a complete and absolute furphy, because we are getting through government business. However, the government should not seek an excuse to come into this parliament and constrain the operation of the opposition by saying, 'Look, we've got all this additional government business to actually get through.' There is no problem in that regard. The other sad indictment on this government is the fact that I have never seen such appalling administration of the Notice Paper. What appears on the Notice Paper when the sitting winds up for the evening bears no resemblance to what appears on the Notice Paper the next day. One would expect some small degree of change on the Notice Paper, but item No. 20 becomes item No. 1 and item No. 12 becomes item No. 2. It is all over the place. The government has proven itself almost completely incapable of administering the parliament and running it properly. That has not been the case previously when the member for Chatsworth, Terry Mackenroth, or the member for Kedron occupied the position of Leader of the House, nor was it the case under any other Leader of the House. This is an appalling maladministration of the business of the House. It is about time the government started to sort out where it wants to be and where it wants to go. Surely there can be a small amount of change to the order of government business on the Notice Paper, but not the depth of change we see day after day after day. The motion before the House today is the first chink in the armour. It will be the first wedge driven into winding back the opportunity for the opposition to have a real chance in this place. I do not think we should take that step. There is no good reason for it. The government can try to invent all the excuses it wants, but none of them stands up to effective scrutiny. What will happen next? Does it want to take away the opposition's opportunity to raise issues altogether? Will it come to us and say, 'You give notice of a motion in the morning and debate it at night. Maybe we shouldn't have any of those.' The situation today is that the opposition did not have the chance to give notice of a private member's motion. Sure, the last four minutes of the allocated time for that matter were spent debating this issue, but every day the time for ministerial statements is stretching to 10 past 10, 12 past 10 and 20 past 10. The opportunity for non-government members to be able to expose government deficiency is being wound back. That is very sad. The only way this place can operate effectively is when there is effective opposition scrutiny and an opportunity for those who sit in the gallery and the media to hear what non-government members, and also what government members, have to say on issues that affect their electorates. This motion should be opposed absolutely because it is the thin end of the wedge. It winds back the significant and effective parliamentary reform that has occurred in this state over the 30 May 2001 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 1255 past five years. It is a backward step. It is something which probably appeals to the revenge mentality of the member for Stafford, but it should not appeal to the mentality of anyone else in this parliament. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (12.13 p.m.): I do not intend to go over issues that have already been raised, but before and during the last election campaign the Premier made quite a point about 'reforming the parliament'. They were his words. Part of that reform was that the House would not sit after 7.30 p.m. One reason behind that is the large number of women now in the parliament with families, particularly young families. The Premier said the parliament was going to be more family friendly and, if necessary, sit more often but not sit after 7.30 p.m. Again and again we have seen that proposal changed because it happens to suit the government. Where are the deeds to back the Premier's rhetoric? There has been no reform whatsoever. Unfortunately, it has gone backwards. Instead of delivering to the people of Queensland the reform that the Premier said he would, only three months into this government we find absolute arrogance. Last night I came into the House to speak on a particular clause to a bill. That is any member's democratic right. The responsible minister got to his feet and thoroughly abused me for doing that because I had not spoken on the bill during the second reading debate. Members do not have to do that. I came in to speak on a particular clause and to support an amendment that had been moved by the opposition. I had real reasons for supporting it, reasons that were important to my electorate. Yet he abused me for taking up the time of the parliament to do that. That is what this House is about. Members are elected to represent their constituents. Hopefully this parliament is here to uphold democratic principles, but more and more we see that that is not the case. For any effective democracy there must be an opposition and opposition parties that are allowed the right to speak in the House. Today we are seeing another negating of that right. It has been mentioned that when we were in government members of the opposition had the opportunity to move a motion every night and debate it, and they did. We have the opportunity to debate one a week. Private members' bills were always dealt with on a Wednesday night, and that occurred. Under this government, debate on such bills is not even allowed to go ahead. More and more we are seeing the running of this parliament by the executive arm of government, in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the separation of powers. There is supposed to be a clearly effective, and seen to be effective, separation of the executive and the parliament. Because this government has 55 members— Government members: Sixty-six! Mrs SHELDON: Rather, it has 66 members. No doubt it will soon be 55 or less. Because this government has so many members, it has decided that that sort of democratic principle no longer stands. The member for Stafford talked about democratic principles. Democratic principles relate to the right to freedom of speech, the right for people to stand up and make points in the House as elected representatives and the right of opposition parties to be heard, not gagged. Yet he is supporting what is virtually a gagging of the rights of private members in the House today to be able to debate private members' bills—less and less debate, more and more interference. This is a sorry day for the House. Queensland has a unicameral parliament; it has no upper house. We have a government that is bloated in numbers and is showing complete arrogance because of that. The losers in all of this are the people of Queensland, because there is no democracy in the House. It is ruled by the executive. The sooner that that change is put in place and changes are implemented by the Premier, Mr Beattie—whose words were 'I will reform the parliament'—the better for this place. Mr Springborg: He certainly did. Mrs SHELDON: I can assure the member that the reform is no reform. It is backward steps. It is back to the future by a Labor government that has decided that it is no longer answerable to the people of this state or their elected representatives. It is answerable only to itself, only to the executive arm of government. Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (12.17 p.m.): I thank those members who have spoken to the motion. I am actually very surprised at the level of agitation that the motion has caused, but it gives me an opportunity to talk about how this place works and how some of the things that happen here in the morning are arrived at. The running of this parliament requires, and indeed is dependent upon, a level of informal interaction on a daily basis between the Leader of the House and the Leader of Opposition Business in the House. If one asked any member of the parliament who had been in here in previous parliaments if there were 1256 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 30 May 2001 two members of this House who might struggle to build that kind of relationship and two members of the parliament who might find it difficult to form that kind of important working relationship, I do not think it would have been unlikely for many of them to come up with the member for Beaudesert and the member for South Brisbane. Mr Mickel: Santo would have been up there, I think. Ms BLIGH: He is not here, and perhaps the member for Rockhampton and the member for Callide might have similar difficulties in trying to form the kind of working relationship that is necessary on a daily basis if this place is to run smoothly. Nevertheless, I would like to think that both the member for Beaudesert and I have put aside whatever differences we might have had in the past and professionally attempted to build that kind of working relationship in the interests of the parliament and in the interests of members. Frankly, while there has been the odd teething problem here or there, I thought that we had actually built that relationship. Because of the very informal nature of that relationship, many agreements made are not written down. It comes down to one person's word against another. Yesterday morning before I moved the motion relating to sitting hours I called the member for Beaudesert to talk with me out the back of the chamber—as many members will see me do on a daily basis—and said to him that we would be sitting late on Tuesday night because we had a number of government bills that had time pressures on them that had to be passed for one reason or another before 30 June and that in all likelihood we would be sitting on Wednesday night to do government business. To give credit to the honourable member for Beaudesert— Mr LINGARD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I am not going to fight about it, but I have made my point of view known. I believe that is completely untrue. I thought it was Tuesday night and Thursday night, and I have made that statement. I remind the member for South Brisbane that most of the time she blew her nose when she was talking to me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Ms BLIGH: The member for Beaudesert may have no recollection of it. He did actually concede when he first spoke to this motion after question time that it was possible that I may have said that and he did not have a clear recollection of it. That was a reasonable concession on his part. I thank him for making it. That statement was not repeated, however, by the member for Southern Downs, who also spoke to me yesterday and discussed with me the possibility of his bill coming on tonight. I said to him then that there was a very real chance that it may not, that government business may well have to take precedence because of a number of time pressures. So any suggestion that this has been some secret or underhand move by the government is simply not borne out by the facts. One of the things that has been repeated here often this morning, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, is that somehow this is a move to trample the democratic rights of members and to shackle the rights of the parliament. Let us have a look at what the right at dispute here is. That right is contained in clause 11 of the sessional orders, which relates to the debating of private members' bills. It states— That for this session— that is, this session of this parliament— if a Bill introduced by a Member, who is not a Minister of the Crown— that is, a private member— has laid upon the table of the House for a period exceeding ninety days and has not passed all stages, that Bill will be brought on for debate on the following sitting Wednesday evening. Therefore, members of this parliament who are not ministers of the Crown have the right to, firstly, introduce a bill. Secondly, members are guaranteed the right that, if they introduce a private member's bill, it will be debated within 90 days. That is the right that is contained in the sessional orders. What are the private members' bills currently before the parliament? There are three. The first is the Racial and Religious Offences Bill. It has been lying on the table for 29 days. The Prostitution Amendment Bill has been lying on the table for 16 days. The Electoral (Travellers' Advance Votes) Amendment Bill has been lying on the table for 13 days. Again any suggestion that this is some rampant attempt to ride roughshod over the rights of the people who have moved these bills is simply not borne out by the facts. 30 May 2001 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 1257

What is the origin of this right? It has quite an interesting history. It is an interesting history that I think speaks volumes for the hypocrisy that we have heard here this morning—some of the mock outrage and feigned indignation from some of the members opposite. Firstly, I had a brief discussion this morning with the member for Chatsworth. There are probably not many others here who have his length of experience in the parliament. He tells me that when he first came into this parliament, when it was run by the Bjelke-Petersen government, there was no capacity for members to even get a private member's bill into this House. There are two books, basically, that govern the operation of this House—and I am very happy to explain this to members. In their desks members will find the standing orders. They will also find this white book, the sessional orders. If they look at the standing orders relating to the processes for bringing in a private member's bill, they will find that it is almost impossible for a member to do it under those standing orders, which is why there is a separate sessional order to make it possible. As I have said, the experience of the member for Chatsworth and many of his colleagues, for literally decades in this place, was that they could not even get a private member's bill onto the table. They could not even get it on to the Notice Paper. Then there was a reform. The reform came firstly under the Borbidge government. What reforms were provided? Yes, members could introduce a bill, but there was no 90-day trigger. It could sit there forever. There was no time set aside in the standing orders or the sessional orders for a debate on private members' bills, so there was no guaranteed time when members could actually talk about these bills. So what happened? Under the Borbidge government—I was here for part of that time and can attest to this—there were six private members' bills moved by the then Beattie opposition. Two of those bills were debated and the other four lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. One of those bills had been on the Notice Paper for six months, which is 180 days on average. So members opposite should not come in here and talk about these innovative reforms that guaranteed the rights of private members. I noticed with some pleasure that the Leader of the Opposition spoke in glowing terms about the innovative reform that is now in the sessional orders of the parliament. He neglected to say who was the architect of the innovative reform. Who was the architect of the innovative reform? It was the Beattie government, in its last term of office. What we did in 1998 when we came into government was provide sessional orders that guaranteed that bills would not lie on the table for longer than three months, which is not an unreasonable period of time in a three-year term. We gave a guarantee, and that guarantee is still contained in the standing orders. That is the right that members have and that right is not affected by the motion that has been moved here this morning. Mr Reeves: How many private members' bills were there in the last parliament? Ms BLIGH: In the last parliament, between 1998 and 2001, 27 private members' bills were introduced. Seventeen of them were debated, four of them were withdrawn by the movers, six lapsed—six out of 27 lapsed because of the proroguing of the parliament—and one was ruled out of order. If those opposite want to talk about a record on the rights of private members to bring bills into this parliament and they want to stack the record up over the last 50 years, I am very happy to stand by our record. Our record speaks for itself and will continue to do so. The purpose of the motion this morning is to ensure that government business will take precedence for this day. Why was it put? Members will have heard the Leader of the Opposition say—and a number of others repeat after him—that they could not understand the need for this. They said, 'Those bills that need to be passed will get through easily. We would be very happy to cooperate.' Well, that has not been the experience of this parliament to date. If members opposite are about to turn over a new leaf, we are delighted to hear it. There are a number of bills on the Notice Paper that have time pressures on them, and I will not jeopardise their passage by leaving it up to the goodwill of members opposite. It is my job to make sure that they actually do get through the parliament in time and that is what will be done. I say in relation to the concerns of the member for Nicklin about the proposed sitting days that, frankly, I concur with the member for Chatsworth. I am not a racing fan. On Melbourne Cup day I am likely to be doing nothing different from what I do every other day. But I am aware that communities across the state take this opportunity to have significant fundraising events. There are Melbourne Cup day parties; workplaces stop. It is a significant day on the Australian calendar. While I apologised for getting it wrong and putting the wrong day on the plan, I make no apology at all for fixing it up. I would have thought that the member for Nicklin would agree. 1258 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

I am very happy to say at this point that I did take advice on this matter because I do understand how important it is. I sought the advice—foolishly, it appears—of the member for Cleveland, who guaranteed me—as I said, I am not a racing fan—that the Melbourne Cup was held on the second Tuesday of November, which I went to great lengths to avoid. In future I will seek advice from the member for Mansfield, who is known to be the quasi parliamentary secretary for all things leisure and recreational. As I said at the outset, I am very surprised by the level of agitation that this motion has caused. I honestly believed that I had discussed it with at least two members—the Leader of Opposition Business in the House and the member whose bill was most likely going to be affected—and that I had made the reasons for it quite clear. There was no dissent raised by either of those people when I raised it with them and I did not believe for one minute that it would cause any consternation. I take this opportunity to assure members that there is no intention by this government to stifle any debate on these private members' bills. They will see them come on for debate over the course of the next couple of weeks. I can assure members that the government looks forward to the debate on those private members' bills. Each of them contains very important and very serious issues. The government and the people who will be part of that debate look forward to it with a great deal of relish and are in no way seeking to avoid it. What is being sought here today is a motion that will guarantee that important legislation that has time pressures on it will actually get through the parliament by the end of the financial year. I make no apologies for that. If the opposition had not bunged this on this morning we might have gone home an hour earlier than we are going to tonight. Question—That Ms Bligh's motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 62—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 20—Bell, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 22 March (see p. 67). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (12.35 p.m.): The opposition will be opposing this bill. The major effect of the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill is to create both the criminal offence of racial or religious vilification as well as the same lesser civil offence. There are a small number of other amendments that this bill seeks to make which I will turn to in due course. However, undoubtedly the main objective of this bill is to pass laws regarding racial and religious vilification. The opposition opposes this bill on the basis that the provisions regarding vilification attempt to make people's opinions illegal. While we accept that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, given such laws as defamation, we do not accept that the government should attempt to limit the freedom with which people can express their opinions. The limitation on the freedom of speech that the government is attempting to impose through this legislation is different from that which is imposed by the Defamation Act. The Defamation Act deals with untrue facts. The government proposes its legislation to deal with offensive opinions. It is far easier to determine whether a fact is untrue than it is to determine whether an opinion may be offensive. The result of such a situation is that the possibility is left open for individuals who may feel slightly hurt by comments that others may make to bring frivolous actions before our already overloaded legal system. Furthermore, we should be striving to entrench in our law provisions that judge people on objective rather than subjective grounds. The High Court has recognised in a number of cases that there is an implied right to freedom of speech in the Commonwealth constitution regarding the expression of opinions about the government of the day. This has been recognised in cases such as Lange v. ABC and Theophanous v. Herald and Weekly. If the High Court has held this to be the law under these 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1259 circumstances, then it can logically be drawn that freedom of speech should be upheld when merely concerning opinions that may be considered to be offensive to an individual or even group within society. I will now turn to the feelings of the community at large with regard to this bill. There are a number of groups within our community who are concerned that this bill will impede their practices. In particular, church groups are concerned that some of their teachings could be caught under the provisions of the bill. The then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, expressed concern in the strongest of terms regarding the Victorian model of anti-discrimination legislation being proposed to deal with racial and religious vilification. Both the proposed Victorian laws and the proposed Queensland laws would be similar in operation to each other. As such, the same concerns as Archbishop Pell raises in Victoria are quite relevant to church groups in Queensland. Archbishop Pell has questioned the need for such legislation to be enacted in Victoria. In his words— There has been no recent upsurge of strife. What social evils have provoked this legislation? The very same sentiments apply to Queensland. The Premier claims that multicultural groups have made him aware of the need for this legislation. However, have these groups called for laws which will enable action to be taken against those who actually commit crimes based on racial and religious hatred, or have they called for the laws being brought before this parliament that impede the right of society as a whole to freedom of speech, including their own right to freedom of speech? The Premier claims that this bill is necessary to protect multiculturalism. This bill has a greater potential for multiculturalism and religion to be seen as being placed on a pedestal; that it has to protect people of different races and religions from racial and religious vilification. The result of this could easily be an increase in the instances of vilification taking place in our society. While on the point of religious vilification, I turn to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's report. The committee has noted that although the Premier claims that this legislation is modelled on the New South Wales anti-vilification provisions, the New South Wales parliament never intended its legislation to extend to cover religious vilification. This is a very important issue in this debate, because when this point is examined rationally it becomes clear—as the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee points out—that it will be a very subjective matter to determine whether an opinion is vilifying on religious grounds. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has called on the Premier for assurances that the bill provides sufficient safeguards for legitimate and constructive religious debate to take place. If there is any doubt over such matters in a bill, then this parliament has an obligation not to pass it. It is important that a government is not attempting, through the force of legislation, to deprive people of their often deep-held religious beliefs. I would like to take the opportunity to quote from that report of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I note that there have been subsequent responses from the Attorney-General. He may indicate on behalf of the government that they have addressed these issues, but I do not necessarily believe that that is the case. The report states— The committee draws to the attention of Parliament the broadening by the bill of previously-understood notions of racial vilification, and the imprecision of the concepts of 'religion' and 'ethno-religious'. On the previous page, the report states— The committee is concerned that there is no attempt to define 'religion' in the bill and these decisions illustrate the difficulties associated with the concept. Religion, unlike race, is usually a peculiarly private set of beliefs and values relating generally to a supreme order, conscientiously held, which are shared to a greater or lesser extent by others. I think that is a very valid point, because only last year legislation was passed by this parliament which decriminalised witchcraft. We can argue about the rights or the wrongs of that, but many people deeply hold the view that witchcraft is a religion. However, a lot of people out there hold the view that witchcraft is something generally very repugnant and should not be encouraged in our society. That goes to show the difficulty in defining what a religion is. Some things that start off as a movement, that start off in that early semi-cult stage, something which is an opinion held by people, can be easily categorised and classified as a religion. Certainly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has a very loose way of interpreting the definition of a religion when it comes to providing data on our census. 1260 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

The report continues— The committee seeks information from the Premier as to whether he is satisfied the exemptions in s.124(A)(2) provide a sufficient counter-balance to the bill's limitations on free speech, particularly in relation to religious debate. The report goes on— The committee has concerns about two aspects of the proposed criminal offence, namely: Its extension to religious vilification; The nature of the requisite mental element or 'guilty mind' that is required before an offence is committed. And also the issue of knowingly and recklessly inciting racial or religious vilification. The committee goes on to say— However, the committee notes that even if the use of the word 'knowingly' might be thought to require something akin to an intention to incite, the word 'recklessly' clearly does not. Moreover, 'recklessly' may not require any subjective state of mind at all. Recklessness is not defined in the Act and is also not a term used in Queensland to express the mental element required for an offence. The report continues— The committee draws to the attention of Parliament the apparently low threshold that needs to be satisfied before a criminal offence is committed under this provision, and also the imprecision in the use of the mental elements of 'knowingly' and 'recklessly'. The committee seeks information from the Premier as to why there is not a requirement of proof that a person intended to incite or, at the very least, that the person wilfully incited before they can be guilty of a criminal offence given that, if the New South Wales view is correct, it need not be proved that anybody was in fact incited. That is a very, very important point: it need not be proved that a person necessarily was in fact incited. The report continues— The committee draws to the attention of Parliament the potential that an offence of religious vilification has to stifle legitimate debate, where that debate includes incitement of contempt by condemning members of a religious group for their beliefs in a way that includes threats which the defendant genuinely believes are justified. The committee notes that the present Commissioner— that is, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner— has 'actively lobbied successive governments' in Queensland for the introduction of the present laws and 'disputes suggestions that the push for new laws is simply a response to political correctness and contradictory to the notion that we are a tolerant society'. I want to place on record my utmost confidence in the current Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in Queensland. I think that she has done an excellent job. She has fulfilled her obligations under the legislation in Queensland particularly well, and I think she has pursued issues of significant importance to the community. Notwithstanding that, I do hold philosophical differences from hers on a number of issues. I also am concerned that when you are dealing with something where it is your job to pursue these particular issues, sometimes the other things which are important to the community, and the other things that may be at risk with the need to extend legislation to cover things that you may be genuinely concerned about, may seek to restrain and confine the rights and liberties of the community at large. The report continues— The committee seeks information from the Premier as to why the final decision to prosecute for a criminal offence is not left to the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, thus ensuring an additional filtering process exists in relation to criminal prosecutions. On this point, I must admit to the parliament that the Attorney-General has introduced amendments this morning. I have not had a brief on them, but I take it from my reading that he has sought to address that issue. I commend him for that, because I think that that is a legitimate concern, and it is something which is recognised in the provisions of New South Wales law. However, that does not mitigate in any way the fundamental concern that the opposition has about the overall focus of the bill. The report continues— The committee is concerned that cl.126A may have the effect of overriding at least the spirit of the protection of s.16 of the Criminal Code. The committee seeks clarification from the Premier as to why it is not sufficient for the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to choose between the avenues of referral to the Tribunal or making, with the consent of the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions, a complaint to the Magistrates Court where allegations of contravention of proposed s.126 are made. Furthermore, there is significant concern that this bill does not require high enough standards of proof in relation to the criminal offences of racial and religious vilification contained in the bill and further to what I outlined in quoting the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report. It is absolutely 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1261 unacceptable, in a state like Queensland, to firstly take away the right to free speech or stifle or in any way define the right of free speech, but then, on top of this, impose criminal penalties for speaking freely. There is no doubt, however, that legislation should be put in place to deter racial and religious crimes, and legislation should be in place so that when crimes are committed based on racial or religious hatred, there is a form of recourse available against those who perpetuate the crimes. As such, the opposition has introduced into this parliament the Racial and Religious Offences Bill 2001. This bill will address racial and religious vilification by increasing the penalty for any crime committed that is motivated by either race or religion. I am mindful of the standing orders of this parliament when it comes to referring to other legislation. However, it is important to make a couple of points on the different concepts of the bill. As well, the penalty will be increased in circumstances where the committing of a crime incites others to threaten physical harm towards the person or property of an individual or group of persons. The result of legislation such as this being passed, as opposed to that which the government is proposing, is that punishment for racial and religious vilification will be based on an actual crime that has been committed - something which is far more objective than subjective. This legislation will not impose penalties for merely spoken words that may be construed as being vilifying to those of different religions or races. However, this legislation will provide a form of recourse against those who commit offences based on racial and religious hatred without limiting in any way the innocent public's right to free speech. The result of this bill being implemented would be a model of punishment for racial and religious vilification, more like that in place in Western Australia where only actual cases of racial and religious vilification would be heard objectively by the courts rather than subjectively, which would be the case under the government's proposal of making illegal the opinions that people may express. There are a number of other amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act that this amendment bill serves to put into effect that I would like to cover briefly. Firstly, there is the issue of giving anti-discrimination laws extraterritorial operation outside of Queensland on boats and ships registered in Queensland. The opposition recognises that any government has an obligation to regulate the work practices and work environment of its people in the interests of both the employer and the employee. There is no reason, if a boat or ship is registered under Queensland law and is employing people from Queensland, that the anti-discrimination laws of the state should not apply to the owners or operators and the workers on that boat or ship. This bill also makes other mechanical amendments that the opposition would otherwise have no objection to. However, in the view of the opposition, the government should not have attempted to bundle together other amendments with proposed laws as controversial as those concerning racial and religious vilification. As a result of the government taking this action, the opposition has no alternative but to oppose these other amendments on the basis of the opposition's position on the anti-vilification laws that the government has proposed. However, as all honourable members are aware, the government can easily move the other amendments contained in the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill at a later stage. Therefore, the opposition has introduced the Racial and Religious Offences Bill as the most appropriate means of addressing the issue of racial and religious vilification and hate crimes. The opposition believes that penalties should be imposed only when a crime has been committed and our proposed legislation would achieve this. I thank the honourable member for Mudgeeraba for her bipartisan sympathy. That has given me time to get over my cough. I feel a bit like my leader at the last state election. Mr Welford: You're about as effective, too. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is the end of bipartisanship for you, old mate. The legislation that you wanted to get through by 30 June: we will filibuster on that for about three days. Mr Reeves: You're pretty good at it. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member had better read the Hansard record to see that what he says is not necessarily true. 1262 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Furthermore, the opposition stands by people's freedom of speech and believes that only in very limited circumstances, such as defamation law, should this right be abrogated in any way or form. Therefore, we oppose the government's Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill. It is very important to say a few parting words on the issue of subjectivity. We all know that as members of parliament we have differing views on differing issues. Certainly that is no different to the views and the opinions that are held by the community at large. Basically, this parliament is a very broad reflection of the community, because one does not need any particular qualification to be elected to this place. That is good and great, and it should never change because the objective of this place is for a person to be selected by his or her peers to represent the people in the parliament. However, as I said, the opinions of many people can be very different. Something that I might find offensive or that I am concerned about or motivated by may motivate or concern another person to a different degree. That is of particular concern as we try to decide what is being laid down in law by this bill, that is, what is racial or religious vilification. This subjective test is going to exist as a result of what is proposed in the parliament today. If one looks around the world, many people feel very passionately about the issue of race and religion. In some cases, there are state-sponsored religions. In other cases, the state tacitly, implicitly or explicitly persecutes other races. Australia now is a broad church. It is made up of people from over 140 different nationalities. When those people come to Australia, they bring with them different views, different tolerances and different intolerances. That is quite clear when one speaks to people in the general community. Some people bring with them the predisposed views that they had from their mother country and their tolerance may not be as great as that of others. Through this bill we run the very real risk of developing a situation where somebody might be offended by something and another person may not be offended by it. However, it may easily be seen as inciting hatred or vilification towards another section of the community because of the different way that people are concerned and offended by it. Mr Reeves: Do you have any support on your side? Mr SPRINGBORG: I suppose at the end of the day, so long as one does it once and does it well, that is all that really matters. Mr Welford interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: We are talking about the presence and the representation. It is obvious to see where the Attorney-General's mind has been on this debate. This is the official view of the opposition. The opposition has concerns about the legislation. The opposition leader will be making a contribution to this debate, but he is currently engaged with media duties. He is most interested in this subject. As I indicated earlier, if one looks at the parliament, very clearly there is a situation in which an issue which offends some people, and which they may see as the worst issue or the worst matter that could possibly be raised as it subjugates the rights and privileges of the people of Queensland, is seen as a ho-hum issue by others. They do not believe that there is any offence. Therefore we must be very careful when we implement this legislation, and it will be passed because the government quite clearly has the majority that is necessary to pass it through parliament. I say to the Attorney-General that we will be watching the effect of this legislation. We will be watching the implementation of the legislation. We hope that the concerns that we raise today are not going to manifest themselves through the implementation process. It will require a very clear oversight from the Attorney-General to ensure that they are not manifested. When issues of legitimacy are raised by us and others, it would behove the Attorney-General to listen very carefully to them. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is an all-party, bipartisan committee that has operated well in the parliamentary process for over half a decade. That committee has raised concerns about the legislation. Over time it has raised concerns with governments of all persuasions about issues that affect the fundamental rights and liberties of people. It does that in a bipartisan way and we need to listen to it. The Attorney-General has addressed some of the concerns in his response. However, I am of the opinion that he may have been exercising a little bit of wishful thinking or idealism. The particular concerns that were raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee need to be addressed in a far more forthright and legitimate way. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1263

We will be watching this legislation very closely. We share concerns about racial and religious attacks in this state. We believe our legislation is a far better option for addressing some of the legitimate concerns of the community. Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise and talk about a bill that promotes tolerance in a multicultural society while allowing freedom of speech and ensures that people are able to live peaceful and dignified lives free from racial or religious vilification. There have been calls from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and multicultural groups for stronger laws in relation to the incitement of religious or racial vilification. Firstly, I would like to speak about one of those multicultural groups, a group that promotes peace, harmony and an inclusive society—the Buddha's Light International Association of Queensland located at the Chung Tian Temple. This bill certainly provides for the type of society that they promote. The Chung Tian Temple is located in the electorate of Springwood at Priestdale. The temple is located in some of our unique bushland and is complemented by beautiful gardens. I have been fortunate to attend the temple on several occasions. As soon as we enter the area the serenity and beauty is breathtaking. The Buddha's Light International Association actively encourages all members of the community to use its facilities and attend significant events, such as Chinese New Year celebrations, the Lantern Festival and recently the Buddha's birthday. And yet it was not that many years ago that people targeted them and did not want them in our community. This year the Buddha's birthday was held in the South Bank Parklands to cater for the large numbers of people attracted to the event. Visitors sampled food from Japan, China, India and Thailand. They watched kung-fu displays and dragon dances. The temple offers a range of activities to the community, including craft lessons, language lessons, relaxation techniques and, of course, a place to worship. The Chung Tian Temple addresses the growing interest in Eastern culture and adds Chinese architectural heritage to our state. Tourists, students and Chung Tian devotees are given the opportunity to explore Buddhist teachings and culture, which reflects the multiculturalism encouraged by the Beattie Labor government. The temple houses a substantial collection of Buddha statues, Chinese calligraphy works, paintings, crafts and other Asian artefacts. This active community group supports a wide range of people in the community. It raises money and gives support resources and services to many charities and people in need in our community. It truly promotes kindness, compassion and joy. The association would have to be one of the best hosts to all who visit. They are gentle people who enjoy showing this fascinating place to visitors and certainly provide the best hospitality. One of the things I enjoy most when I visit the temple is having a cup of Chinese tea and a chat with the Chinese Buddhist monks. I encourage everyone to visit the temple and enjoy its beauty. In particular, I encourage the people of the Springwood electorate and the Logan community to visit this wonderful attraction that is right at their back door. I would hate to think that this gentle group of people could be the subject of vandalism or some other crime due to racial or religious vilification. However, we cannot bury our heads in the sand. We need to protect these people and so many more like them. This bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to include both civil and criminal sanctions against anyone who makes an unlawful public statement that incites hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of another person or group on the basis of their race or religion. This bill is not just about hate-speech but all forms of communication to the public. I know from speaking to the Buddha's Light International Association that it is pleased to see a bill that supports a multicultural society. The criminal sanctions will apply only to the new offence of serious racial or religious vilification. The conduct must be done knowingly or recklessly and the incitement must be by means of threatening, or inciting others to threaten, physical harm towards the person or group or their property. Once again, I am happy to support a bill that protects freedom of speech, promotes a peaceful and harmonious multicultural society—a bill that provides protection to many great individuals and groups such as the Buddha's Light International Association. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (2.34 p.m.): I rise in support of the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill. I support anything that protects the rights of people who are at risk in many ways, either by race, religion or the fact that they are a minority group in our community. It sends 1264 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 a clear message that the general community will not tolerate any statements, words or acts that incite hatred or serious contempt or severe ridicule on the basis of racial or religious background. We are very fortunate in Australia that we have very little of this. That is most probably due to the fact that none of our ancestors, apart from those of our indigenous brothers and sisters, have lived for much more than 200 years in this country. We are all immigrants one way or another. Certainly, the great bulk of immigration, particularly in the earlier part of our country's history, was Anglo-Saxon and Celtic in origin. Over the years we have seen a large number of people from different races, countries, religions and cultural mores coming to Australia. We have people from over 100 different countries. In spite of that, there have been very few incidents of racial or religious vilification. Australians have always resolved any differences they may have had in this regard through the ballot box. However, other countries are not as fortunate. On a nightly basis we see on our televisions the terrible things that happen to communities because of racial and religious hatred. A daily reminder, of course, is Palestine and Israel. A classic example of vilification of all sorts occurs in Afghanistan, where people are being tagged according to their religion. We certainly saw that happening to the Jews in the Second World War, in Germany and in the countries that it conquered. I cannot imagine that ever happening here in Australia, but as citizens and people who have the ability to legislate we need to make sure that provisions are in place such that it cannot happen in this country. Australia and certainly the Liberal Party have a fundamental philosophy of tolerance of our fellow man and woman. We certainly also support the concept of freedom of speech. I know arguments have been and will be raised that this bill limits freedom of speech. I do not think it places limits on anything that should not be said, because what right do people have to make statements of hatred against a person's religion, race, the fact they are a minority group or about their lifestyle while that person in no way is affecting other members of the community adversely? I believe that our tolerance as a nation has been a statement of our national intent. We as a race are tolerant people. That is something that I think Australia has been able to show to the rest of the world and that is, of course, why a lot of people who are displaced refugees or indeed who just want to get out of their own country for a number of reasons want to come to Australia. And we can see the problems we are having in that regard now. I believe statements that enhance anti-vilification and anti-discrimination support our way of life and show that we are tolerant, peace-loving people and that we want our nation to stay that way. The bill deals with a number of issues. We have to look at why we need this amendment bill. Until now, the act that this bill amends has proscribed only racial or religious vilification that incites unlawful discrimination or another breach under the act. Of course, the onus was on the person to show that the statement or the action actually incited unlawful discrimination, and it was a very heavy onus on that person. I believe the amendment will strengthen protection against racial and religious vilification and will reinforce social unacceptability of such conduct. I think it has to be constantly reinforced that it is socially unacceptable for this conduct to occur. We have seen it in England only very recently in that northern town. Mr Welford: Oldham. Mrs SHELDON: Yes, Oldham. There was violence in the streets involving Asians and, I understand, members of the white population. That is going to benefit no-one. In fact, a lot of people were seriously injured as a result. Unfortunately, we have seen that sort of thing in Ireland for as long as I can remember. That is based primarily on religious intolerance, although I know that there have been a lot of political questions over that period, too. Surely it should not matter to us what another person's religion is or how they practise that if it does not adversely affect us in some way or society as a whole. It has also been mentioned that vilification can take many forms. Obviously, speech is one of these as well as hatred and graffiti, which I believe is a coward's way of expressing an opinion and is usually anonymous. There is also the distribution of propaganda. I do not know about other members of this House, but I find that when I receive anything of this nature in my office invariably it is anonymous. People are not prepared to put their name to their statements or their comments about someone else, even though they have been happy to write to me about it. Needless to say that goes in the shredder. Anything that comes into my office of an anonymous nature goes the same way. If people are not committed enough to sign their name on something they produce, then it is not worthy of attention. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1265

We need to express—and continue to express—the harmony of a culturally diverse society, and we are very culturally diverse. I happen to believe that our cultural diversity is one of our great strengths, and we can look at that across the full spectrum. Our lives are enriched by what we have learned about a wide range of other peoples, their beliefs and their cultures. Looking at our diet, we can see that what we now eat and the choices we make have largely been brought about by the culturally different people we have in our society, and that has been a great plus. If we look at our arts and our theatre, we find that that is also true. I think that this has made our nation one that other nations accept, look at and admire. In many ways we are a lucky nation and a lucky country. That is why people do want to come and live here. Criminal sanctions will apply only to offences of serious racial or religious vilification and they must, of course, contain the additional element of threatening or inciting others to threaten physical harm towards the person or groups of persons or any property of the person or the group. Various cases have been quoted to back this up. I found reading the excerpts that we have been provided with quite illuminating. I would also like to say that I found the information distributed by the Library to be very helpful as well. It is a great pity that this was one of the pieces of legislation that was allowed to drop off the table when parliament was prorogued and we went to the election. However, it is back on and it is the same legislation as was introduced previously. Not only are the individuals who make the statements and the people about whom they are making them affected; acts of vilification and speeches of vilification can have a broader effect on society as a whole. I believe they actually work to undermine those principles of freedom, dignity and equality that are central to the running of a democratic society and certainly central to what we believe our Australian society to be. I mentioned briefly the concern and the point of discussion that centred around whether or not legislative measures like these curb race, hate and speech and that that denies us the right of freedom of speech. We have only to look at some cases that have been cited in international law. We also need to look, as I have mentioned, at what happens in other countries around the world. I do not think our safeguards can be too sure. I do not believe—and I am a very strong supporter of freedom of speech—that this limits freedom of speech at all. Certainly issues will be raised—and should be raised—about the perceived conflict of rights. If we are going to be speaking on this issue, we need to allow all points of view to be heard, otherwise we would actually be speaking against what we are saying that we support in this bill and this amendment. We also need to realise that most likely acts of vilification, whether based on religion, race or whatever, are committed against those least likely to feel empowered to respond or to be able to respond. Indeed, we often find that with minority groups. I think that the fact that one has always had to prove what was being said in some regards was reasonable, but a lot of people had to go through a lot of hassle to actually get to that end. This is an important amendment. I know it covers things like whether injustices of discrimination have occurred on ships at sea and how this was previously difficult to ascertain, and the amendment has corrected that. I think that that is also reasonable. I notice also that the bill provides protection for certain categories of workers such as subcontractors. I was going to ask the Attorney if that really meant that we are not talking about industrial situations here but, rather, a subcontractor who had words, actions or whatever against him because of his race or his religion and, hence, did not have the rights that others would. If that is the reason, then I fully support that concept, because it should be applied across-the- board. I feel that all Australians—in fact it would be lovely if everyone in the world could, but we are more interested in Australia—should be able to live peacefully and have dignified lives that are free from racial or religious vilification and hate. Hence, I will support the bill. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (2.48 p.m.): Multiculturalism is the strength of Queensland and the backbone of Australia. This government is totally committed to multiculturalism and this bill protects it. I must commend the member for Caloundra for supporting this bill. I welcome her position on it and, in particular, her broader world views regarding racial harmony and peace that we hold so dear to our Australian hearts. As a first generation Australian, the product of migrants from central Europe, I am delighted to speak in support of this bill. I add that I do so from a position of personal experience, understanding and knowledge of this issue. I have grown up in a 'wog' family, if one takes into account the broader definition of 'wog', as I do, to include migrants of European origin, not only of Italian or Greek origin. My family has been called wogs often enough in the past to have now 1266 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 taken on and embraced that term in a complimentary and happy way. Not only can I say 'wog' and say I love 'wogs', but due to the broader and growing acceptance and tolerance of ethnicity and cultural difference that comes with multiculturalism, we can all say, 'We love wogs.' We can use the term openly in theatre, literature and media and other forms of popular culture without causing or meaning offence. In fact, friends of mine who are also first generation Australians and I often wear our label as wogs or wog children with pride and good humour, especially when cooking wog food. This bill is not about stifling discussion, restricting freedom of speech or indeed threatening that well-known tradition which is the essence of Australian comradeship—that is, the self-effacing humour that we know and love and that goes with all things woggy. No, this bill is purely and simply about protecting individuals and their property from vilifying, hatred-inciting racist behaviour. The bill recognises quite clearly the difference between my referring to my mum's superb wog cooking and a retailer's refusal to serve my mother because she could not understand 'her bloody wog language'. My mother has been told many times, 'Speak English! Why don't you speak English?' My mum has been asked this many times since she arrived in Australia in 1957. Bless her, her response has always been consistent. As a speaker of not one but six languages, including English, she has always told her attackers that if they could not speak English then they would have to bark like dogs. This bill will not change the attitudes or perceptions of those narrow-minded people, of those too ignorant or small minded to accept and embrace migrants. Only education and experience can do that. Rather, this bill will send a clear message to racist minorities, to evil, petty-minded white supremacists and bigots of every description that we do not want them. Queensland does not want them, will not tolerate them and will, with the passage of this bill, pursue and prosecute them. This bill enables people to think what they want but keep it to themselves, because no- one wants to hear it if it is ugly, evil, mean spirited and designed to appeal to the very basest of human instincts—that instinct which rejects difference, fears difference and things that we do not understand and which most of us have the human decency and moral fibre to suppress. If it appeals to that instinct, we do not want to hear it. If the message being communicated aims to bring to the fore that basic, ugly, juvenile and immature instinct, then it is not on. If it restricts the freedom of individuals to dress differently, speak their mother tongue or worship their religion in a traditional manner which is unlike ours, it is not on. If it ridicules people on the basis of their religious beliefs or the practice of their faith, it is not on. There have been ongoing calls from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and multicultural groups for stronger laws in relation to the incitement of religious or racial vilification. These have been in response to a number of recent incidents of racial and religious hatred such as the vandalism of an Aboriginal group's office in Rockhampton and the defacing of a Brisbane synagogue. I am aware of constant attacks and vandalism of the Islamic mosque at Arundel on the Gold Coast. This is a community that is deeply discriminated against because its language is different, its clothes are different and its family structures, cultures, beliefs and religion is different. That is precisely what makes it so important and so special and why it should be embraced and nurtured, not pilloried and attacked simply because it is different. The bill follows through on Peter Beattie and the Labor government's commitment to reintroduce the bill during the state election and this government's commitment to multiculturalism. The bill repeals existing provisions of the act and enacts new laws that are modelled on the New South Wales legislation, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. This brings Queensland into line with all states and territories bar Victoria and the Northern Territory by legislating against racial or religious vilification. This bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to include both civil and criminal sanctions against anyone who makes an unlawful public statement that incites hatred, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of another person or group on the basis of their race or religion. The bill covers not just hate speech but all forms of communication to the public and includes written, verbal, recorded or electronic communications, actions, gestures, displays, emblems or insignia. Criminal sanctions will apply only to the new offence of serious racial or religious vilification that is undertaken knowingly and recklessly. The incitement must be by means of threatening or inciting others to threaten physical harm towards a person, a group or their property. The bill protects the idea of freedom of speech by targeting only those very serious matters—statements that incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule—made in public. It does not regulate private behaviour such as racist jokes at home, no matter how distasteful and harmful to a multicultural society these may be. It ensures that people are able to live peaceful 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1267 and dignified lives free from racial or religious vilification. Under the civil provisions, three defences exist: the publication of fair reports; communications that would attract privilege in defamation law anyway, such as parliamentary privilege, court proceedings and inquiries; and acts done reasonably and in good faith in pursuit of academic, artistic or scientific research or for purposes in the public interest. I take on board the concerns of the member for Toowoomba South in relation to free speech and say that I share his concerns as I come from a very strong standpoint of civil liberty, personal freedom and free speech. I am, after all, a journalist and a wog. In relation to this bill, I do not have those concerns, because this bill and its implementation does not and will not hinder free speech. I would hate to see it do so. The civil defences I have described are quite broad and are broad enough to capture public forms of communication, articulated in its various kinds, to protect that very fundamental right that we all hold dear—freedom of speech. However, I must also say that I am pleased to see the member opposite's commitment to free speech and civil liberty—qualities and commitments that I did not know he possessed and, I must admit, did not think the National Party were that well known for. But then I am too young to have been arrested in a street march in the 1960s or 1970s. Government members: Or eighties. Mrs REILLY: Indeed, or the 1980s. Other members of the House may remember such days. The exceptions that I described do not apply to the criminal provisions; they act only as a guarantee safeguarding robust public debate. They do not excuse serious or violent behaviour that is undertaken knowingly and recklessly, that is, a person knows what they are doing when they undertake those acts, incite other people to hate the same people that they hate and bring more people into their evil, petty-minded behaviour. Acts such as these discriminate against individuals or communities because they are targeted specifically at them. They are not random. They are not being undertaken against any other group but specifically at those groups who have been chosen because of their religious or racial difference. They are discriminatory and should be prosecuted under anti-discrimination legislation and dealt with by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, which this bill allows for. The bill extends the protection extra-territorially as well, closing a loophole that has resulted in victims of discrimination on Australian vessels not having the protection of the act. The bill will also be welcomed by workers of this state as it remedies another loophole in the act in relation to workers employed by subcontractors who are victimised or discriminated against by the principal, as mentioned by the member for Caloundra. Previously, workers employed by subcontractors or subcontractors themselves had no remedy against discrimination by a principal. This bill guarantees that under the act all Queensland workers will be covered against unlawful discrimination or vilification. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.58 p.m.): It gives me much pleasure to join the debate on the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill this afternoon in honest recognition of the real cultural diversity of Queensland. I am pleased to inform the House of the National Party's total commitment to a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society. One great thing about our society is the way that each and every one of us comes from a different background and yet we have come to form the nation of Australia and the state of Queensland where we can enjoy many benefits and freedoms. Queensland is a uniquely rich multicultural society. It shares a wide diversity of languages, customs and cultural traditions. The National Party values this diversity and the contributions that people from other cultures have made not only to our social fabric but also to our economy. The National Party is keen to see positive measures implemented that dispel negative or destructive attitudes that can be occasionally vented through misapprehensions which are borne out by fear. Because this bill does nothing to ensure that multicultural communities can be part of a vibrant, informative and interactive network across the state, the opposition will not be supporting the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill. In fact, the bill falls short of the mark. The bill does nothing to ensure that the freedom of lifestyle which has evolved in this country and which has been eagerly sought by many people escaping persecution or religious circumstances is preserved and protected—quite the contrary. This bill will regulate lifestyle, thereby causing people to live in fear of the thought police or the speech police—the very things from which people migrating to Australian shores sought sanctuary. Let us look at the wonderful lifestyle we have here, at why people want to come here. Mr Welford interjected. 1268 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Mr HORAN: They are not soft on crime. The minister knows about the private member's bill that we have before the House. It provides for additional penalty in the case of actions, not thoughts. People come to Australia because it is open and inclusive. It is not overborne by all sorts of regulations and processes. It is a place of great freedom and great spirit. People have come to Australia from all the other continents of the world. Along with indigenous Australians, we all have our own way of making sure that we support each other. We do not need this heavy-handed regulation by the government which will start to put in place formal structures, rules and regulations. We have been able to develop this wonderful free society that is so attractive to people from other parts of the world without all of this regulation. Australia really is a great big melting pot. It is a wonderful country. We have a tolerant society that has grown up by itself. We have been able to develop our systems of tolerance without the heavy hand of government being imposed upon us no matter where we are. I think it is somewhat insulting to our broader community to force this type of legislation upon the people of Queensland. It will remove some of their freedom. I have concerns when independent tribunals—they are not necessarily representative of the people—make recommendations to government, particularly a democratic government that supposedly has been elected by the people for the people. These tribunals can introduce more regulation of or restriction on society's democratic freedoms. Under these circumstances, the broader community is not included in this decision making process. As the parliamentary leader of the National Party and the Opposition Leader in this state, I want to ensure that the community's expectations are respected at all times. Subsequently, I want to ensure that the community's freedoms are not limited, restricted or unnecessarily regulated by legislation which the community did not seek. As I stated, generally the Australian community is tolerant, and the National Party respects that. However, in recognition of pockets of hatred the opposition, through our capable shadow Attorney-General, has introduced a bill in response to the report of crimes being committed that are based on racial or religious hatred. The purpose of the Racial and Religious Offences Bill was to amend the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 by inserting a new part 9AA. This part would make it an aggravating circumstance to any crime punishable by imprisonment if the offence was incited or motivated by racial or religious hatred or contempt for or ridicule of a person or groups of persons based on their race or religion. The Racial and Religious Offences Bill will deal with definite acts of racial or religious hatred only. The opposition stands up for the right to free speech, which is inherent in this great democratic state of ours. This is the same right that has been recognised by the High Court as being the cornerstone of any democracy. Ours is solid legislation, and it is unfortunate that this House will not have the opportunity to debate the bill later this evening. The biggest assault on tolerance in this nation is not driven by race or hatred but by fear. When one's lifestyle is under threat, when one's ability to provide a home and food for the family is under threat, fear is the emotion that grows. One of the things we should be looking at today is the great divide in Australia caused by unemployment and the great divide caused by the unemployment rate in rural and regional areas. I will read from a letter I received. It states— With respect I request your attention regarding the Racial and Religious Tolerance legislation which has been brought before parliament. This Bill has already been presented in the Victorian parliament and has caused deep concern among members of the Christian Church. Apparently it is to go before all the State parliaments and therefore it could have far-reaching effects for the whole of Australia. While the Christian Church does not tolerate in any way, shape or form, the vilification of anyone on the grounds of race, religion or any other personal attributes, it is felt that certain aspects of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill could open the way for future legislation against freedom of speech and discrimination, especially against Christian citizens. I am concerned that the Government's plan may ultimately interfere with the normal behaviour of people who have no intent to cause division or hatred in the community. Therefore my sincere and heart-felt plea is that you consider carefully the possible ramifications of this Bill ... That is the point I am making here today. Australia has a wonderful society which is in great demand by people from all over the world because they see it as being perhaps the best in the world. It is a society in which tolerance has developed as a self-discipline within people. It is a 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1269 society in which support for others has grown through experience, through having to do things together and through having to go through the hard and the good times together. There have been times in our society that groups of people of particular origin have had to do it tough, but as time has gone by that has become a part of Australia's psyche, that we are tolerant and that people are accepted and accepted immediately. If we go back some generations we see that there were times when it took some generations for certain races of people to be accepted into society. We are a far different society today, and that has come about through the natural growth and the development of Australia. We are a people for whom the development of our society has come from within. It has not been imposed upon us. We have come to realise the importance of respect for each other. We have come to realise the contribution that we can each make. We have come to realise the importance that people's religions have to people. If we go back a few generations we see that that attitude did not exist in Australia. We have come to realise the contribution that people from different races have made. I think we have become a great, wonderful and tolerant society, yet here we have a bill that is going to start to regulate the way people talk and think, express their thoughts and so on. We in the National Party have put forward a private member's bill to deal with those things that are wrong and cruel and criminal. Mr Welford interjected. Mr HORAN: Yes, it has. We have dealt with those. They can be specified if there is actual action. But this bill is to do with people's thoughts and discussions. The government is really denigrating the strength of the Australian culture and tolerance by saying, 'You Australians in this great society are not to be trusted on your own. We have to impose some legislation or regulation.' I think this is a denigration of all those things about our country that are great, that have been the reasons people want to come here—for a better land and a better country and to escape the intolerance, the division, the vilification, the hatred or the bad economic times they are experiencing in their own land. They come here because we are better—because we have been able to do it on our own with a self-discipline, with our own tolerance that has been developed. For that we are a stronger and a better nation. We do not need the heavy hand of government to make us do it. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (3.08 p.m.): When our parents told us that sticks and stones will break our bones but names will never hurt us, it is unlikely they had hate propaganda in mind. While damage done by sticks and stones may be more readily apparent, the harm of hate reaches deeper and profoundly injures not only those who are the targets of hate propaganda but society as well. Hate propaganda, as an exercise of expression, seeks to incite and encourage hatred and tension between different social and cultural groups in society. An appalling passion, its very purpose is to inflame, to intimidate and to marginalise the individuals and community at which it is directed. It goes beyond commentary and opinion to the deliberate verbal and emotional attack of others based solely on their difference, perpetuating prejudice and stereotyping. The message is all the more traumatic and damaging when it is identity based and directed at people for who they are. Hate speech serves to vilify and to erode the dignity and self-worth of the people at whom it is aimed. The Beattie Labor government will not tolerate any form of racial or religious vilification as it undermines Queensland's commitment to equality and multiculturalism. All members, regardless, should be committed to protecting and celebrating our state's rich social and cultural diversity. That is why, as the parliamentary secretary to the Premier with special responsibility for multicultural affairs, I offer my ardent support for this bill. Mrs Reilly: Hear, hear! Mr BRISKEY: Hear, hear! The most valuable thing about having a diverse group of cultures in my electorate is the enormous richness it provides to the community. Many of us here come from an Anglo-Celtic background, and Australia's history reflects that origin. Others come from other backgrounds. Mrs Reilly: Perhaps like the Leader of the Opposition, who comes from an Anglo-Celtic background. Mr BRISKEY: Perhaps. But this country has been tremendously enriched by the numbers of migrants who have chosen to settle in Australia. Living in my community are people of Greek, 1270 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Italian, German, Iranian, Fijian, Dutch, Egyptian and Chinese origin—to name but a few. As members of parliament we attend many functions associated with ethnic communities, and I am extremely proud of my current and future association with them. I am extremely happy to have the opportunity to be involved with the diverse range of cultures they represent. Hate crimes and racial and religious vilification have absolutely no place in this great state of ours. This bill will target all public forms of racial and religious hatred. The intention is not to deny people freedom of speech or to stifle debate on issues of public importance, but to prohibit acts that undermine the social stability and cohesion of our multicultural community. The bill will also strengthen existing protections against racial and religious vilification, with provisions for both civil remedies and criminal sanctions. Most importantly, a number of safeguards will be put in place to strike a balance between an individual's right to freedom of speech and the right to live free from racial and religious vilification. This bill will prohibit activities which lead to the physical harm on a person or property and will tighten the provisions under the existing Anti-Discrimination Act against inciting racial hatred. Multiculturalism is about sharing and accepting other cultures. All cultures should have a right to coexist under a few basic, united beliefs and loyalties. The different cultures within a multicultural community should not conflict but rather enrich and complement the community as a whole. The composition of a nation and a state made up of different cultures can form a dynamic and cosmopolitan society. That is why this amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act is essential. The bill also aims to strike a balance between the individual's right to freedom of speech and the right for all Queenslanders to live free from racial and religious vilification. The right to freedom of speech is paramount in any democratic society. This bill will not restrict freedom of speech but will enable this government to deal severely with those who disregard the rights of others to live free from hatred. The bill contains a civil provision that makes it unlawful to publicly incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group on the grounds of race or religion. Mrs Reilly: That's not thinking about it; that's doing it. Mr BRISKEY: That is exactly right. We as a society must not let these fearmongers damage our communities. The Beattie Labor government has worked hard to eliminate discrimination of all kinds and will continue to do so. I am appalled at the amount of vile and disgusting information that is disseminated through the Internet and also through graffiti, brochures and books. Earlier this year, the Reverend Matt Hale, pontificus maximus of the World Church of the Creator—the WCOTC—was making headlines in Australia. It was reported that a branch of the WCOTC existed in Rockhampton. I visited its web site, and I can assure members that the site is extremely disturbing. I would like to quote just a small example of the filth that exists on this site— While we are just starting out on this webpage, please return every so often, to see the latest changes to the page. We intend to have information relating to the struggle here in Australia, posted regularly on this site. However, to begin with, I shall include a few quotes by our founder, Ben Klassen, from one of his most influential books, The White Man's Bible. That quote states— Racial Awareness: We not only want our children to get away from niggers, race-mixing and Jewish brain pollution, but we also want to instil in them race consciousness and pride of race from the time they are toddlers. Mrs Reilly: Shame! Hideous! Mr BRISKEY: Absolutely hideous. The web site continues— Potential Power of a United White Race: United and organised, the White Race is ten times more powerful and a thousand times more worth while than all the parasitic Jews, niggers and mud races in the world combined. We of the World Church of the Creator mean to unite, coalesce and organise that awesome power towards a constructive and meaningful purpose, for the benefit of the White Race, and the White Race alone. A government member: That's disgraceful. Mr BRISKEY: Absolutely disgraceful. This group needs to be told in no uncertain terms that they and their beliefs are not welcome in Rockhampton, Australia or, indeed, anywhere in the world. We should not allow in this or any other community an organisation that condemns someone for being of another race or religion. The Beattie Labor government does not believe that we should allow this or any other group to bring that language and bigotry into Queensland. All honourable members should take the first opportunity to reject what it and other similar groups stand for. We should send out a message that Queensland will not tolerate organisations like the World Church of the Creator. They have no role or place in this community and will not be accepted by a community that can stand up with great pride to the rest of the world and preach 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1271 tolerance and acceptance. And it seems that that is exactly what is occurring around the world. People are standing up and saying no to this kind of behaviour. In 1995, David Goldman created a web page called HateWatch, which focused on online hate groups. It evolved into one of the web's best-known civil rights resources. When HateWatch first began examining the issue of online hate, popular thought suggested that the Internet would provide an enormous boost to hate groups seeking to recruit new followers. From the beginning, these organisations' self-proclaimed desire to create a digital white revolution was carefully monitored and documented by civil rights organisations, HateWatch among them. The standard and often repeated quote was that the Internet is the greatest thing to happen to hate. Much to everyone's joy, it has in fact been one of the worst. It has been inspiring to see the hundreds upon hundreds of anti-hate sites and visit some of the many organisations, such as Erase the Hate USA Networks. This public affairs initiative is dedicated to combating hate and racism while promoting respect and understanding. In 1997, the United States Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution declaring 30 April to be designated as National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day. The resolution, which coincides with USA Networks' ongoing Erase the Hate public affairs platform, was sponsored by 55 senators and also called on the president to issue a proclamation calling on all citizens to make eliminating racism and hate crimes a national priority. In 1999, the Commonwealth government launched National Harmony Day, which is to be held on 21 March every year. Harmony Day aims at encouraging Australians to take a stand against racism, prejudice and intolerance. It also aims to build a peaceful and productive future for our children through example. It will strive to make the most of our racial, cultural, social and religious diversity and practise traditional Australian values of justice, equality, fairness and friendship. The tide is turning on hate propaganda and organisations, and today we as Queenslanders are joining that fight by supporting this bill. The Beattie Labor government is committed to ensuring that we as a state maintain the social fabric of this very tolerant and diverse community in which we live by not allowing it to be driven by the poison of racism and division. Surely we all want our children to grow up in an environment of acceptance, harmony and peace, an environment that is free of hatred. I am disappointed with the opposition's stance in not supporting this bill. Mrs Reilly: You were surprised? Mr BRISKEY: I was surprised. I know a lot of members of the National Party, and on this issue they do not think the same as the National Party members in this place. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BRISKEY: There are a number of wonderful members of the National Party in my electorate who do not agree with the member's statements in this place today. I was very disappointed when the member for Southern Downs said that the National Party will not be supporting the bill. In saying that, he went down a long way in my estimation. I think it is not so much about what they believe but, rather, it is about going further and further to the right politically. They are trying to win back those One Nation voters who have left the National Party in droves. It is very disappointing that National Party members are not supporting the bill. I do not understand how National Party members can claim to support multiculturalism and yet not support a bill that stops people making public statements to incite racial hatred against those from other nations. Mrs Reilly: Maybe they don't really think it. Mr BRISKEY: Maybe they do not. Over many years we have enacted laws to protect people from physical violence. This is enacting a law to protect people from verbal violence. Violence through words can be much more hurtful than many forms of physical violence. Mr Wilson: And long lasting. Mr BRISKEY: And most certainly long lasting. We have many ethnic groups in our society. There are now people from about 150 different countries living in Australia. I am heartened that every member of this House welcomes their presence here. I am heartened that the member for Caloundra is supporting this bill. I am sure that other members of the Liberal Party in this place will also support the bill. 1272 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Mrs Reilly: Both of them. Mr BRISKEY: The three of them! We want to live in peace and harmony. Diversity is strength, and I am sure that every member of this House agrees with that. This bill will make it unlawful to make any public statements that incite hatred. I am very proud to be able to support it. In opposing this bill, the National Party is sending a message to society that it is okay to make public statements that incite hatred, and I think that is disgusting. There is no other word for it. You cannot support multiculturalism on the one hand and on the other hand say that you accept people making public statements that incite hatred. The two principles do not gel. In proposing this legislation, the Queensland government is sending a very clear message that public statements inciting racial hatred are just not acceptable. Once this bill is passed by this parliament, with the support of the Liberal Party, the vast majority of people will support it. We live in a multicultural society, as we all know. I believe in it. It is one of our strengths. As I said, I am very pleased that the member for Caloundra supports this legislation. It is my hope that no-one is ever prosecuted under this legislation. I hope for a society that is free of racial hatred. This legislation is all about sending a message. I know that some people in the community will continue to publicly make statements of racial or religious hatred against others. It is my hope that we can rid our society of such behaviour. It is extremely important that we do. It gives me great pleasure to support this bill. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—Ind) (3.24 p.m.): Madam Deputy Speaker— Mr Purcell: Don't let us down. Mr HOPPER: I once had a horse like the member for Bulimba. It was not until I removed his entireties that he settled down. I mainly want to speak to the religious aspect of this bill. I will not speak for long. Some of my constituents—who, I might add, are very, very fine Christian people—came into my office and presented to me their views and asked me to express them in parliament. As we are aware, this country was and is built on strong Christian beliefs. We still open each sitting of parliament with prayer. I believe there is a strong belief in God across this nation. I feel that this bill will remove part of our right to free speech. It will present an opportunity for people to claim discrimination. Many of the religions practised within Australia preach as to how people should live their lives. A person may claim discrimination if they do not agree with the views expressed by a follower of a particular religion. One person's religious beliefs could be interpreted as hatred or severe ridicule of another person or group. Churches within this state are places of conviction, as I believe they should be. This bill has the potential to undermine the strength that is built within our churches—our family values, our concept of right and wrong. If the right to preach about one's religious beliefs is removed because of fear of claims of religious hatred or severe ridicule, it will lead to a breakdown in society. It will create a society in which right from wrong is no longer distinguished. Take, for instance, the Salvation Army and some other religious groups which preach their beliefs on street corners. Under this bill such practices may stop. These groups have practised their religion in this manner for over 100 years in this state, and we must protect their right to continue to do so in this House today. I ask: is the inside of a church considered a public place? I ask that question in light of the fact that the bill claims to respect privacy in that it targets only statements made in public. I support the provisions of this bill aimed at preventing racial discrimination. I believe that all people are equal. However, I will not support the provisions of the bill relating to religious discrimination. I believe it creates too many loopholes which could stifle the good work done by many of the churches in our state. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (3.27 p.m.): The richness and diversity of this country is due to the immigration policy of our forefathers. People from other nations have come to our shores for all sorts of reasons. After two world wars we saw the largest number of people come to this country. Some people were sent here in chains to serve jail terms. People ended up in this country for all sorts of reasons. It is the diversity of their cultures that makes this country what it is. No member of this chamber does not have roots in some other country. I know that to be the case because there are no Aboriginal members of this House. So we all come from somewhere 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1273 else. As my colleague says, everybody has some wog blood flowing in their veins somewhere. When I was young— Mrs Rose: You still are. Mr PURCELL: I thank the minister. It is very nice of her to say that. When I was living in country New South Wales, people such as myself were discriminated against because we were Irish Catholic. Mr Strong: There's nothing wrong with being Irish. Mr PURCELL: That is dead right, and most people in this House would also have some Irish ancestry. However, when it came to jobs, we were discriminated against because we were Irish Catholic. In those days, the employers of the town were not of the Catholic faith. There used to be a lot of antagonism between Catholics, Protestants, masons and so forth. Thank goodness all of that is behind us. A natural progression has occurred and the country has moved on. We have become more tolerant of one another. One can see what has happened in Ireland where the people have not moved on. People from Northern Ireland and southern Ireland come to this country and they live quite happily together without blowing up one another because of their religious beliefs. I have experienced a small measure of discrimination, and while some doors were closed to me I can assure the House that a lot of doors opened because of my ancestry. In a little country town like Cowra, the people who were on the bottom of the pile and who did it pretty tough where the Italians and Greeks. I was not born until after the war, but I have been told that the Italians and Greeks did it pretty tough at that time. They used to get their windows kicked in by people who probably had had a little more amber fluid than they should have while having a night on the town. There were a fair few soldiers in Cowra as the Japanese war camp was located there. The local shopkeepers, restaurateurs and so forth happened to be Italians and Greeks. That is all gone now. We do not discriminate against those people any more. The father of my favourite uncle, Uncle Doug Jackson, was very Italian. Uncle Doug's father was about three foot nothing. He was a very small Italian. Ms Liddy Clark: That's tall. Mr PURCELL: I apologise to the member for Clayfield. I did not mean to discriminate against her. Doug Jackson is only one generation removed from Italy, but one could not get a more Australian person. He is more Australian than the Australians. His sons, my cousins, were called wogs at school. You wouldn't call them wogs now; they'd beat you to death. They are big blokes like me. Those days are behind us. Some may say, "Bring it into this century", because I am probably showing my age a little. My sons mixed with El Salvadorians at St Peter and Paul's school in Bulimba. People in El Salvador were oppressed and killed for all sorts of reasons. We took people in as refugees and my children went to school with some of their children. It was great when my kids came home speaking Spanish. They were learning from the El Salvadorians, who are a very gentle people. I thank goodness that a lot of them have settled in and around my patch, because they bring a richness to my electorate. I have also got to know the Filipino community very well. Members who know people from the Philippines will know that they are a very gentle and loving people. I came to know a number of Filipinos through the building industry. They cop a fair bit of flak on building sites because of the very nature of Australians. One of my best mates, whom I will not name because he will kill me if I do— Mr Briskey: Go on, name him. Mr PURCELL: We gave him a nickname that was probably a little discriminatory, but he said, 'By God, I'm Aussie now, because I've got a nickname.' That made him a part of us. It was not meant to be derogatory to his nationality. It was meant to bring him closer to us and make him a part of our country and a part of what we are. I do not think any concrete would have been laid in this country without the Italian community. They are a very hardworking and honest people. We do not want to see them discriminated against. I am very disappointed with the stance that the opposition has taken on the bill. I listened to the concerns that the opposition leader raised. He should read Peter Beattie's second reading speech, which I will refer to. The Premier's second-reading speech makes it quite plain what the 1274 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 bill will do and what it will not do. The Premier stated that the bill makes unlawful any public statements that incite hatred towards people because of their nationality or religion, and serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person on the basis of race or religion. That is quite plain. That is what the legislation is about. The other thing that the opposition should remember—all 11 of them—is that this is an election promise that was made by the Premier. The Premier is honouring an election promise. If the people of Queensland did not want this, they would not have voted for the government in such large numbers. If opposition members do not want to marginalise themselves any more, they ought to get on with their lives and start letting others get on with theirs. In his second reading speech, the Premier also stated— The criminal sanctions will apply only to the new offence of serious racial or religious vilification. As the Premier said, this bill is not about stopping free speech. It will respect privacy and will only target statements made in public. For example, while racist jokes made in private may be distasteful and harmful to a multicultural society like ours—as Peter Beattie said, the government judges it inappropriate to prescribe private behaviour. For example, let us take Paddy's nights. Not being able to tell Irish jokes at Paddy's nights would take all the fun out of the night. The bill does not do that. I have seen the opposition leader at Paddy's nights, listening to the Catholic Archbishop, Archbishop Bathersby, tell Irish jokes. I have heard other bishops tell Irish jokes. Justice Spender tells Irish jokes. They are told in fun and they are not intended to vilify anybody. This bill is not about stopping the telling of jokes in private or at private functions. There will be exceptions under the bill. Obviously, members opposite do not understand what this bill is about. If the matter concerned involves the publication of a fair report, there will be no prosecution, just as there will not be in respect of publications that attract absolute privilege in defamation law, that is, matters covered by parliamentary privilege and the privilege attached to courts and inquiries. It will also not apply to acts done reasonably and in good faith. That covers a fair bit of territory. Sometimes I think we should be closing that loophole, but we are not doing so. People can say they are acting in good faith when in reality they are not, as we very well know. But there is also an exception where acts are done reasonably, and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific, research or other purposes in the public interest, specifically including public discussion and debate. I do not think this bill will cause the problems that the opposition perceives it will. However, none of these exclusions will apply to a criminal offence or serious racial or religious vilification, because the criminal provision requires that the incitement be done knowingly and recklessly. If someone sets out to cause a problem, they will wear the consequences. I turn to the rise of Hansonism, which started when the Liberal Party disendorsed that person from Ipswich who went on to make statements about race and Asian people and sought to gain political mileage by attacking people coming to this country as refugees. Kids at a school in my electorate were bashed because they were Asian. That was not pretty. We are talking about little kids who could barely lift a schoolbag full of books. Because they were Asian or looked Asian, they were getting bashed up by other kids. They were probably egged on by their parents. I do not blame the kids who bashed them, because children are a reflection of their parents. God help us if their parents ever get to have a say in anything. She played on people's fears and these were relayed to people's children, and they reacted to that. A mate of mine, the member for Mackay, handed me a piece of paper which states— Pat—Old Testament verse from the prophet Micah: 'Yahweh said, "All I want from you is to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly in the eyes of your God." ' I have not had anyone from the churches I attend or others coming to me raising concerns about this bill. I am sure anybody who is concerned about it would not have the mail right, would not have read the bill and definitely would not have read the Premier's second reading speech. Mr Wilson: Or read other rubbish that has been put out. Mr PURCELL: Those things are probably published by people who may want to make some mischief. They would not have read the text of the bill we are trying to pass today. I thank the member for Mackay for that quote, because I think it is apt. The second part of this bill—and I do not think anybody from the opposition spoke about this—will correct an abnormality in relation to work-related discrimination. Where a person works for an employer and does not work directly for that employer but undertakes subcontract work, 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1275 they can be discriminated against by the principal contractor or the principal employer, not through their direct employer who is the subcontractor. It is good to close that loophole. Anybody who would not want that closed would not want to look after workers. The workers that usually get discriminated against are those on the bottom rung. Not too many people on $100,000, $80,000, $70,000 or $60,000-plus get discriminated against, because they are usually able to look after themselves. I am not saying everybody can, but most of them do. This probably is of most concern to people on the bottom rung of the ladder who are poorly paid and who probably work on a casual basis for a subcontractor to some grub employer who imposes discriminatory conditions of employment and makes the subcontractor adhere to them. That is the sort of thing we want to stop, and rightly so. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.44 p.m.): I rise to speak to this bill and also to place on the record some of the concerns and comments that have been forwarded to my office with regard to the proposed legislation. In his second reading speech, the Premier stated— The bill will target not just hate-speech, but all forms of communication to the public, including writing, displays, signs, gestures and other conduct, and electronic communications. In the explanatory notes it was acknowledged that the bill contains new racial and religious vilification provisions which will limit the right to freedom of speech. It is my belief, and I am sure the belief of most honourable members, that legislation that is acknowledged to limit the right to freedom of speech is legislation about which we should take very careful counsel. Initially people started contacting me following the tabling of the Victorian legislation. I am sure I am not alone in that other members would have had contact from groups following the tabling of the Victorian legislation expressing their concerns about the possibility that the Victorian model would be adopted in Queensland. I forwarded the legislation as it was tabled to a number of groups and people who contacted my office about the Victorian legislation to seek their comments. The bill goes on to define a public act as any form of communication to the public, including by speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices, broadcasting, telecasting, screening or playing tapes or other recorded material or by electronic means, and any conduct that is observable by the public, including actions, gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems or insignia. Therefore, the public acts that this bill will cover are extensive. It does not make a great differentiation between the areas covered for religious vilification. Shortly, I will be commenting on some of the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which I know others have raised. It stated that a person must not by a public act incite hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons on the ground of the race or religion of the person or members of the group. Then it went on to say that the following things are not unlawful: a public act done reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes. But it does not exempt from this legislation a public act done reasonably and in good faith for religious purposes. There is a loophole exempting acts done for academic, artistic, scientific and research purposes providing they are done reasonably and in good faith. That is a legislative test that has been applied to a number of pieces of legislation. But a religious act done reasonably and in good faith is not covered in that list of exemptions. That has caused a deal of concern to people who have read the draft bill. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has expressed concern that the proposed extension to include religious vilification is an unwarranted inroad into the right to freedom of speech and possibly the right to freedom of religion. It goes on to cite an example from New South Wales, namely, a case where a Jewish family brought proceedings against a school alleging discrimination and vilification on the grounds of race. Those grounds arose out of the school conducting school prayers, marking Christmas by re-enacting the nativity, receiving a visit from Santa Claus and celebrating Easter. The committee goes on to say that it is concerned that there is no attempt to define 'religion' in the bill and that these court decisions illustrate the difficulties associated with the concept. It stated— Religion, unlike race, is usually a peculiarly private set of beliefs and values relating generally to a supreme order, conscientiously held, which are shared to a greater or lesser extent by others. The fact is that anti-discrimination legislation on the basis of race is very, very clear, it is easily interpreted and relatively easy to apply. Discrimination on the grounds of religion is harder to define. There is no attempt to try to compartmentalise situations where vilification on a religious basis is demonstrated in the bill. No examples are given. 1276 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

The committee went on to seek information from the Premier as to whether he is satisfied that the exemptions—the ones that I read out earlier—provide a sufficient counterbalance to the bill's limitations on free speech, particularly in relation to religious debate. I contend that, because no exemption is given to discussion or debate in a public venue on the basis of a genuine and fair attempt to express a point of view, therefore there is no exemption on the basis of religious belief. That is a basis upon which many people in the community have contacted my office and about which they have expressed concern. I would just like to read into the public record a small number of responses that I received at my office. This is from a Queenslander outside of my electorate. He states— Further to my earlier answer to your invitation, Christian Solidarity's April 2001 newsletter contains extracts from an interesting WEF report. We should assess where we are now on the scale below. '... a distinctive pattern of religious intolerance has been observed around the world, which often follows the following steps: 1. passive disinformation 2. active disinformation 3. passive discrimination 4. active discrimination 5. passive persecution 6. active persecution Christians are the focus of the report as at present they form by far the largest group of people world-wide who suffer directly because of their religious convictions.' The fact is that I cannot recall that any of the folk who wrote to my office with concerns about this legislation offered as a reason for their opposition any information that indicated that they were bigots or that they were against multiculturalism. In fact, quite the contrary was the case. Many of them came from an ethnic background, many of them had a diverse religious background—even to my own. However, they were concerned about the fact that any intention by the government, irrespective of what government it is, to impose on the freedoms that we as Australians have protected very carefully for a number of years would be an erosion that would have to be examined and adopted only after great care. They did not believe that there has been sufficient investigation, they do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for the constraints that are being proposed under this bill. I was forwarded this article. It is dated 1992, so it is a little bit dated. It relates to the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Bill that was introduced in May 1992. However, because an election was called the bill was not passed. The article states— At the present time the ALP proposes to re-introduce the Bill, whereas the Coalition are prepared to reconsider the Bill. Victorian electors have a chance to do something about the loss of their freedom of religion. Citizens should not allow politicians influenced by sectional interests to take their rights and liberties through force; ignorance; or inertia. By introducing this Bill, the ALP has revived the type of legislation which Protestants believed were gone for ever. The Bill is a staggering document once you digest its innocent sounding phrases and realise their full implication. It goes on to talk about the concerns of religious suppression in earlier centuries. It then states— It is a giant leap back in time. It threatens freedom of expression; freedom of association; freedom to write, publish, possess, and distribute literature; and the privacy of home and church. I acknowledge that it has already been said that actions taken in the privacy of the home are exempted under this bill. This person goes on to say— This Bill breaches religious freedom by involving the State in religious affairs and therefore breaches a fundamental principle hammered out on the anvil of history, a principle supported by great writers and thinkers on religious freedom: 'The Government must be scrupulously excluded from any interference in religion.' Some honourable members have interjected today and said that the interpretation of the bill is wrong. There have been those who have interjected on others and said that they are racist, that they are bigoted—and maybe that was not the word that was used. Mr Wilson: I haven't heard anything like that comment this afternoon. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Comments were made to the effect that people who would oppose this bill were racist. I have received correspondence from people whom I know are not racist, and they are very concerned about the content of the bill. I will quote from another letter. It states— Way back at the end of March you sent me a letter regarding amendments to the anti discrimination act. While, from my reading of the amendments and the Premier's speech, I doubt very much that it will preclude evangelism, I note that it is not referred to specifically. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1277

For my part I can not see how an honest presentation of the unique claims of Jesus could be said to incite 'hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group on the basis of race or religion.' None the less, the Christian faith does make an exclusive claim that salvation comes through Christ alone and that, because of sin, all need that salvation. To many faiths this may be offensive. While Christianity nominally remains the majority faith of Australians, I can not see this being a problem. However, in a few decades time there may be a problem if active church membership continues to decline as a percentage of the population, as it has since 1900. Has anything specific been said by the Premier or other relevant ministers about evangelism or proselytising in relation to this bill? I put that question on the table. That letter is from an Anglican church representative in my electorate whom I know personally. He is a very nice person who is not in any way against any nationality or church creed. He asks that question in a genuine attempt to be fair. As I said earlier, this bill has incited fear in a large number of people as they have heard about it or read it. Perhaps, as other members have said by way of interjection or through their speeches, people who fear the legislation do not understand it. But our intention in this chamber is to introduce legislation that preserves to the greatest extent the freedoms that people have in this country and engenders in them the greatest confidence that they can have in the clarity and easily understood measures in our legislation. The member for Darling Downs has rightly reflected the feelings of many folk. They are not bigots and they are not haters. There has been talk about this bill addressing those incidents such as the windows that are kicked in or, as in my electorate, those abominable stickers that were put up in the park. Unfortunately, those incidents will continue simply because the gutless wonders who do those sorts of things do them in the dark. I will conclude with one final quote. It states— There should be one law for everyone on vilification. Christians would be ill-advised to support legislation that could be used to prevent or inhibit Christian teaching, while leaving racists and the enemies of religion, who are artists or academics, exempt and free to vilify. It is not clear why Victoria needs an additional broad-brush bill on racial and religious vilification. There has been no recent upsurge of strife. What social evils have provoked this proposed legislation? Free speech is for us an ancient right. It is essential for a genuine democracy, and Christians need to be free to preach all of the gospel, including those messages some find offensive for example on forgiveness, social justice, marriage and sexuality, life issues. Political correctness cannot and should not be legislated. ... This model bill is well intentioned, but, as presently written, it will do more harm than good, inhibiting discussion and encouraging vexatious complainants. But there is scope for tight, clear legislation to curb the worst expressions of hate wherever they might be found including the entertainment industry. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the writer of those comments. It was George Pell, the Archbishop of the Catholic Church of Melbourne. I believe that many in our community who are not racists and who are not bigots are concerned about this legislation because of its lack of clarity in terms of its coverage in the area of religious freedom. I will not be supporting the bill. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (4 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill. As may have been the case in other electorates, I begin by acknowledging the fact that a number of people in my electorate have approached me and my office to express their support for this bill. Many of these people come from various local religious groups, whether they be Christian or Jewish. I also spoke with a number of multicultural groups, including Irish people, I am happy to say. Their main sentiment was the fact that racial issues in the electorate arose following the suggestive comments by Pauline Hanson and members of the One Nation Party. Constituents in the Indooroopilly electorate became particularly concerned when Mrs Hanson made these comments, because it became fairly apparent that her statements advocated that it was all right to belittle people on the basis of race, ethnicity, whether people were migrants, where they had come from, what they believed, whether they were religious or not religious, et cetera. In 1999 this issue came to a head in the suburb of Sherwood when a number of stickers—and I am certain they were similar to the stickers that the member for Gladstone found in her electorate—advocating all sorts of unpleasant things towards migrants, Asians and various other ethnic groups appeared. It is interesting to note that these messages, which were clearly messages of hate, were hidden behind another message. Other stickers appeared at the same time saying 'Jobs, not imports'. What upset me and many people in Sherwood, Graceville and various other places was the fact that a pure message of ethnic hate was wrapped up in what, for all intents and purposes, seemed to be some sort of 'Buy Australian' campaign, which was bizarre. It is atrocious that these people would hide behind the community's fears about unfettered globalisation. I am very proud that this Labor government is taking such a sensible 1278 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 approach to dealing with the realities of globalisation in the economic arena. We were very upset that these people were hiding behind community fears and sought to denigrate those who spoke differently, worshipped in a different place or who looked different. It is for those reasons that so many people in my electorate were so keen to support a bill of this kind. I will not repeat word for word what was printed on some of the more unpleasant posters and stickers, because I am one of those people who believes that the more these things are repeated the more credibility they gain. But I was moved to speak in support of this bill as a result. Rather than getting bogged down in the intricacies of what clauses 1, 2 or 3 of the bill mean, the most important aspect of this bill is that it makes a very clear statement that this kind of hatred, racism and vilification is absolutely and totally unacceptable in a multicultural society like the one in which we live. The bill also follows a number of recent incidents that other members have mentioned today in the debate. They spoke of vandalism of various offices of Aboriginal groups and also spoke of the defacing of a Brisbane synagogue. I am sure that is why members of the Brisbane Jewish community approached my office and urged me very strongly to support this bill. I want to make a few important points as they relate to my electorate. The first is that I am very proud that the bill deals with messages spread through the Internet. Many people have concerns that in the 21st century the Internet will become the new home for hatred. Because I represent an electorate where the vast majority of constituents have access to the Internet—the electorate is the home of a major university and many professional people who regularly email my office with messages, so I assume a large proportion of them have access to the Net—I am pleased to say that this bill addresses some of the concerns I have about messages of hate being spread on the Internet. However, it is disappointing that a number of One Nation members are not in the chamber. I know they are very concerned about the issue of globalisation. I am disappointed that they cannot be here to support a bill that works to limit the globalisation of hatred and the globalisation of vilification. It is disappointing for me that they are not in the chamber to support a bill that goes some way towards limiting the globalisation of hatred and fear. It is also important to mention that the bill includes issues relating to graffiti and posters, and again I am very happy about that. As someone who was born and grew up 15 miles on the southern side of the border in the Republic of Ireland, I am absolutely overjoyed that the bill includes a provision relating to religious vilification as well. As many honourable members would know, Ireland is a beautiful country which has beautiful lakes and rivers. It is probably the last unspoilt part of the western coast of Europe. The really sad thing is that some of the most beautiful parts of Ireland have been torn apart by what some might describe as a religious dispute and what others would describe as a dispute over issues of republicanism and what not. Whatever the case, to ensure that the sorts of issues that arose in Ireland 800 years ago—they were not addressed then but the people of Ireland are working towards a resolution today—are not repeated here, it is important that Queensland has a legislative framework to ensure that if any of those tensions ever arose in this state we could nip them in the bud to begin with. I was particularly unimpressed with the comments of the member for Southern Downs when the member for Bulimba was speaking passionately about his Irish heritage. All the member for Southern Downs could whinge about was the number of Irish people in the Queensland police force in the 1940s. My uncle was an Irish policeman in Ireland, not Australia. I have known many Irish policemen in Australia. They are very fine people. I find it absolutely and totally offensive that that would be of concern to anyone. However, as I say, I am overjoyed that this bill includes provisions to deal with religious vilification. There were a number of other issues raised by previous speakers in the debate which I want to raise, too. Two speakers referred to a number of statements made by the former Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell. As all members would know, Archbishop Pell, who is now in Sydney, is certainly a man of conviction and many would describe him as a shepherd of his people. The Archbishop's concern with a bill of this sort was his desire as a Christian and as a leader of Christians to be able—and I probably refer to the same article that other honourable members referred to—to preach the gospel. That was his concern. As a Christian, the Christian gospel is not a message of hate. It is not a message of vilification. It is not a message that seeks to turn one group of people against another group of people. The Christian gospel, as I am sure honourable members would be aware, is a message of love, truth, forgiveness and tolerance. I am absolutely flabbergasted that Christian groups feel that this bill will in any way limit their ability to preach and to worship their God in the way that they seek to. That to me seems absolutely and totally bizarre. Mrs Reilly: Because it is not endangered by this bill. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1279

Mr LEE: No, Christian groups are in no way endangered by this bill. If there is a group, whether it be a church or some other organisation, that preaches a message of hatred and vilification—whether they say they are Christian or not—based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender or whatever else, then quite frankly that group deserves to be prosecuted, because that is totally unacceptable in a tolerant and multicultural society such as we have. I know that people come to this debate with the best of intentions, but I find it really concerning that some Christian groups feel the way they do. Had Archbishop Pell read the Premier's speech when this bill was introduced he most definitely would have changed his mind. It is also worth noting that the Victorian Catholic Education Office strongly supported this bill and that in Queensland there has been not a pip—not a noise—out of the Catholic archbishop. If the only apparent opponent we can find to a fantastic bill of this nature is a Victorian religious leader—if we cannot find an opponent in Queensland who leads any sort of significant group of people—then the bill's opponents are really clutching at straws. In common with a lot of honourable members, I always have grave concerns when people suggest that any legislation would limit freedom of speech. I have no such concerns with this bill. Any legislation that does anything in some way limits personal freedom. We all know that. That is the nature of government. In the short term, personal freedom is always limited when a government legislates. When we decide to tax people, we take the money from people and they lose the freedom to actually spend that money themselves. But in return there is an increase in collective freedom. It is absolutely no good for one group of people to feel that they are 100 per cent free to vilify another group while the second group ends up feeling totally crushed and totally mistreated. We live in a society in which there has to be give and take. This is the sort of bill that works towards maximising the freedom of every member of our community. I commend this bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.13 p.m.): I was not listed to speak to the Anti- Discrimination Amendment Bill, but it is one I have been following with interest since it was first introduced into this parliament. Certainly I have followed the debate today, and it is the tone of that debate and some of the inferences of that debate that has urged me to put forward my point of view and the point of view of a lot of people I represent. We on the opposition side of the House have tried to make this debate a genuine analysis of what this bill will mean within our society. I am unbelievably disappointed that by simply rising to speak against this bill opposition members are labelled as being in some way anti-multicultural, racist or bigoted or as promoting racial vilification. The interjections that have come across the chamber and some of the things that have been said during this debate have carried the very clear implication that anyone who speaks against the bill is racist. Ms Barry: No-one has said that. Mr COPELAND: There is a very clear inference. I inferred that even from outside the chamber. The inference that whatever anyone else says is not an acceptable point of view and that it is not acceptable to put that point of view forward simply highlights the dangers inherent in this bill. The member for Cleveland detailed some of the very sickening things that are available on the Internet. I concur that they are sickening. Some of the stuff available on the Internet is horrible. All of us have had material sent to our electorate offices and have had access to that material and we have all seen the stickers and the posters. It is absolutely sickening, it is disgraceful and we should not in any way condone it—nor do we in any way condone it. Even though we do not condone it, we can quite rightfully still highlight the dangers in this bill and the dangers to freedom of speech, and we should not be ridiculed for highlighting those dangers. The member for Bulimba highlighted a number of things, including the second reading speech by the Premier, and set out what it is okay to do under this legislation. He said that jokes are okay. He said that Paddy's nights are okay. He said that all sorts of things would be okay, but therein lies another danger. That is, that is his interpretation of what is okay. To someone else, under the same legislation the same behaviour might not be okay at all. The shades of grey that exist within this legislation highlight the very problems that are inherent with it. What might be offensive to one person is not offensive to someone else. And who is going to determine the degree of offensiveness in whatever is said or posted? The member for Bulimba also highlighted an occasion within a school where some Asian kids were beaten up. Obviously that is horrible. It should not happen and we do not support that happening. If that behaviour is a quantifiable act, under the private member's bill introduced by 1280 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 the member for Southern Downs the perpetrators will be quite severely dealt with. But that is the difference. Here we are talking about a quantifiable act, not someone's interpretation of what another person might have said or done. There has to be a very clear distinction between those two things. The member for Bulimba also mentioned that the rise of Hansonism has been as a result of this. The rise of Hansonism is due in great part to the very restrictions on freedom of speech that people have had placed on them over the last 10 years. It is a response to political correctness, that people are not allowed to stand up and say what they believe without being ridiculed and howled down, as we have been today for doing exactly that. That is what has given rise to the phenomenon of Hansonism. The idea that this legislation will somehow combat that is unbelievable. In fact, it is in diametrical opposition to that. Introducing this legislation will simply serve to increase that phenomenon. There are significant freedom of speech concerns with this legislation. I know that a number of government members have said that this bill does not represent a restriction on freedom of speech and that the legislation does not intend to do that. I refer to some of the briefing notes that have been sent out. I am sure that all members have read the passage relating to the New South Wales Equal Opportunity Tribunal drafting its provisions. The notes state— In any event the right to free expression has never been an absolute or unequivocal right. Following on from that, it means that the provisions must in some way impinge on freedom of speech. I think that is in itself another very clear danger we should be looking at. The member for Gladstone made some very salient points during her speech. I have a great deal of respect for the member for Gladstone as a person. She is absolutely committed to doing the right thing, yet the member for Clayfield groaned and put her head in her hands while the member for Gladstone raised some very important points that had been raised with her by people in her electorate. The sort of ridicule that has been thrown around here is unbelievable. The hypocrisy of it is unbelievable. We in the opposition have the perfect democratic right to stand up and enunciate some of the concerns that we and our constituents have with the legislation—concerns for the very direction of our society. That we should be ridiculed when we try to enunciate those concerns highlights the dangers of giving to some amorphous group of people the right to say, 'Sorry, what you are saying is offensive but what you are saying is not.' That is where the dangers are. That we can be labelled as racist simply for highlighting these problems is incredibly dangerous and incredibly disappointing. I am absolutely committed to a multicultural society and the benefits that flow from that. I have no qualms about putting that on the public record, and I want to put it on the public record because members of the government have tried to imply that we are against it. We are not. We recognise the benefits gained by having people of all races in our society and country and for them to protect their cultural identity and to contribute to Australia's cultural identity. So let us take that out of the argument. I have said that, I agree with it completely, and I am absolutely dedicated to supporting it. I have no problem with that. Yet I will oppose this legislation. Mr Lee: Why? Mr COPELAND: I have just outlined why. If members of the government cannot listen to an alternative point of view, then they need to— Mr Welford: You haven't put an alternative point of view; all you've done is whinge about us. Mr COPELAND: The alternative point of view is that freedom of speech and the way in which anyone can be vilified for saying anything— Mrs Reilly interjected. Mr COPELAND: I believe that calling us racist incites hatred. I will leave it at that. That is the crux of the problem—that anyone can say anything about anyone and be penalised for it. Australian society has a very great strength in its freedom of speech, its egalitarian point of view and the equality that we all take for granted. People come to this country to find that. We have fought for it over the years, and we will continue to fight for it. We should not be slurred for putting forward our points of view and expressing our very real concerns about this legislation. We should not be called racist for simply opposing it. We should be commended because we have an alternative point of view, and it is our right to put forward that alternative point of view. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1281

Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (4.20 p.m.): I am proud to rise to support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001, which is before the parliament today. I am sorry that the bill is needed. Nonetheless, it is a good thing that we are doing, because it is a further step towards a more democratic, more socially just society and it builds on Queensland's very fine Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. Along with many others who have spoken in favour of this bill, I am also one who has had some past experiences that have led me to understand the need for this bill. I grew up more years ago than I wish were so in Wollongong, New South Wales, where—I have to confess to honourable members—I was a passive participant in what would be called today racial and religious vilification. Yes, it could be excused as, 'Well, that was just a pile of kids who did not know any better.' Yet it was not; it was more serious than that—having gained our attitude, surely, from our parents and the adults in the broader community of Wollongong at that time. I recall, for example, that there was a couple without children who lived at the end of our street—a dead-end street—and it was necessary for the woman in the family, the wife, to walk along our street right to the end to catch the public bus into town several times a week to do her shopping. As she passed, we were frequently playing in the street after school, and so many amongst us called her names. She was Japanese, married to an Australian man, and it was the fifties—not too many years, I suppose, after World War II, and to that extent the attitudes towards Japanese people may have been historically understandable. Nonetheless, for the seven or eight years that I lived in that street, nobody said a civil word to that woman. Nobody nodded in hello. Instead, she was jeered at and called names simply because she was Japanese. I went to a public primary school, and that public primary school was diagonally opposite a Catholic school. I am afraid that Catholics were not known by my friends in that neighbourhood as Catholics then; they were called tykes. It was fair game after school—particularly for the boys, I must say—to try to corner some of the tykes. There was a lot of religious name-calling, and some of that was reciprocated. Nonetheless, it became ritualistic and nasty. I recall well one particular afternoon when a little girl from that school was surrounded by three or four boys from my school. I can see still the look of fear and anxiety on her face—a look, I am sure, too, of incomprehension as to why she was being called these names. I come forward now to the wonderful city in which I live—Cairns—and I have to admit that there are some things that are less than perfect about people and their behaviour sometimes in the city of Cairns in the late 1990s and even in this year 2001. My office is on the ground floor of the building in which the offices of the Anti-Discrimination Commission are housed. Frequently, people who are looking for those offices stop in at my office to ask directions. I am, therefore, in a regular way confronted with numbers of people with very anxious looks—I must say embarrassment almost—who are going upstairs to that office to deal with some matter. I have been interested to follow the matters through the local office and have been horrified to find that in Cairns and far-north Queensland we receive a very much higher proportion of racially based complaints than do many other regions of Queensland. This seems to me illogical in that we have—of course, proudly—a higher percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our region than do other regions of Queensland. So to me, the logic should be such that we are therefore much more practised and much more familiar with the cultures of the indigenous people of Australia and, therefore, one would have hoped that there would be fewer complaints, particularly related to racial slurs upon our indigenous people in far-north Queensland. But unfortunately, the opposite is true and, unfortunately, the numbers of complaints have not been declining substantially over the past decade since the introduction of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Therefore, I have no doubt that there is need for this legislation. I remind honourable members that this is not about freedom of speech. This is about speech that incites hatred and violence and causes harm to others—psychological, social and even physical harm. That is not free speech. That is exactly as it says: speech that is aimed at harm. Mrs Reilly: And abusive speech. Ms BOYLE: It is abusive speech, indeed. I thank the honourable member for her words. I wish to quote from a journalist, David Pargetter, who wrote in The Age— We need to remember that the right to free speech does not include the right to vilify or encourage hatred of others based on their race or religion. That simply is what we are doing. When we returned to government, and after the Premier had introduced this legislation to parliament, I received two letters from constituents concerned that we would be in some way, through this legislation, limiting their religious freedoms. I have been 1282 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 pleased to be in a position to reassure them—and I believe satisfactorily so—that the scaremongering that had been put to them was, in fact, just that. I am pleased to tell honourable members that I have, over the years, attended church services in various Christian denominations—Catholic as well as others—and in religions not based in Christianity. Not one of the sermons that I have heard or one of the conversations that I have had in churches or in public places associated with religion would in any way be impeded or limited by this bill. The worship of a greater deity and the positive virtues—the values—of the Christian and other religions are still, of course, to be held in esteem and will not in any way be impaired by this legislation. Is the legislation necessary? There is no doubt. All of the readings of sociology, legal theory and social theory in terms of how a society changes harmful behaviours indicate that legislation is necessary. Public education is one step. But unless there are legislative teeth to insist on behavioural change, those on the extreme—those who have had the habits of racial vilification and religious vilification—will not change their behaviours. Therefore, I am sure that I join a clear majority of members in this honourable house by supporting this legislation. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (4.30 p.m.): Will those of us who oppose this bill because of our concerns about its poor and vague drafting, and thus its possible misuse, find ourselves called racist or intolerant of other religions? I have already heard members on the other side make those accusations. As someone who holds an Asian language major, I find those suggestions offensive and untrue. I have lived in Japan, and some of my closest friends have Japanese, Chinese and other multicultural backgrounds. Those expressions of moral outrage from Labor members only further highlight the core of my concern, which is how trigger-happy some people are in accusing others of religious and racial intolerance. This legislation applies not just to the worst offences; it potentially applies to far lesser grievances. It appears that some members have not read the legislation. It states— A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons on the ground of the race or religion of the person or members of the group. I note the words 'severe ridicule of'. Given the frequency with which people ridicule each other in this place, I imagine that some of our comments would easily be captured by this legislation if someone read into them a religious or racial content. What on earth is the government trying to legislate here? This is vague language. This legislation captures something far wider than inciting hatred through a public act—something that is more easily definable. What we see here—and the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has warned us about this—is a tool which goes far wider than the Premier stated in his intent prior to the election. If it were the case that this bill was only targeting the most serious type of racial hatred, where there is a definable criminal offence, why are there exemptions for actions taken for an artistic, scientific or research purpose? If there is nothing to fear, why are those exemptions included in the legislation? If this were a reasonable bill that did not have unintended consequences on those who will be captured by it, why has the government exempted these people and not others? That goes to the crux of the matter. This bill captures something far wider than the Premier's stated intent. I believe that no member of this place is, at heart, racially or religiously intolerant. What we do see, though, is a difference in approach in the way we believe these issues should be addressed. As I have already outlined, I find it offensive that those on the other side accuse us of being racially or religiously intolerant because we believe that this bill casts a wider net than the stated intent. The reality is that some people will take offence—and serious offence—to things which others do not realise impinge upon some tenet of their religious or racial background. It may be totally unintended. It is an offence to evangelise in some religions. In some countries not that far from here, people are sitting in jail because they have tried to evangelise another religious perspective. The reality is that some people find simply talking about other religions highly offensive. At what point does somebody construe it as severely ridiculing their faith by proposing another? This is the problem we have with the vagaries of language. People will apply this legislation far more widely than the Premier intends. For example, I have received a petition concerning the inhumane abuses against women in a particular country. In that country, those human rights violations—the beatings and the restrictions upon those women—are based upon religion. Yet in 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1283 the context of this legislation, some people would say it would be severely ridiculing that religion if I were to raise that issue and publish those facts. This is the concern I have. In some cases people will take offence at certain issues being placed on the public agenda. This legislation can potentially go far further than the Premier's intent of preventing racial and religious hatred. I once again draw the attention of government members to section 124A, because I think that this House has been misled by the statements of some members. It is clear that there are real and genuine concerns held by reasonable people in the community that they may be captured unintentionally by this bill when they are not racially or religiously intolerant. There is now this new tool to pursue them through the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There are too many members having conversations around the chamber. Members who are not listening to the debate should leave. Miss SIMPSON: I support the private member's bill that my colleague the member for Southern Downs has tabled in this place. With the government continuing to put its legislation ahead of private members' legislation, it is unfortunate that that bill has not come on for debate, because I believe it is a far more targeted and clearly defined bill which goes to the heart of those problems where there is an act of racial or religious violence that can be defined. My colleague's legislation provides for clear rules of evidence that can be attached to those actions so that they can be prosecuted through the appropriate channels. We recognise that some people engage in abhorrent activities, but there must be very clearly defined legal tools to address those issues rather than the vagueness of this legislation, which has the potential to impact on a wider range of activities than those which the Premier outlined in his speech. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (4.36 p.m.): At the outset, might I say that in relation particularly to my colleagues on the downs, the member for Cunningham and the member for Southern Downs, there is no intention on my part to refer to them in any disparaging manner or to imply that they are bigots or any other term to which they have taken offence today. I doubt very much whether there is anything, in a fair hearing of what has been said, that could be interpreted in any way, shape or form as being any reflection on them or any other member who has spoken in the debate today. I rise to strongly support the amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act. Any measures designed to strengthen opposition to the spread of racial and/or religious vilification in our society deserve our support; indeed, they deserve the unanimous support of this House. Vilification of this kind is inherently evil. For people in this age and in this state to be made to feel or otherwise experience fear for their person, intimidation, to suffer physically or mentally, to be isolated or to be shunned as a result of actions or words of a racially or religiously based attack is abhorrent. If there is any criticism of mine of the amendments, it is that the penalties set out—although being doubled from 35 to 70 and 170 to 350 penalty points respectively, depending on whether one is an individual or corporation—are too light. I believe that in order to bring the message home well and truly, more severe penalties should be imposed. I say this because I believe that grossly insulting behaviour, which this bill hopes to discourage, is the root cause of many of society's ills, particularly those which are demonstrated in increasing examples of antisocial behaviour, ranging from road rage to serious assaults. Our society has come a long way since when I was a child and the White Australia policy was just that—official Australian policy—and when deep religious divisions existed between our forebears, even though they came from the same part of the globe, the British Isles. Those divisions were so significant as to determine such fundamental experiences or directions in one's life as one's career or marriage. We thank God that the effects of sectarianism as were experienced in Australia do not now cause such evils. Nevertheless, we need to learn from those experiences of the past and do all in our power to ensure that the same circumstances do not again arise, albeit referring to different religions or races. Racism and bigotry should never be tolerated again. I urge the House today to put into effect the measures suggested, which are designed to ensure that Australians born in this century will know of religious and racial vilification from the reading of their history books, not from personal experience. To the future generations of multicultural Australians the concept of a fair go will mean what it should to us today, that is, at the very least it is the right to live free from the torment of the bigot and the bully. The bill does its best to put those sentiments into the statute books. Some have argued that there will be a loss of freedom of speech. The right of free speech has always been a right to be exercised within certain elements, that is, with responsibility. The law of defamation has been the 1284 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 most significant restriction on the unfettered exercise of that right. The point is that freedom of speech is a right and not a licence. In fact, the bill is restricted in its application. It applies only to public and not private acts. It contains exemptions, as have been referred to, with respect to fair reporting; absolute privilege, for example in court proceedings; and for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes. Those are quite wide exemptions. Finally, regard must be given to the fact that before this bill was framed and introduced, very wide consultation took place. The explanatory notes provide an impressive list of organisations concerned with civil liberties that were consulted. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House. Because of its significance, I urge unanimous support for it. Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR Mr M. Orkopoulos Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! Before I call the member for Ferny Grove, I ask members to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of Milton Orkopoulos, MP, Chair of the New South Wales Parliament's Public Bodies Review Committee. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (4.42 p.m.): It is my pleasure to speak on the Anti- Discrimination Amendment Bill this evening. I will confine my comments to the religious side of the proposed amendments. This legislation is a fulfilment of an election commitment given by the Beattie Labor government before the last election. As my colleague has just acknowledged, the legislation is a product of wide-ranging consultation within the community and among particular stakeholders and interest groups, including the Anti-Discrimination Commission. It is an endeavour to address some of the concerns that they have raised. Like other members who have spoken today, I have consulted with a range of people within my electorate. I approached people and asked for their opinion. Other people approached me, seeking some understanding of what was proposed in the legislation. In one particular case, the director of YWAM, Youth With a Mission, approached me. YWAM is an international organisation and its Queensland headquarters are located on Samford Road, Mitchelton, on the border of the electorates of Everton and Ferny Grove. The young man was most anxious because he had received a 10 page email from a group called the Venturers, which is an international Christian youth organisation. The content of the email was directed towards the Victorian legislation that was being mooted at the time. He asked why we were doing the same thing in Queensland. I had a look at the email. In terms of the remoteness of its observations and the concerns it was expressing about the perceived problem that the group had, it could have come from any fringe political organisation on the far right or the far left. In addition, with no basis in fact the email imputed all sorts of evil motives to those moving the legislation in Victoria and, by inference, those moving the legislation in Queensland. I waded through the 10 pages to try to find the substance of the concerns. To cut a long story short, that opened up a whole series of conversations that I had with people locally about our legislation. Not everyone with whom I spoke was comforted by or felt confident with the interpretation that I put on the legislation, but I must say that most have been. In my view, the principal section of the amendment bill identifies something that no person, whether they profess a Christian faith or any other faith, could have any objection to. It actually prohibits the incitement of hatred or the serious contempt for or severe ridicule of others with a different faith or belief system. Frankly, I find it astonishing that there are people in this House who find it difficult to come to terms with legislation that is attempting to create a regime that deals with people who offend through their behaviour by inciting hatred towards those of a different religion. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1285

The fact is that this legislation is a mediation vehicle. It is a reconciliation vehicle. Section 124A is grafted onto the Anti-Discrimination Act, which has operated in Queensland since 1991, whereby certain enumerated conduct in certain identified areas of community life is prohibited on the grounds of discrimination. On the back of that legislation, which has been working effectively in this state since 1991, we have added an additional clause. That clause prohibits the incitement of hatred, et cetera, towards those of a different religious or faith outlook. I will come to the exemptions in a moment. In the event that someone wanted to pursue a grievance under that section, they do not go to the criminal courts or the magistrates court, they lodge a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. That complaint is processed in exactly the same way as any other complaint under the 10 year old anti-discrimination legislation. The objective is to reach reconciliation through mediation between parties who have a disagreement in the community. Only in exceptional circumstances, in the event of a failure to mediate a reconciled outcome, does the matter go to the tribunal for adjudication in the conventional adversarial context. I will come back to the rest of the anti-discrimination legislation in a moment. I turn to the exemptions that are listed in proposed new section 124A. The member for Gladstone and others made reference to the exemption proposed in proposed subsection 2(c), referring to public acts done reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes, et cetera. She expressed the view that there is a reasonable anxiety that there is no reference to religious beliefs within that exemption. Therefore, people are entitled to believe that the bona fide expression of religious beliefs are actually prohibited or run the risk of being prohibited by the principal clause in the amendment. However, one needs to read the exemption further, because it goes on to state 'for other purposes in the public interest, including public discussion or debate about, and expositions of, any act or matter'. That clearly contemplates the traditional/conventional activities of the Christian churches in Australia—of proselytising and evangelising in the public domain, whether it be within the traditional church setting or by the delivering of tracts or leaflets to people's letterboxes or by standing, as that gentleman does, in King George Square and expounding a view about the state of the world with reference to one's view of the Bible and its precepts. It would include people doorknocking, as one of the pastors of the Baptist Church does in my area and who came to see me about the bill. Those activities are in no way impinged upon by this legislation. Even if someone had doubt as to whether those activities could be described as inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule—and I do not think anyone could—they have only to read the latter part of the exemption to see that they are activities that fairly fall under other purposes for public interest, discussion or debate or the exposition of any matter. What is the Christian faith if it is not about the exposition of a view about the religious or spiritual nature of the world in which we live? I see no difficulty with that. If someone lodges a complaint that truly lacks substance with the Anti-Discrimination Commission, the mediation process is really not necessary. Under section 139 the Anti- Discrimination Commissioner must reject any frivolous or vexatious complaints or any misconceived complaints or any that lack substance. Under section 140 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, the commissioner may reject or stay any complaints if the proceedings are elsewhere. If a vexatious litigant has commenced proceedings in another jurisdiction so as to intimidate those conducting traditional Christian practices or practices within other faith traditions in this country, the commissioner is able to stay any proceedings commenced in the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Section 141 provides that the commissioner must decide within 28 days of receiving a complaint whether to accept it or reject it. There are safeguards there that have been operating for 10 years in relation to other complaints concerning anti-discrimination law breaches. What is so special about the perceived difficulty with discrimination so described regarding religious behaviour that it cannot benefit equally from these procedures? And that brings me to another point. In her contribution the member for Gladstone said that it was very difficult to identify discrimination on religious grounds. She said that it was very hard to determine. But she fell into the trap of using lay language to describe what is in fact provided for under this bill. The bill in its language prohibits the incitement of hatred. The word 'discrimination' itself is not used. What is not so hard, I would have thought, to determine is whether or not someone is in fact inciting hatred, ridicule or contempt on the basis of a person's religious beliefs or faith. It is not discrimination that is actually prohibited. It is far narrower than that. It is actually the incitement of hatred. 1286 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Lest it be thought that Mr Horan had a strong point when he stated that this legislation is trying to prohibit what people think, I point out that the act of inciting hatred is in fact just that. It is an act that goes well beyond simply possessing a point of view that differs from someone else's point of view. It is a proactive course of conduct embarked upon by someone to generate an attitude not just of ill feeling or ill will but hatred, ridicule and contempt in the minds of others towards certain others who have a particular religious belief. The other observation I wish to make is that section 126 will be amended, as I understand it, by a substitute clause—131, I think. I make the observation—although it might technically be out of order—that the offence, as distinct from the prohibition of 126A, under the new amendment to come on is directed towards a person who knowingly and recklessly incites hatred and so on in a way that includes physical harm to someone else or to property. In those circumstances that is a criminal offence subject to prosecution by the DPP or the Attorney-General. That is quite a different procedure to the anti-discrimination procedure, which is directed towards mediation and reconciliation. Those are the basic observations that I wish to make about this bill, which I think is a good one. Whilst it is being said by some members opposite that this legislation has the potential to undermine the church, families, the right to preach and to know right from wrong and to speak on street corners as do members of the Salvation Army, there have been no practical illustrations put forward in this debate today that sustain those observations. Some people might think that those difficulties will arise, but when examined we see that this legislation does not prohibit that type of conduct. As I discovered, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, all of the people who came to speak to me had very little idea of what was proposed in this legislation. Secondly, they had never actually seen the legislation. I do not say that critically. It is just a fact. When it was explained to them, they in large measure were comfortable with the outcome. Nonetheless, some were remaining cautious, as people are entitled to do, just as we ought to be cautious in considering any amendments or the making of any laws. In my view, this is very good legislation. It is the fulfilment of an election commitment given before the last election. Dare it be thought, there are actually people on the Labor side of politics who either understand the Christian faith reasonably well or are adherents to it and who find it a convenient, practical and worthwhile piece of legislation to ensure religious tolerance in this country. The conservatives in this House do not have a mortgage on the Christian faith. There happen to be Christians on this side of the House as well. It is certainly my view, and I would think that of my colleagues, that if the Christian faith cannot be expounded in the absence of inciting hatred, severe ridicule or serious contempt, those seeking to propound that faith need to have a very hard look at themselves. I commend the legislation to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (5 p.m.): The Mount Ommaney electorate has a broad cross-section of ethnic communities and cultures. An ever-increasing number of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants are settling into the western suburbs, but these are only two of the ethic groups within the electorate. There are quite a number of Indian, German, Taiwanese, Spanish, Israeli, Sri Lankan, Dutch, Malaysian, South African, Bangladeshi, Scandinavian, Egyptian, New Zealander and British immigrants living in the area. These people have intermingled with indigenous and Australian-born residents to make our suburbs rich in diversity and character. These immigrants have brought with them cultures that are family oriented. They are caring, loyal, courteous and hard working. Most took out Australian citizenship after they had lived here for a while. They regard themselves as Australian and do not like to be singled out and made a fuss of. They do not consider themselves to be superior to Queensland-born Australians and neither should we think ourselves superior to them. However, as in any society, there are a few who do believe they are superior human beings. Racial and religious vilification and hatred are their stock in trade. It need not be demonstrated by killings, extreme violence or destroying someone's property; vilification and hatred can be shown through racist remarks, intolerance of another religions and culture, or through publicly defacing property with racially prejudiced graffiti. The bill before the House amends the current act to include civil and wider criminal sanctions against denigration of those who are racially different from persons of Anglo-Saxon heritage. My friends in the various ethnic communities have been looking forward to these amendments, and some would say that the amendments do not go far enough. However, at the moment I believe that the balance between free speech and acceptable behaviour is about right. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1287

This bill will send a clear and unambiguous message to those uncivilised thugs. The message is that they are not welcome in our suburbs. Persisting with this type of unacceptable behaviour may well cost them their freedom. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.02 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to this historic legislation. Indeed it is historic legislation because this is acknowledging what Queensland is, that is, a multicultural state. Australia is a multicultural community, Queensland is a multicultural community, and this legislation acknowledges that and protects basic decency. Those who fear this legislation have nothing to fear. This is about protecting what is great about Australia. This is about protecting Australianism and protecting our multiculturalism. It is with a great deal of honour that I have the opportunity, in conjunction with the Attorney- General, to be pursuing this legislation in the House today. The Attorney-General does have an amendment which he will move at the appropriate time during the committee stage. This reflects the committee system of this House. That amendment which the Attorney-General has drafted has my full support. Let's look at the issue of why we should have vilification laws. As I said, this is about promoting a Queensland society that is tolerant and socially harmonious, and that is important for our growth, our wellbeing and our health. It allows people to practise their religious beliefs without fear of extreme action, violence or statements. It is to build on the successful Queensland anti- discrimination laws which are now 10 years old. This legislation also honours the commitment that I gave to multicultural groups across this state. I promised that this would be the first piece of legislation that we introduced, and it was. I promised that it would be passed as quickly as possible. That is why it needs to be passed through the parliament this week. There has been some debate here about freedom of speech and whether it will be burdened in some way. This legislation does not prevent free speech or, as the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest, free thoughts. Heaven forbid if I ever forbade the free thoughts of the Leader of the Opposition—if only he had one! This will not prevent him thinking up whatever grand schemes or thoughts he may want to come up with, and I encourage him to strive harder to have that thought. Let's be serious and move on to the issue of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has never been an absolute right in law. The freedom of speech is recognised in law, but it has never been an absolute right. Freedom of speech is, and always should be, balanced against the other rights of the community, otherwise why have defamation laws? If we had no limitations on the freedom of speech, then any one of us or anyone in the community could go out and say whatever they liked. They could be criminally negligent and commit criminal defamation. You name it; we could say what we liked about anyone. We cannot do that because we have to respect the rights of other people. That is why freedom of speech has always been balanced. Both the civil and criminal provisions in this bill are subject to a range of balances, such as the balance I referred to in terms of the freedom of speech. That is why it is so important. I acknowledge the support of Joan Sheldon, the member for Caloundra, who is supporting the bill. She shares my view that this bill does not limit freedom of speech. I thank Mrs Sheldon for her support. Let's look at how this legislation applies. There have to be three tests. Firstly, the conduct has to be public, secondly, it has to incite and, thirdly, the grounds of race or religion have to be covered. Those are three criteria. So private acts are not covered. People can say what they like in private. If people want to sit at home and make racist remarks privately, that is entirely a matter for them. I would not condone that in my home, but if people want to sit and make racist remarks privately, this legislation does not outlaw it and they are not caught. So if they want to have racist thoughts, to go back to the Leader of the Opposition's comments, they are not covered by this legislation. People can have racist thoughts and they can act privately. It applies only to public statements or public acts. A range of free speech defences apply to protect legitimate public discussion and debate. That is set out in the legislation. I do not intend to go through it. Some people argued that those defences are too broad, in fact. I think we have the right balance, and I think that is important. The bill talks about a high threshold. It is a very high threshold. It talks about hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. So it needs to be a public act. It needs to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. In other words, mere dislike is not hatred. Mere dislike is not enough. 1288 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Ordinary contempt is not serious contempt. Light-hearted ridicule is not severe ridicule. Typical Irish jokes do not constitute severe ridicule, for example. I think we have to put this whole thing in context. This is balanced. It is not about bringing in the thought police. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the thought police. That is just alarmist nonsense. One of the National Party members said that she took exception to someone referring to her as a racist. I did not hear the exchange so I do not know what that was all about. If that was said about her—and I do not know whether it was or not—it is just as offensive to suggest that the thought police are somehow going to exist or be covered by this legislation. Realistically, if we are going to have sensible, constructive debate in this parliament, I think it is important that leaders, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, actually deal with what is in the legislation rather than making it up and then trying to embellish it to somehow attract support among some people who may be concerned—a concern brought about by misrepresentation in the legislation. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, 'Come on! Let's have the debate about the reality of what is in the legislation, not what you make up, not what you pretend, not what you misrepresent. Let's have a debate about what the clauses in the bill actually say. Let's have a real debate about the law, not some fictional nonsense.' On behalf of the government, the Attorney-General wrote a very detailed letter in response to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which I thought was appropriate. I thought the Attorney- General included a very appropriate clause, which I will read. He said— The Solicitor-General's advice has been obtained on this issue. He advised that, in his opinion, neither section 124A nor 126 of the Bill was incompatible with the implied freedom of communication in political matters under the Commonwealth Constitution. It was his view that, even if they could be said to burden the freedom of communication, the High Court would uphold the validity of both provisions. I think that paragraph deals with some issues that have been raised during the debate. The member for Southern Downs talked about criminalisation of threats. He says that it is inappropriate. He made reference to criminalisation of threats in some way. The fact is that the criminalisation of threats is not uncommon. If honourable members look at section 75 of the Criminal Code, they will see that it talks about threatening violence. Section 308 of the Criminal Code talks about threat to murder in a document. Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914—the Commonwealth act—talks about menacing or harassing using a telecommunication service. The member for Southern Downs seemed to suggest that there was something new or original about the criminalisation of threats, but there is not. Mr Springborg: It's a different test, Premier; it's subjective, not objective. Mr BEATTIE: No, if the honourable member looks at it, he will see that all those examples I have given him relate to criminalisation of threats. I will repeat them again. Threatening violence is an offence. Threatening to murder in a document is an offence. Menacing or harassing using a telecommunication service are all threats. Mr Springborg: What about stalking? Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, stalking is a threat and is exactly the same. Reference was made during the debate to legislation in Victoria. Some of the opposition to this legislation is based on what is in the Victorian bill. This is not the Victorian bill. This is a different bill; it is the Queensland bill. I turn again to freedom of information and how it is impacted on, and I come back to the comments of the member for Southern Downs. This bill is all about protecting freedom of religion. All Queenslanders should feel free to practise their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution, persecution or violence. I certainly do and I know that most people in this House do. I have received letters from individuals and religious groups expressing some concern that freedom of religion would be impinged on. I have taken these concerns seriously, but I am confident that the concerns expressed have been taken into consideration when drafting the bill. The religious groups themselves need not be concerned. I stress that, because I know there has been some correspondence and it has been based on, in my view, what is in the Victorian legislation and not what is contained in our legislation. In terms of the definition of religion, it is worth noting that no jurisdiction in Australia has a definition of religion enshrined in legislation. As in other Australian jurisdictions, the current Anti- Discrimination Act 1991 already outlaws discrimination on racial or religious grounds. In this sense, Queensland's move to outlaw religious vilification could be said to be a natural move following 10 years of religious anti-discrimination laws, particularly considering the laws are said to lack teeth. Despite no prosecutions, there have been a number of matters conciliated under the existing 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1289 act—and conciliation is what it is all about, of course—and the lack of definition in it is said to have created no difficulties whatsoever in the application of the act in this area in Queensland or elsewhere. Those who want to see a definition of religion I think miss the point. In terms of religious activities, let us look at examples of vilification. A religious statement is only vilification if it incites hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or group and if such statement is on the grounds of a person's race or religion. All the following examples would be lawful under the bill, and I want to go through them. In relation to Christian groups preaching that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, such a statement would not incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule on the grounds of race or religion. I might have personal views about that and so may other people in this House, but that is not covered by the legislation. Let me be really clear about that. In terms of other issues such as the Salvation Army preaching on street corners, that is fine. I am a great supporter of the Salvation Army; its activities are not impacted upon by the bill. That is certainly not going to incite hatred, contempt or ridicule. Also, the free speech defence applies. The Salvation Army preaching on the corner is hardly going to create any difficulties and is not covered by this legislation. Doorknocking evangelists are not going to incite hatred, contempt or ridicule. It is also not a public act as defined under the bill. Statements such as 'Our religion is the only true way to God' clearly do not incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. Religious people can say that. There is not a problem with that. Many religions claim that. That is one of the great problems with Christianity: if only we could all agree. The fact is that many religions will claim that, and there is nothing in this legislation that prevents that claim. In terms of religious education in schools, where there is no incitement of hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule free speech will apply. So religious education in schools is not going to be affected by this. This bill promotes religious tolerance and social harmony. It only affects extremism—statements or actions. I would have thought that this parliament would have been opposed to extremism. It is interesting that the Leader of the National Party is out there supporting extremism. I would have thought that that is an extraordinary circumstance. I heard what he said. Let me make it clear: there is a difference between us. I do not support extremism; I support moderation. I support the good old traditional conservative view of moderation. I do not support this new conservative line by the Leader of the National Party to support extremism. I will not have a bar of any of that. Only statements that go further advocating the destruction of the adherence to other religions or beliefs could well amount to vilification. This is about protecting religion. It is not about doing it in. This is about protecting people's right to religious freedom and to practise their religion. I would think that when the churches actually read this legislation every one of the churches will know that this government has actually protected their religious rights. That is what this is about. It is about protecting their religious rights from extremism. I say this to all the leaders of all the churches: this is about protecting religious freedom from extremism. That is what it does. That is why this legislation should be welcomed and supported by all churches. I mentioned earlier the fact that there is no definition of religion in the bill. I think I have covered that as far as need be. Religious vilification is illegal in Tasmania, and I will not go into that too much. I believe that the response that the Attorney made to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee covered very well the issue as to why there is no definition of religion in the bill. The Attorney's letter states— No Australian jurisdiction has attempted to prescribe in anti-discrimination legislation what constitutes a 'religion'. To do so would, in my view— that is, Rod Welford's view as the Attorney— raise a real danger of legislating criteria which are in themselves discriminatory. For example, a definition which is too narrow may inappropriately exclude legitimate groups and a definition which is too broad may facilitate abuse and fraudulent claims. Some reference has been made to the fact that I had said this legislation was closely modelled on the New South Wales legislation. It is. This bill is closely modelled on the New South Wales legislation. It is very similar in terms of how it will work, that is, its effectiveness to limit vilification in our communities. The only difference is that in New South Wales it deals with racial vilification; Queensland's legislation refers to racial and religious vilification. The reason for that is to avoid New South Wales type disputes and litigation about whether Jewish vilification is in fact racial. The Queensland legislation will put that beyond doubt. This will 1290 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 protect the Jewish community. Let me tell the House that I have a great deal of respect for the Jewish community. I stand by its protection in this legislation. New South Wales does not even have religious discrimination laws, so it would therefore be surprising if New South Wales introduced religious vilification laws. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, and therefore we think our legislation is appropriate. The member for Southern Downs raised the question as to why racial vilification defences are not as broad as defamation defences. Defamation law protects reputation; anti-vilification law protects human rights. That is the difference. The member for Southern Downs claimed that this puts multiculturalism on a pedestal. It does not. It puts all races or religions, majority or minority, on a level playing field. It does acknowledge the importance of multiculturalism, but it means they are all on a moderate, sensible level playing field. A number of other matters were raised during the debate. I am endeavouring to respond to every member who raised issues. Fiona Simpson—what is her seat? Mr Reeves: Maroochydore. Mr BEATTIE: The member for Maroochydore claimed that the bill is poorly drafted and will capture a wider range of activities than is being claimed by the government. The member also asked why there is a need to have exemptions if there is nothing to fear. The answer is this: why have exemptions in defamation law? Any person making fair and reasonable comment has nothing to fear. The exemptions merely provide an extra level of assurance. The member for Maroochydore also indicated that the bill has an unintended breadth and took offence at comments that she was racist, and I have already dealt with that. The answer is that a person cannot make a complaint under this bill just because they take offence. The statement must incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule in other people, and I have been through the three elements of the bill already. Again, the points that the member for Maroochydore made reference to were simply untrue and, quite frankly, a lot of nonsense. The member for Gladstone suggested including religious purposes as a defence in the public interest and so on. Any reasoned good faith statement is already covered by the existing exemptions for public interest purposes. To take up the suggestion would or could invite abuse of the proposed exemption. It is contradictory and, in other words, not necessary. If the member looks at the exemptions she will see that they cover academic, artistic, scientific, research or other purposes in the public interest, including public debate, discussion or exposition. I say to the member for Gladstone that that is a very broad list of public interest exemptions. I have already spelt out the private exemptions that exist. The government recognises and appreciates the good work of religious education teachers, Sunday school teachers, Salvation Army workers and so on. None of them are affected by this. I say it again: no actions of these people will be captured by this legislation. I say it again for the benefit of the Hansard record—and put it in twice please—no actions of these people will be captured by this legislation. End of story. There should be no fear and people should not be concerned about it. I think someone raised the issue of consultation. I did not hear all of the debate because I was in a meeting. Was there any great reference to consultation? There was not? Well, I will not bore the House with a response. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We did have appropriate consultation. There was detailed consultation. I remind members that the initial bill was introduced five months ago. Therefore, there should be no concern. A range of technical issues has been raised through the debate and some of those will be considered during the committee stage. I have, as is consistent with my policy, in consultation with the Attorney-General, gone through and responded in detail to every issue that has been raised—any issue of merit that warrants a response. I think it is absolutely essential, though, that when we deal with this legislation, particularly this historic anti-vilification legislation, we deal with it on the basis of what is in the bill and not what is in some people's minds. That is very important. I say to the member for Southern Downs—while we have differences, I know that he has a genuine interest in this area—that if he goes through what I have spelt out in terms of interpretation based on legal advice and based on what we have done, the concerns that he and others have raised have no validity. I know that he has raised concerns with the best of intentions, but I want to be very clear: the concerns he has raised do not have validity in relation to this legislation. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1291

As I said at the beginning, this legislation protects people. It protects people's basic rights and basic freedom. No religious or church group in this state should be concerned. More to the point, they should be applauding. For the first time we are protecting their right to religious freedom from extremists. That has never existed before. It has been an assumed right. We are now protecting it. I happen to believe that we are all enriched by sharing in the benefits of the very complex and diverse multicultural community in which we live. The basic ingredient of that is that we have to respect the rights of others—their right to religious worship and their right to live in harmonious and safe conditions in a society in which there will be growth. Out of that healthy growth of stimulation from the various avenues that exist we will become a better society. The truth is that Australia is very fortunate because we are one of the most multicultural nations on earth. A richness and a diversity exists here that does not exist in many places in the world. That richness and that diversity gives us an opportunity to develop; to value add in our industries; to enrich ourselves from an educational point of view, from a science point of view and from a Smart State point of view; and to take our true place in the world. We need to use that. As the Minister for Trade I regularly go overseas. The Minister for State Development has in his department people such as those I now refer to. I regularly go overseas with Australians who speak other languages and have foreign heritage. For example, I have just come back from a trade delegation to Vietnam on which we had a Vietnamese-born Australian advising us on trade matters. It was the same thing in every one of the countries that we visited. Indeed, we were in Egypt recently selling beef. I have acknowledged the key role of Mike Ahern, a former National Party Premier, who has been assisting in this. The deputy head of the Australian Embassy in Cairo is an Australian of Egyptian birth. His ancestors came from Egypt. He speaks Arabic. He is absolutely superb. He is an Australian helping us to sell beef to Egypt. I have to say: he is an excellent representative for this nation. He works for the Australian Embassy; he does not work for the Queensland government. I saw the same thing on trade delegations to Malaysia and Singapore. This is what gives us an advantage—it culturally enriches us—but we have to protect people's basic rights. People are entitled to go about their day-to-day business knowing that they are not going to be vilified and that they are not going to have their quality of life destroyed by those who want to get in the gutter. In conclusion I say again: this is a moderate piece of legislation. Yes, it is historic, but it is about protecting people's basic rights. I thank those who have supported the bill. I understand that the Liberal Party is supporting the bill. I thank the Liberal Party for that support, because these are basic principles. This is about basic rights. This is about a genuine libertarian society in which people respect other people's right to have a particular view. People can grow and be nurtured in that community. I commend the legislation to the House. Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 66—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bell, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Sheldon, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Watson, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 16—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lingard, Malone, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative.

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 (5.32 p.m.): I indicated in my contribution to the second reading debate that there were aspects of the bill that the opposition supports. However, because it was wrapped up as a bundle, we could not support the second reading of the bill. I just want to indicate that we do support clause 3, which broadens the current application of the act in Queensland to include 1292 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 ships which were otherwise not included prior to the passage of this legislation through parliament. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr SPRINGBORG (5.33 p.m.): The opposition will not be dividing the Committee on this clause because I believe that I stated our position during the second reading debate. However, a number of issues arose during the course of that debate which I believe require some degree of clarification and response, and this is the appropriate clause in which to do that—and perhaps clause 8, as well. One thing that I have been particularly concerned about today is that, when talking in a spirit of compassion about ensuring there was no vilification of others, there was an unbelievable amount of vilification of some opposition members for having views that are contrary to those held by government members. During my contribution, I endeavoured to point out some very real reasons—they were not churlishly made points—for our concerns about this legislation. Whereas I acknowledge that government members and the other members who supported this legislation were motivated by a basic good, I felt that it was not necessarily the right way to go about the issue at hand and that it may in fact raise many other issues. The definition of 'public act' and trying to define some of these matters is one of those very real reasons. I find it personally offensive that a number of members indicated—and I recollect that the member for Cleveland was one of those members—that we were basically supporting or in some way being complicit with regard to racial or religious vilification because we would not support the legislation before the parliament. I represent an electorate that contains 1,200 Italian-born Australians and many other Australians of overseas descent, including Belgians, Yugoslavs and a range of other people. I work with them on many occasions, and I understand their concerns. So for members to come into this parliament and basically say that, because we are opposed to something, we oppose the multicultural nature of this nation is absolutely wrong. It is diabolically wrong. They claimed that we are seeking to rewrite history and seeking to— Mr BRISKEY: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is referring to me. I did not say that. That is untrue, and I ask that it be withdrawn. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mickel): Order! There is no point of order. Mr SPRINGBORG: I did make a reference earlier to something the member said in his speech. If he finds it offensive and does not have a recollection of saying that, I therefore withdraw that comment. But I know what was said during the course of the afternoon in this chamber. The implication from some members that the opposition was complicit in the encouragement of racial and religious vilification by not supporting this legislation is wrong and offensive. It is easy for members to come in here and carry on. But the worst sort of political correctness is for members to seek to vilify somebody in this parliament because they have a view that is different from that of other members. The member for Cunningham pointed out that the sort of thing that causes people to rebel is what we saw from government members today: the churlish, snide little remarks from some members who were hiding their heads in their hands—and that is up to them—and going 'tch, tch'. Legitimate issues were raised in here, but some members might not necessarily agree with them. Much of what the Premier said in his reply was valid, because the normal actions of churches will not be affected by this. The point I tried to make earlier related to the definitions of what may be racial or religious vilification outside the norm. That was my real concern and was the nub of our argument. It was not only the opposition that had those concerns. Those concerns were originally raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee—a bipartisan committee. We can argue about whether or not the government has effectively addressed those concerns, but we know that only time will be the effective judge of that. The Attorney-General reckons that he has addressed those issues. Maybe he has. I have some reservations and some very serious doubts about that. The honourable member for Indooroopilly indicated that he was offended because I made some remark about the very high rate of Irish Catholics in the Police Service in Queensland. I simply did that because a couple of members raised very legitimate concerns about how they had been discriminated against because of their Irish Catholic backgrounds. That happened around Queensland, and there is no doubt about that. It is an abhorrent act of discrimination. The Anti- 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1293

Discrimination Act in Queensland covers that. But we are dealing with a different issue. All I said was that, in the forties, fifties and some of the sixties in Queensland, that was basically a prerequisite to get a job in some parts of the Public Service and the Queensland Police Service. There was active discrimination in favour of certain people. That is all I am saying. These issues work both ways. Fortunately, in our society we were able to find the right level for people to sort that out. Those sorts of things should not happen, but they did happen in our history. Hopefully we can put them well and truly behind us. Reference is made in this legislation to 'public act'. The explanatory notes refer to graffiti. Honourable members might not be aware of this, but there was no offence relating to graffiti until 1997, when the new Queensland Criminal Code was created. So many of the issues that have been raised in relation to that have already been dealt with. A maximum five-year prison term is laid down in law for those people who deface with graffiti. If the graffiti carries offensive or other depictions and it is in a public place, those responsible for it can go to jail for up to seven years. So that issue has been addressed. The Premier spoke a moment ago about churches and other bodies being able to say that homosexuality is an abomination. But what the Premier did not say is that although this legislation seeks to create civil remedies for, and a criminal offence of, racial and religious vilification, it does not seek to do that with regard to a person's gender or sexual preference. I think we saw a bit of dishonesty on the part of the Premier in relation to that. The Premier also raised the issue of other cases where we seek to interpret people's thoughts or what people have actually said. One of my major and very strong points in the second reading debate was that there are two tests that we deal with when we are talking about these things. One is subjective and one is objective. If we are dealing with an objective test, as there is in defamation law, we can work some of these things out. When things are not defined quite as well, it becomes subjective, and that is where it is up to the interpretation of the person who is hearing the matter, the person who is prosecuting or pursuing the matter. That is one of the main concerns that we raise. The Premier talked about a number of the issues where people's thoughts or what they are saying may already be limited. A year or two ago, when this matter came to the fore, I challenged the then Attorney-General to state why the existing law which seeks to govern and prevent racial and religious vilification in Queensland was not working and how many prosecutions or actions had been brought under it. At that stage the answer was: none. There may have been one or two under it since then. There has been some conciliation. I do not think there has been a genuine attempt to apply what existed previously to get any real gauge of how effective it was. There are other remedies in the law—for example, sedition or stalking—that can address some of these issues. Sure, they are not racial or religious specific, but they apply to people who are pestering and inciting others. Criminal defamation still exists in some way or other, and there are a range of other applications in law. I think that what we have is something that tends to suit the government for a particular reason—and that is fair enough—being raised in all of these justifications for it, which may not necessarily be the right justification at the end of the day. I ask the Attorney-General to try to provide a definition of what a public act may be. I note that he has nodded off. It is sort of like a lullaby, isn't it? I wish I could be far more exciting and get him going a bit more. Mr Welford: I wish you could, too. Mr SPRINGBORG: The feeling is very, very mutual, I can assure him. Before the Attorney- General nodded off—and he has been sitting through some interesting things—I was asking him to try to provide us with a definition of an act that may have been done in public. We have heard some loose definitions. People can tell jokes at home, and that is fine. But what about in a meeting with three or four people? Is that a public act? If somebody is walking down the road and speaking to two or three people and something is said that somebody going past thinks is offensive, is that a public act, even though it was meant to be a conversation between a couple of people? That is all I am asking: what is the definition of a public act? The other point is that things that people feel are offensive relate not only to white against black or other colours but also to black against white. There is a whole range of things that will have to be adjudicated in this. Mr WELFORD: The definition of 'public act' as set out in clause 5 clearly is designed to capture public behaviour that is done in a public place. It is not intended to catch people debating something at a dinner table or in private circumstances; it is an act which is clearly designed to be 1294 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 perceived by the public at large—making statements or presenting banners or posters that are clearly out in the public realm. One has to be careful not to draw too much from that, because it is only public acts of a very specific and narrow kind that are captured by the legislation. So one should not try to read too much into the definition to suggest that legitimate public debate cannot occur. But 'public act' is what it says. It is a public act which includes communication to the public at large, including any of those forms that are mentioned. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is one of the concerns that has been raised with me by people at large: what is considered to be a private act as against a public act? Sometimes people might say something in a public venue that is meant to be heard by only one or two people with them but is heard by others. The concern is: what happens if somebody finds that statement offensive? I think that these are some of the issues that will come to the fore as we see this legislation go through its very early stages. It underlines once again the issue that I raised earlier and reiterated during my speech in the second reading debate, that is, the interpretation of the legislation and ensuring that it is applied according to its true intent and not in an overzealous way by people who want to take it much further. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, the opposition will be very, very clearly watching that issue in the future. I think the Attorney-General will appreciate that point. Mr WELFORD: I think it is fair enough to say that all of us will be monitoring the way in which the legislation operates in the months ahead. But I think it should be remembered that the public acts affected by the legislation are outlined in the subsequent clauses, 8 and 9, and those public acts are ones that create very serious vilification or hatred towards people solely on the grounds of their race or religion. The courts will not deal with trivial complaints, and neither will the commission. In relation to the civil provision in clause 8, those are matters which allow someone to take a complaint to the commission. The commission will not entertain a complaint in circumstances where there is not a public incitement of hatred or serious contempt for people or a group of people on the grounds of their race or religion. So it has to be a pretty serious set of circumstances to trigger the operation of the legislation, either in terms of the civil process of a complaint to the commission for conciliation or even more so in the case of an offence under clause 9. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr SPRINGBORG (5.47 p.m.): I rise briefly to indicate that this was a clause in the bill with which the opposition did not have a problem. We felt that it very clearly addressed the types of discrimination that are currently occurring in the workplace with regard to principal contractors and people who work for contractors. We are broadly supportive of this clause. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 and 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr WELFORD (5.48 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1 standing in my name. 1 Clause 9— At page 7, lines 16 to 29 and page 8, lines 1 to 15— omit, insert— '9 Omission of ch 5, pt 2 'Chapter 5, part 2— omit. '9A Insertion of new ch 5A 'After section 131— insert— 'CHAPTER 5A—SERIOUS RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION '131A Offence of serious racial or religious vilification '(1) A person must not, by a public act, knowingly or recklessly incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race or religion of the person or members of the group in a way that includes— (a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons; or (b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons. 30 May 2001 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 1295

Maximum penalty— (a) for an individual—70 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment; (b) for a corporation—350 penalty units. '(2) A Crown Law Officer's written consent must be obtained before a proceeding is started by complaint under the Justices Act 1886 in relation to an offence under subsection (1). '(3) An offence under subsection (1) is not an offence for section 155(2) or 226.1 '(4) In this section— "Crown Law Officer" means the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions.'.'. 1 Section 155 (Investigation of complaints) or 226 (Proceedings for offences) Mr SPRINGBORG: Quite clearly, this amendment was moved in response to the concerns of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I acknowledge that and commend the Attorney-General for it. However, as I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, it does not change the opposition's overall concern with this bill. Basically, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee indicated that there was a real concern about the ability of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to prosecute these matters in a criminal context. There was a feeling that maybe there needed to be a higher step, such as exists in New South Wales where the Attorney-General is required to give consent prior to a matter proceeding. I understand that under this legislation the prosecutors or the Attorney-General will be required to assent before it goes to the next stage. Whilst I am on my feet, I will ask the Attorney-General about serious racial and religious vilification. For one reason or another, all other Australian states have stepped away from the creation of an offence of religious vilification. The Premier outlined some of the history of that today. He indicated that Tasmania actually did have an offence of religious vilification. Does the minister have any information on how they define religious vilification? Earlier I raised a concern that one of the real problems that we have about religious vilification is defining what a religion actually is. It can be witchcraft or a whole range of things that people feel some spiritual connection to. Has the Tasmanian government sought to formulate a definition, if I am correct that the Premier indicated that they did have legislation that sought to create an offence of religious vilification? Mr WELFORD: Firstly in relation to the matter of the consent requirement, the reason for the amendment that I have moved is that, although there are a number of offences in the Anti- Discrimination Act that the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner technically can bring herself, it is increasingly the case that the role of the commission is one of conciliation. It has a very effective conciliation process and the commission does a very good job in helping resolve issues that arise from complaints. The strength of the commission lies in that role. Where there is a legitimate complaint of such a magnitude and seriousness that a criminal offence is involved, I think the proper process is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be the prosecuting authority. In that respect, I concur with the view of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which noted that the consent of the Attorney-General or the DPP was required for such a prosecution in other states. The practical effect that I intend by moving this amendment is that, in practice, the DPP will conduct any prosecution for criminal offences. The civil provision that contains the exemptions allows for the commission to conciliate a complaint. As part of that conciliation, it may contemplate compensation or other such matters. In relation to the definition of religion, with all due respect to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, I think that this is a bit of a red herring. Discrimination on the grounds of religion has been a part of the Anti-Discrimination Act now for quite some time. It never really comes down to the question of how one defines a religion. In this case, the issue will be predominantly whether someone is engaging in conduct designed to incite hatred or threaten violence against a group of people because of their religious beliefs, in the same way as other existing provisions of the act make it offensive for someone to be discriminated against for their religious beliefs. It will be a matter for objective assessment on a case-by-case basis as to whether those are genuinely held religious beliefs or whether someone is perhaps hiding behind fake religious beliefs in order to make a complaint. I think those things are readily addressed on their merits as each case arises. In the case of a criminal offence, it is not a subjective test as has been suggested a number of times, even by the member. It is in fact an objective test which is one that the court, in those circumstances, would determine. Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. 1296 Daylight Saving 30 May 2001

Clauses 10 and 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

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

DAYLIGHT SAVING Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.57 p.m.): I move— That the Queensland government commission an independent report to assess the social and economic consequences for all Queenslanders of a proposal to establish daylight saving in south-east Queensland and that this report be presented to state parliament before the end of the year. In moving this motion, it is important to understand that this is not a debate about whether or not one agrees with daylight saving. I know that we each have our own opinion on daylight saving. This motion is about putting in place an independent investigation that will provide a report on the effects of a daylight saving zone in south-east Queensland whilst the rest of Queensland operates on eastern standard time. This motion comes as a direct consequence of an earlier report into the daylight saving issue. The Daylight Saving Task Force, which reported in 1990, made a number of recommendations following a trial of daylight saving in Queensland in 1989-1990. In its report, the task force made a number of recommendations. Firstly, it recommended that a zone be introduced into the south-east corner of Queensland. It also recommended that that trial zone proceed for two years. It recommended a referendum on the issue and then it recommended that the issue be referred to the Premier's conference and a unit set up to monitor the progress of the trial. Of these recommendations from the report only the recommendation for a referendum has gone forward, and that occurred in 1992. Tonight's motion says, 'Let's go back to the report presented in 1990 and take out the recommendation for a zone in the south-east corner, look at that as if it had been put in place and work out what the social and economic benefits and disadvantages would have been if in fact a zone had been in place for a number of years.' That is the history behind what we are trying to do tonight. We are trying to look at the issue from a benefit-disadvantage perspective and work out whether we should proceed to the next step. Out of the report presented in 1990 we had the referendum, as most people know. The referendum made it quite plain that the majority of Queenslanders did not want daylight saving. However, the results of the referendum are instructive. Although the majority of people—I think it was about 54 per cent—said 'No', when we look at it on an electorate by electorate analysis we see that the majority of electorates said 'Yes'. In fact, 57 per cent of the electorates voted in favour of the question being asked. Some 42 per cent said 'No'—38 of the electorates. The overwhelming majority of people in those 38 electorates were not in favour of daylight saving. That, of course, leaves the issue of the majority of electorates in Queensland—those in the south-east corner. If we undertake an electorate by electorate analysis, we see that the overwhelming majority of people were in favour of daylight saving. If we start from the border and work our way north, we come to Currumbin first. This morning the member for that electorate said that she was in favour of daylight saving, and with good reason. More than 12,000 people in Currumbin voted for daylight saving as compared with 5,000 who voted against it. A majority of over two to one was in favour of daylight saving. Working our way up the coast, the next electorate we come to is Burleigh, where the result was over two to one. And in Merrimac, my electorate at the time, there was an almost three to one result in favour of daylight saving. In Nerang it was more than two to one. In Southport it was two to one. In Surfers Paradise it was almost three to one. In Albert it was two to one. All of the seats in Brisbane were in favour of daylight saving. It is no wonder this issue will not go away. It is constantly being raised by the business community, particularly the tourism industry, where it is still an issue. Consequently, we are determined to keep it on the agenda. It has to be resolved. It is interesting to note the government's attitude to this. The Premier has been involved in the debate for a number of years. In September last year the Premier is on the record as saying 30 May 2001 Daylight Saving 1297 that the daylight saving issue is not on the agenda. That was even before the last election campaign. At the tourism task force awards, where he was voted man of the year, the Premier said that daylight saving was not on the agenda in the run-up to the election campaign and that the only way to solve the dilemma in Queensland was to introduce a zonal system. The Premier understands that there is a problem but will not move to address it. He says that it is not on the agenda. That was before the election. Since the election, we have heard the same response, that it is not on the agenda for another three years. I would bet my last dollar that after the next election his answer will be that it is not on the agenda. This issue is not going to be resolved by the Labor Party. Sadly, it does not want to make the tough decision and work out a reasonable solution. More importantly, let us look at what the ALP members on the Gold Coast have said. Following the state election, all of the new Gold Coast ALP members were in favour of daylight saving and they said so quite plainly, only to be put back in their boxes by the Premier when he said that it is not on the agenda. How can those members on the Gold Coast adequately represent their electorates when they do not want any part of daylight saving now that the Premier has put his foot down on them? What we have is a government that is not prepared to discuss the real issues. That is a real issue of concern not just in my electorate but right across the Gold Coast, the north coast and in Brisbane. The Premier can keep dodging the issue and pretending that it is not there, but that is not the approach of a responsible government. This is a real issue that has to be addressed. The Premier cannot keep saying no. What we are proposing tonight is a reasonable way forward. In other words, we will put in place an independent assessment to report back to the parliament before Christmas, when we will see what the pros and cons of the issue are and whether it is feasible to have a zonal system in south-east Queensland and what problems would arise if it came into being. This would allow the public to debate the issue intelligently with the full facts on the table. What we see now are people going from their own perspective without a full knowledge of what the issues are. We really need to ask business what its views are, how it sees jobs being affected by the present situation and what the result would be if we moved to a zonal system for the south-east corner. We would have to address questions such as: would it lead to more jobs, how would it affect interactions with businesses in southern states, what would it mean for lifestyles and so on. A whole range of issues needs to be evaluated so a competent decision can be made. A report could come back to the House and it could make a decision if it wishes to take it further. Simply to close our eyes and pretend that this is not an issue will not resolve the situation. It will come back again. What we are proposing tonight is an intelligent and carefully considered way forward. We can ask for the report, get it, have a look at it and then proceed. As I said, not to do that simply sweeps it under the table. It will not go away. As much as the Premier would like it not to be, this is going to be on the agenda. He cannot simply say that it is not on the agenda and that it will not happen. People will keep asking for it and we will keep raising it. In conclusion, as I have said before, this is the way forward. It is not a debate about whether or not we approve of daylight saving, it is an interim measure to investigate its feasibility. It has arisen out of the first report. It is the way forward. I commend it to the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Caloundra, I inform members that I have given permission to the Courier-Mail photographer to obtain still file photographs of members. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (6.07 p.m.): I rise to second the motion that the Queensland government commission an independent report to assess the social and economic consequences for all Queenslanders of a proposal to establish daylight saving in south-east Queensland. I cannot see what the Labor Party's concern is about this or indeed that of any other honourable members. We are not suggesting that we implement daylight saving; we are proposing an independent report for south-east Queensland. The Premier might say that he has a mandate from the people not to pursue daylight saving, but it was not an issue at the last election. The Premier might say that because he was elected he has a mandate for anything and this was just not an issue, that it was not on the agenda, that other issues decided the state election and that daylight saving certainly was not part of it. To back up what we are asking for, we need to look at districts that did vote 'Yes', which numbered 51, as compared to districts which voted 'No', which numbered 38. So 57.3 per cent of districts voted for it. I will briefly read out the electorates that voted for it, most of them 1298 Daylight Saving 30 May 2001 overwhelmingly: Albert, Archerfield, Ashgrove, Aspley, Brisbane Central, Broadwater, Bulimba, Bundamba, Burleigh, Caloundra, Capalaba, Chatsworth, Chermside, Clayfield, Cleveland, Currumbin, Everton, Ferny Grove, Greenslopes, Inala, Indooroopilly, Ipswich, Ipswich West, Kallangur, Kedron, Kurwongbah, Logan, Lytton, Mansfield, Maroochydore, Merrimac, Moggill, Mooloolah, Mount Coot-tha, Mount Gravatt, Mount Ommaney, Murrumba, Nerang, Noosa, Nudgee, Redcliffe, Redlands, Sandgate, South Brisbane, Southport, Springwood, Sunnybank, Surfers Paradise, Waterford, Woodridge and Yeronga. That shows clearly how all those electorates in south-east Queensland voted. They were the names of the electorates at that time. Some of those names have changed. It really showed that all of those electorates in south-east Queensland voted for it. The government is essentially saying that those people have to be ignored. I was leader when this referendum took place and I travelled the state extensively. It is fair to say that people in the north and the west did not want it, and for very justifiable reasons. The whole demography of the state changes: daylight in Cairns is very different from daylight in Brisbane; daylight in Cunnamulla or Charleville is very different from daylight on the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast. This referendum was held and in many ways it took away the rights of people in south-east Queensland because it was held across the whole state. I can understand those people in those areas not supporting it, and I would fully endorse them not supporting it. They have a right and they have very justifiable reasons to not support it. However, the people in south-east Queensland did support it overwhelmingly. So they should be considered. This independent report would look at doing just that. I therefore cannot see why people are concerned. If it came out that daylight saving in south-east Queensland was a viable option, and for very good reasons, then it would need to go to a referendum of those people. No- one is suggesting that it be plonked on them and they will be told, 'This is what you will have.' It is a fair and democratic thing that we are suggesting that the government should do. I am amazed that they have not done it, because they have put their Gold Coast members, Sunshine Coast members and Brisbane members in a very difficult position. They have said, 'You can't represent the interests of your constituents. You just have to represent the interests of the government.' If anything became very clear at the last election it was that people wanted their interests represented. They did not want big party representation. They did not even want government representation. I think that is one reason why we now have six Independents in this House. The fact of the matter is that anyone who was concerned about listening to viable and real discussion has some problems. We have to ask them: what are you running away from and what is your concern? The result of the task force survey that Mike Ahern put in place when he was Premier showed that the Brisbane and Moreton regions were strongly in favour of daylight saving, which is what comes out in the summary of that referendum, and that other regions were strongly against daylight saving, and that is very right. That task force report showed that, in the main, business was in favour of daylight saving—and this applied to both large and small business enterprises. Business cited factors of communication— Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.12 p.m.): I rise obviously to oppose the motion. I believe that Queensland should be one entity. I believe that we should put Queensland first and we should think of all Queenslanders, not just some Queenslanders. Let me make it clear from the start that daylight saving is not on my government's agenda. Do honourable members know why? Because I gave a promise! A promise is a promise is a promise, and we keep our word. It is that simple. I made a promise during the election campaign that it would not be on the agenda, and it is not. I have delivered on my election promises and I am not about to change that. I have to say that it is a matter of honour, and I do not intend to change that view. Between 29 October 1989 and 4 March 1990 a report was compiled on the trial of daylight saving. Jo-Ann Miller, the member for Bundamba, was in fact very instrumental in preparing that report, and she will have a bit more to say about it in a minute. This report covered things like business hours, communication, leisure, tourism, gardening, interstate relativity, the climate—all sorts of issues. It was an independent assessment. It was done by people such as Hugh Cornish and Theresa Cobb from the Isolated Children's Parents Association and had representations from the Queensland Farmers Federation, the Queensland Council of Agriculture, the Trades and 30 May 2001 Daylight Saving 1299

Labour Council, the Queensland Confederation of Industry and the state Chamber of Commerce. The report on daylight saving, which the Leader of the Liberal Party is seeking, has already been done. I do not believe we should waste taxpayers' money. I would rather see taxpayers' money go into education, schools and assessments of things that matter to people. Let me also point out that Labor won seven seats on the Gold Coast on a policy of not introducing daylight saving. I was asked this question during the election campaign. I made it clear that I would not support daylight saving during this term. I said it was not on the agenda. Everybody knew that because the Gold Coast Bulletin and other media outlets on the Gold Coast made this an issue by asking me what the government's position was, and I spelt it out. Everybody knew it. It was transparent and open. In other words, on the Gold Coast there was a massive swing to a party that said categorically it would not be introducing daylight saving. As I said, I see no point in wasting taxpayers' money on a study which will not produce any results and which has already been done. Yes, I met with the Gold Coast members today. Yes, they have a view on this issue, but they also know that this was an election issue and they were elected on the policies and programs that I put forward. Therefore, everyone was clear on it. Merri Rose stated her position—and that represents the views of the members of the Gold Coast—in the House this morning. Her view is very clear, but she also respects the will of the people. It would be the height of arrogance if a government moved away from the mandate it received, and this is not an arrogant government. Let us examine people's attitude to daylight saving. In the 1992 referendum Queenslanders said 'No' to daylight saving. Daylight saving is quite rightly and understandably an extremely divisive issue. Even in my electorate of Brisbane Central, where we are all sitting right now, the split was almost fifty-fifty. In the heart of Brisbane there was an almost fifty-fifty split. Even in the middle of the capital city, the state's business centre, fewer than six out of every 10 wanted daylight saving. Let us look at the Sunshine Coast, because that is where the seconder of the motion is from. In Maroochydore, the Sunshine Coast capital in some people's mind, the 'Yes' vote was 50.49 per cent and 49.506 per cent voted 'No'—a difference of fewer than one person in 100. In Liberal Caloundra the voting was only just in favour, 53 per cent for and 46 per cent against. And the former Leader of the Liberal Party said she campaigned for it! You could say that it was just borderline in her own electorate. In Nicklin more than six out of every 10 do not want daylight saving. The vote was 62 per cent 'No' and only 38 per cent 'Yes'. Only on the Gold Coast itself was there a strong vote for daylight saving, and I respect those views and I respect them very strongly. I make this point, because in these things there is never enough time: if we were to introduce daylight saving for the south-east corner alone we would cut Brisbane off from Rockhampton. We would cut Brisbane off from— Mr Terry Sullivan: Townsville. Mr BEATTIE:—Townsville, from Toowoomba. We would turn one Queenslander against another— Mr Johnson: Western Queensland. Mr BEATTIE:—and western Queensland; I agree. Instead of having the division at the border, we would cut one Queenslander off from another. All that would do would move the problem further north and the state would be divided. That is why I have concerns about it. We should move Queensland south to about Newcastle and get New South Wales to follow Queensland time. Time expired. Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (6.17 p.m.): I rise to speak against the motion that was moved by the member for Robina, and I do so for this very particular reason. As Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities, I travel around the state quite a bit. In my dealings with people who live in rural and regional Queensland, who make up the larger percentage of Queensland, they tell me that no matter where I go daylight saving would be a pretty bad thing for them, especially when we consider that their working lives basically run from dawn until dusk. That is the way the people who live in rural Queensland operate—from dawn until dusk. They do not operate by the clock. Mr Johnson: Some operate all night. 1300 Daylight Saving 30 May 2001

Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. There are people out there trying to get the rest of the grains harvested, and they work day and night. That is correct. The reason I say that is that daylight saving will cause major disruptions to the lives of people in rural and regional Queensland. In 1991 I did not support daylight saving in this House and I also will not support daylight saving in this House this year. Quite simply, the referendum put to the people of Queensland in 1992 asked the question: are you in favour of daylight saving? It was a simple question: are you in favour of daylight saving? The majority of people in Queensland said that they were not in favour of daylight saving. This government is a government for all of Queensland. That is why this government has respected that decision and, as the Premier has said, this matter will not be on the agenda for our government in this term. Again as the Premier said, we put all Queenslanders first. This government made that commitment at the election and the people responded accordingly. This government is committed to governing for all of Queensland and does not support the motion moved by the member for Robina. Recent surveys have shown that, on the whole, Australians spend about 90 minutes per day eating. While they eat for that 90 minutes, they may think about primary producers. Daylight saving will destroy the lifestyles of those producers who grow that wonderful food which the people in the cities enjoy. The last thing this government wants to see happen is the lifestyles of our primary producers being disrupted as they go about their business of producing the wonderful food that we all enjoy. Daylight saving affects families in different ways. For the overwhelming majority of people outside the south-east corner, the impact is negative. Daylight saving is a lifestyle issue, and for primary producers their life is their work. Their place of business is their farm and their farm is their home. Just this afternoon I rang Gordon Harding, the owner of Corones Hotel in Charleville. I said, 'How will daylight saving affect you, Gordon?' He said, 'I get up every morning at six o'clock to prepare the breakfasts of about 50 businesspeople and tourists who have breakfast at 6.30. If daylight saving was introduced, it would completely disrupt my lifestyle. It would completely disrupt the lifestyles of the tourists and also the businesspeople who work throughout western Queensland.' He is not in favour of daylight saving. Why doesn't the member for Robina raise issues in a debate such as this which are far more important than daylight saving—issues such as the goods and services tax and the business activity statement? Has the member opposite spoken to Ian Macfarlane, the Liberal member for Groom? Has he asked him what he thinks about daylight saving? Has he asked Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, whether he thinks daylight saving is a good idea? Has he asked Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert, whether he thinks daylight saving is a good idea? I do not think the member has thought these things through. This motion is not a motion for all of Queensland. This motion is a motion for the member's electorate; it is not a motion for Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom; Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt; or Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert. Time expired. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.22 p.m.): Many members of this House are aware that in previous years I was a Queensland public servant proudly serving the government. I provided support in a number of areas within the government. Notably, in August 1989 one issue on which I was called upon to provide support was the issue of daylight saving. I can clearly remember the circumstances surrounding daylight saving. At the time the Liberal Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, started a campaign to have daylight saving introduced throughout the state. It went on for months and months, with typical Liberal whingeing and carping at the government of the day. Day in and day out the Liberal Lord Mayor peppered the print and television media with stories about the benefits of daylight saving. In August that year cabinet approved that daylight saving be introduced in Queensland, that a bill be introduced to provide for the introduction of daylight saving during the period from 29 October 1989 until 4 March 1990, that a task force be established to monitor the trial, that the task force operate under clear terms of reference and that a general ruling be sought in the state Industrial Commission for the introduction of the trial of daylight saving. I was appointed as the manager of the trial of daylight saving in Queensland by the under secretary of the department. The job of the task force was to report on the social and economic impact of daylight saving in Queensland. 30 May 2001 Daylight Saving 1301

On 27 April 1990 the daylight saving task force completed its job and reported to the government on the impact of the trial. Historically, the consultation undertaken by the task force was probably the most comprehensive ever commissioned by the Queensland government. The task force received 23,399 written submissions from individuals, 17,691 phone calls from individuals, 69,735 petitioners' signatures and 760 submissions from organisations. The data was consistent and disclosed that Brisbane and the Moreton regions were clearly in favour of daylight saving and that the other regions of Queensland were not in favour of daylight saving. The key factors which were identified in the submissions advocating the permanent adoption of daylight saving were the commonality of business hours and communications, the extended time for leisure and recreation, the benefits to tourism and travel, increased hobby time for pursuits such as gardening, time to enhance family activities, a consistent time line for all eastern coastal states, and better use of the climate such as darker mornings and cooler evenings. Those opposed to daylight saving raised the following problems: Queensland was too close to the tropics and that the temperatures were too high for daylight saving; impediments to hobbies such as gardening because of the high temperatures; difficulties with children's meal and bed times; school arrangements and transport difficulties with children waiting for school transport and travelling in the dark, particularly in western Queensland; disruption to family life with the family routine being disrupted, particularly in rural and remote Queensland; the fact that it was too hot to eat at normal meal times; the perception that the days were too long, especially amongst elderly Queenslanders; concern about the greater risk of skin cancer; and, finally, primary production issues such as milking times, working long hours, harvesting difficulties caused by dew on crops, later burning of sugarcane, problems with machinery breakdowns later in the day and the obtaining of parts. The task force received submissions from nine National Party branches and over 60 branches of the Country Women's Association. In addition, over 50 cattle and dairying groups urged the rejection of daylight saving. The task force reported in April 1990, and I have a copy of the report with me now. The Liberals had plenty of opportunity to make submissions to the task force. In fact, I can remember receiving submissions from Liberal Party branches and from the Young Liberals. No doubt Santo Santoro organised that! I can tell the House that, in my view, daylight saving is the most divisive issue in the Queensland community. Everybody has an opinion. The issues are the same today as they were in 1990. Nothing has changed. Either you like it or you do not like it. In fact, I can remember the day that the trial was announced in the department. The entire state government switchboard collapsed within 20 minutes of the announcement being made. It simply could not handle the volume of calls from all over Queensland. The department received mail by the sack load for months and, as public servants, we were even the subject of death threats. For several weeks the departmental mail had to be scanned for the protection of public servants. The task force completed regional tours and took first-hand submissions from all over the state. I can recall visiting Charleville, Townsville and Mackay. Bob Katter, the then local member, made a submission at Mount Isa and then drove all the way to Townsville to make a second submission, such was his concern. Time expired. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (6.28 p.m.): The people of my electorate do not want any more daylight saving, because we already have it! In my electorate in the heat of summer it is light between 5 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. I understand that in Mount Isa daylight extends until 8.30 at night. We accept that we have to get up in the dark in the winter to work and some parents put their children on the longest bus run in Australia from Pentland to Charters Towers, which is some 110 kilometres, but we certainly do not want to do it in the summer, too. No, the curtains do not fade more, but I could go into some detail about how my milking cows used to give less milk during the daylight saving trial conducted some years ago. But I will not do that now, I will leave it for another time. Families find they are collecting children from school in the hottest part of the day when temperatures are around, and sometimes above, 45 degrees Centigrade. It is far too hot to play sport. In fact, people should be inside wherever possible, because the time for greatest sun damage is known to be between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. During the daylight saving trial children stayed inside doing unhealthy things like watching television, playing computer games and—God forbid—doing homework. However, most of them did not do their homework because it was just too soon after school for them to be willing to do homework. As it cooled off, children then went outside to play, both before and after tea. It then proved to be impossible to get them inside before it was dark. By the time they were bathed, particularly primary school children, it was time 1302 Daylight Saving 30 May 2001 for bed and homework was neglected. There are then two options for those families: either the child gets into trouble for not doing their homework or mum or dad does it, and then the child probably still gets into strife because the parents have done it all wrong! Our hard-pressed primary producers are already working from can-see to can't-see, so one would think daylight saving should not affect them, but it does. It is fine to say that they should just not reset their clocks, but they like to listen to the news and the country hour at lunchtime—if they get a break. If they do not adjust their clocks they will probably miss that, as well as the TV news at night. If they do not reset their clocks they face a constant switch between their own time and town time, when they need to make phone calls to run their businesses or to make appointments, both private and business, or when they need to go to town to collect supplies, spare parts or attend the occasional livestock sale. In the 3R places in this state—rural, remote and regional—there is no place for more daylight saving. We do not want it, we do not need it and we regard it as a time-wasting exercise espoused by those who wish to play golf during the week when we are all working, at a time when it is too hot to be playing sport anyway. In our opinion, those who have any choice in the matter should not be exposing themselves to unnecessary further sun damage which in 20 years time will result in more expense for the taxpayer, who will at the end of the day have to meet the costs of medical care for sun cancer. In the referendum conducted in 1992, 1,702 people in my electorate voted 'Yes', while 14,197 voted 'No'. That is, only around 10 per cent of people wanted daylight saving, meaning that 90 per cent did not. In an area larger than Victoria, the people of my electorate say 'no, thank you' to daylight saving—and that is what there would be: no thankyous—if it were introduced. I thank the Premier for leading a government for all Queenslanders and for not forgetting the people of my electorate. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (Leader of the Liberal Party) (6.31 p.m.): What we have seen from the government tonight is an exercise in obfuscation. In this parliament the majority of government members represent electorates in south-east Queensland, which overwhelmingly supported the concept of daylight saving in the referendum. The Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities is nodding his head. In his electorate some 12,000 voted for the proposal, while 6,000 or fewer voted against it. The concept was overwhelmingly supported in his electorate. This motion, moved by the member for Merrimac, is not seeking a debate on daylight saving. It is about commissioning a report to look at the social and economic consequences of introducing a zone into Queensland. During her speech the member for Bundamba held up a report that she had something to do with as a public servant. What she held up and read out is irrelevant. What did the report say? In the light of the thousands of submissions, phone calls, letters and threats, the report came forward with the following suggestions— 1. That daylight saving be introduced for that part of the state east of 151 degrees east longitude for the period adopted by other states, eastern Australian standard time to apply for the rest of the state; 2. That daylight saving in Queensland continue for a further two years and, at the expiration of that period of time, consider whether a review is necessary at that time; and 3. That the question of a referendum be a matter for consideration at the end of the further two years. Those suggestions were not followed. The member held up a report which she said is relevant, yet the then government did not follow it. Any conclusion she wants to draw from the report is totally and utterly illogical. In order for her to make the point she did, the then government would have had to have followed the report. The motion seeks to have us go back and look at the zonal system. The Premier says that he does not want to have two Queenslands. The member for Merrimac quoted the Premier. On 1 September 2000 what was the Premier's solution to the issue of daylight saving? He said that the only solution to Queensland's daylight saving dilemma was a zonal system for the state's south-east. The Premier knows that the only possible solution is a zonal system, yet he gets up here and talks about wanting to govern for all of Queensland. What is the Premier doing about Lang Park? If members go outside the Brisbane area and ask people about Lang Park, they will hear people say that it is a waste of money and that this government is not governing for all of Queensland. Yet in the case of Lang Park the government's attitude is that it can throw the money away because it wants the project. It is the same thing with the footbridge. It is not for all of Queensland; it is for people in Brisbane, or south- east Queensland at the outside. The principle of governing for all of Queensland does not worry 30 May 2001 Daylight Saving 1303 the Premier one iota in instances such as the ones I have mentioned, because it suits his position. We know that the Premier was misleading the House when he looked at his own electorate and said that even in Brisbane Central, in the heart of Brisbane, the referendum result was only fifty-fifty. That is simply not true. To see that we need only to look at the figures. Of 17,000 votes in Brisbane Central, 10,000 were in favour of daylight saving. That is over 60 per cent. Any candidate for election would love that kind of result, yet the Premier tried to argue that a split of 60-40 or better was about fifty-fifty. What nonsense! The member for Inala said that the referendum result indicated that daylight saving was not on, but we need to have reference to the question asked. The referendum asked about daylight saving for all of Queensland. The committee report said that it should be looked at only for south- east Queensland. This motion says that we should look at daylight saving for south-east Queensland. The arguments about the referendum are irrelevant to the motion before the House. Tonight's debate has been nothing but a series of lame excuses for why this government refuses to act. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (6.36 p.m.): Tonight's motion begs the question: will the Liberal Party ever learn the true meaning of democracy? When Queenslanders voted in the 1992 state referendum, the message they sent to government was clear. They did not want daylight saving in their state. A result of 54.5 per cent of the formal vote against the proposal represents a very strong 'No'. The number of electorates in favour of daylight saving was 51, while 38 were against the proposal. The member for Robina has tried to use those figures to justify the motion before the House tonight. I remind the member for Robina that what is important is the number of people voting in favour of the question, not the number of electorates voting in favour. Selectively quoting electorates with a high 'Yes' vote does not really cement the member's position in this argument. I can do exactly the same thing and quote electorates which voted very strongly the other way. I notice that the member did not mention the electorate of Caloundra. Only 532 more people voted in favour of the proposal than not. That is not a very strong arguing position. Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The actual figures for Caloundra were 9,191 for and 8,127 against. That is not a difference of 500. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr PEARCE: They are not the figures I have, I am sorry. Let us look at the rounded figures for a few other electorates. In the electorate of Callide there were 15,000 votes against and 2,000 for; in the electorate of Fitzroy there were 15,000 against and 4,000 for; in the electorate of Keppel there 15,000 against and 5,000 for; in the electorate of Rockhampton there were 15,000 against and 4,000 for; and in the electorate of Thuringowa there were 12,000 against and 4,000 for. I will also quote figures from two of the three major tourist centres in this state. In the electorate of Whitsunday, 78.5 per cent of the vote was 'No'. In the Cairns area, 80 per cent of the people voted 'No' for daylight saving. It is all there in the figures. And we are taking notice of what the people vote in this state, not what the electorates say. Honourable members interjected. Mr PEARCE: What is funny about that? It is good to hear a couple of members on the other side of the House laughing, although their laughter is very faint because there are not enough of them to make a hearty laugh. Mrs Sheldon: Can we use your quote? Mr PEARCE: The member can use anything she likes. There is really no reason for this motion to be before the House tonight, and there is really no reason to revisit this issue. Queensland is a vast state, and the actual hours of sunlight vary considerably between different parts of it. And if members were to travel around this state, they would soon realise that. Daylight saving has an adverse impact on Queensland lifestyles because of this basic geographical fact. There are many reasons why I and many others believe that daylight saving is not in the best interests of this state. And I can assure those members whose seats are in the south-east corner that none of those reasons has anything to do with fading curtains or cows that will not give milk. 1304 Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Rural and regional Queenslanders have very real and very genuine concerns, and those concerns became evident during the 1990 trial of daylight saving, which clearly demonstrated its impact on rural and country Queensland. All country members of parliament would have received overwhelming responses from the people who were forced to suffer the consequences of daylight saving. Let us look at some of the facts. The sun already rises and sets up to one hour later in the northern and western areas of the state, as these areas are located west of the geographical line at which standard time for Queensland is determined. During the daylight saving trial, many people who travel considerable distances to work or to school found that they had to leave home while it was still dark. The longest days of the year occur during summer. Time expired. Question—That Mr Quinn's motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 5—Bell, Quinn, E. Roberts. Tellers: Watson, Sheldon NOES, 76—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, Copeland, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Flynn, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Kingston, Lawlor, Lee, Lee Long, Lingard, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, Malone, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reeves, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rowell, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Springborg, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Lester Resolved in the negative. Sitting suspended from 6.48 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 May (see p. 1140). Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (8.30 p.m.): This bill extends the commencement date of section 369 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 another 12 months. This section was passed in 1997 yet had its proclamation date deferred to 1 June 2001. Due to the fact that the interest groups have not yet developed a satisfactory policy position in regard to this section, there is a need for the commencement date to again be extended. The controversial part of section 369 reads— (5a) However, the local government must not impose conditions on the approval if the approval is for waste management works that are an environmentally relevant activity. Industry has been supportive of section 369 as it places less regulation on waste transporters. Local government has difficulty with this provision as it restricts its right to impose conditions on waste transporters through a local government area. The provision allows only the EPA to make regulations, which may not be locally relevant or responsive. The major issue is to regionalise the application of this law. A trial is occurring in some regions, supported by both industry and local government. Time is needed to assess these trials. Local government supports this extension. Industry does not have a problem with this extension. The National Party supports the deferral of the commencement date of section 369. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (8.32 p.m.): I am happy to rise tonight to speak to the Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Bill. I applaud the Environment Minister for ensuring that these issues will be addressed and realising that various local governments through Queensland, via the Queensland Local Government Association, are in favour of the extension, as the previous speaker, the member for Keppel, has stated. I believe that the vast majority of Australians, especially Queenslanders, are more environmentally conscious than ever before. I will take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an issue of major importance and significance to my electorate of Kawana and the local community. It does deal with a matter of waste but it is actually the somewhat distasteful subject of treatment of effluent—sewage and its disposal. The Caloundra City Council has a licence to discharge under its commercial water and sewage provider, Calaqua. This licence to discharge is via an ocean outfall located off Warana, Bokarina and Kawana Waters. I believe that the community now demands that the effluent treated is at least treated to a higher standard before being discharged into our ocean. Along with improvements to our environmental standards, a long-term alternative strategy should be 30 May 2001 Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1305 investigated instead of pumping millions of litres of treated effluent daily into the ocean. Yes, I am aware of the investigations being carried out into the Brisbane-Lockyer effluent pipeline. There also exists, as part of the discharge licence held by Calaqua, an ability to pump sewage into the Mooloolah River under emergency conditions. I support an immediate investigation, and this licence to discharge into the Mooloolah River should be revoked, as the people of Kawana—in fact, the majority of the Sunshine Coast—believe that this is an archaic way of disposing of effluent. There are alternatives to pumping this sewage into the Mooloolah River. It is done only in emergency situations. I believe that Calaqua, the commercial body of Caloundra City Council, has the land and the ability to build an emergency holding tank or tanks that will ensure that, instead of pumping sewage effluent into the river, they could pump it into the holding tanks to discharge it into the ocean at a later time. Realising that the Mooloolah River still has a quality control problem that also urgently needs to be addressed, I believe a 10 megalitre holding tank or pond should be sufficient to address the problem. I hope the Caloundra City Council, the state government and the federal government can work to achieve a better long-term solution to see no ocean effluent discharge within the next five to 10 years. I will mention the amounts of sewage discharge into the Mooloolah River going back to February 1999. Up to four days at a time, treated sewage is continuously pumped into the Mooloolah River. The details are as follows: on 19 May 1999, 2.2 megalitres estimated outfall was pumped into the Mooloolah River. It was opened at 7.45 p.m. on 19 May 1999—Wednesday night—and it closed at 7 a.m. on 20 May 1999—Thursday. For approximately 12 hours overnight, in excess of two million litres was pumped. On 1 March 1999, 7.5 megalitres estimated outfall was pumped into the Mooloolah River. It was opened at 12.30 a.m. on 1 March 1999—Monday—and closed at 10.30 a.m. on 4 March 1999—Thursday. Over four days, approximately 7.5 million litres of treated sewage effluent was pumped. On 9 February 1999, two megalitres estimated outfall was pumped into the river. It was opened at 8 p.m. on 9 February 1999—a Tuesday evening—and closed at 5 a.m. the following Wednesday, 10 February 1999. Nine hours overnight and two million litres! I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and his side of politics support continued investigations into better alternatives than pumping sewage effluent into our water bodies. I have spoken to the Environmental Protection Agency, and I hope that further investigations continue. I seek leave of the House to table three relevant documents, including the sewage discharge going back to February 1993 and schedule C of the water discharge licence. Leave granted. Mr CUMMINS: I therefore support this amendment, which will see the Local Government Act given a longer time to comply with landfill and the issues that surround that. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.38 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Bill. In doing so, I draw to the attention of honourable members, and in particular honourable members of the government, comments made in this very House yesterday at 12.53 p.m. by the member for Beaudesert. He said— The Opposition knows what this legislation is about. We are not particularly happy that this sort of procedure is to be carried out, but we believe that it is necessary, so we will not object to the motion moved by the minister. We have just heard the shadow minister for the environment follow through with those very comments. There is no objection to this bill. This is simply a procedural bill. This morning in this House, when the Leader of the House was speaking about using our time—which is this very moment—for government business, she referred to the past 50 years of debate in this House to try to justify doing so. When trying to justify her stance, the minister said— What is being sought here today is a motion that will guarantee that important legislation that has time pressures on it will actually get through the parliament by the end of the financial year. This is simply a sham by the government to use for government business what has previously been taken as private members' time. Mr ENGLISH: I rise to a point of order. This is not relevant to the bill before the House. Mr WELLINGTON: It is relevant to the bill because this morning the Leader of the House referred to it when justifying her motion to use what was previously classified as private members' time for government business. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your indulgence so that I can continue and convince you of the merits of what I am saying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Yes. 1306 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Mr WELLINGTON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister also referred to her government's record as speaking for itself. In actual fact, the government's record does speak for itself. At this very moment, the government has demonstrated that it wants to use what was previously deemed to be time for private members' bills for a procedural piece of legislation. There is no urgency about this matter, because the public record already shows that the opposition will not oppose the bill. I ask all honourable members to realise that this is a sham by the government to try to take over for government business what was previously deemed to be private members' time. Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (8.42 p.m.): I join this debate on a somewhat different note to the previous two speakers, although the previous speaker has raised issues that are of concern to me. I do not have a problem with the time being extended, but I do have a problem with the non-advance in technology that is being made available to local government. I do have a problem that more and more of a load is being put on local governments. We do not have an active institute of research dealing with this problem in Queensland, yet there are very active institutes in other countries. For instance, the Bedminster system takes sewage effluent and applies it to municipal waste. The product is usable as fertiliser. The harm to the environment is absolutely minimised. Another research methodology called Virotec has the ability to remove heavy metals and contaminants from leachate. The main problem with landfill is leachate. As a state, we are not moving forward in this area of technology at all. I suggest very strongly to the minister, who is obviously not listening— Mr Wells: I am parallel processing. Dr KINGSTON: I apologise. This is an area of increasing concern. It is an area that needs up- to-date research and the application of modern methods that have already been adopted and applied successfully in other countries. In Queensland they have not been applied, and we are proceeding with landfill and all its concurrent problems. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (8.43 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members who have participated in the debate. I assure the honourable member for Nicklin that there is no sham here. Honourable members on both sides of the House are seeking to accommodate the local governments of Queensland. We are trying to make life easier for them. We are extending the period by seven months. We are advised that seven months should be enough time for local governments and other parties to get a working modus vivendi. The reason that this legislation needs to be dealt with today is quite clear. The section would come into effect and have force of law on 1 June. Therefore, it is necessary that it be passed by the parliament today in order to accommodate the Local Government Association of Queensland and its constituent members and achieve proclamation through the usual processes of Executive Council. The Executive Council will meet on Thursday. That is why it has to be done today. I assure the honourable member for Nicklin that there is no intention to do anything other than simply accommodate a consensual working of the various parts of government, local and state, and the various parts of the community. We are taking a constructive measure. I thank honourable members on both sides of the House who have supported it. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 15 May (see p. 811). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.47 p.m.): The Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 2001 amends the Transport Infrastructure Act 30 May 2001 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 1307

1994 and the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994. They are probably two of the most important pieces of legislation that have passed through this House in recent years. The major purpose of the bill is to give legislative support to the introduction of the new electronic toll collection system. We have been waiting for that for a long while in this state. This toll collection system, to be known as e-toll, is scheduled to commence in early June on the Gateway and Logan Motorways. The purpose of the introduction of the e-toll alternative for regular users of the toll roads is to speed up transactions for those users by permitting them to pass through the dedicated e-toll points and toll plazas at speeds up to 30 kilometres per hour. Obviously this initiative will not only benefit e-toll users but will also advantage other road users by reducing congestion at the toll gates in question. I believe this system will be particularly attractive to the heavy vehicle industry. As we all know, those vehicles cannot be stopped in 50 or 100 yards. It takes time for them to pull up and get going again. This will expedite the traffic flow through those tollways, which will enhance productivity in a number of ways. Having vehicles going through the gates at 30 kilometres an hour will greatly increase that efficiency. The e-toll system utilises electronic transponders that automatically communicate with computers at the toll plaza to pay the toll. I note also that the standards that are to apply to this new system will be compatible with the electronic toll systems in other states, and this is another benefit to long distance transport operators on the important interstate trade. What is of most interest is how this system will work in respect of toll collection. I understand that at each e-toll gate a video camera will record the vehicle registration number of each vehicle that passes the gate without the e-toll transponder. This bill does not provide an offence for not paying the toll at this stage, but a notice is generated to the registered vehicle operator requesting the payment of the toll together with an administrative charge. I am further advised that the extent of this administrative charge is yet to be determined. I note that the minister indicated in his second reading speech that the level of this charge could be between $10 and $20. I ask the minister to expand upon this matter in his summary, as I am sure he agrees with me that ensuring that this administrative fee is reasonable will greatly assist in the public's acceptance of this system. An offence is created if a registered vehicle operator fails to pay the amount shown on the notice. Obviously, if the registered operator was not the driver and the toll fee was incurred by someone else, there is a provision for the e-toll operator to be advised accordingly and a new notice would then be issued to the nominated person. However, this reversal of onus is similar to the existing provisions that operate in relation to camera detected offences, including red-light cameras and speed cameras. I believe that in this case the reversal of proof is reasonable. I note also that in his second reading speech the minister indicated that only one payment notice is generated per trip. This means that if a vehicle travelling upon the Logan Motorway passes both toll plazas on the Logan Motorway without a transponder only one notice is generated and, therefore, if that notice was to go unpaid, only one offence is created. May I note in passing that I believe there are only two toll gates on the Logan Motorway now and the only way there would be three as mentioned in the second reading speech is if one were located to take in traffic going from the Logan Motorway to the Gateway or the reverse. From my reading of proposed section 73K, headed 'Limit on offences', this refers to the failure to pay a toll on the one toll road. Taking the journey from the Ipswich Motorway to the airport as an example, one passes through the toll plaza at Staplyton Road and then branches off to the Gateway Motorway at Drewvale. There is then a toll plaza at Kuraby and again at the bridge. So in the one journey one goes through three toll gates but actually travels seamlessly on two toll roads and would attract two payment notices and potentially two offences. I would greatly appreciate it if the minister in his summary could clarify this point. As I have indicated, an offence is not committed for not paying the toll but the offence is generated by not paying the payment notice within the specified time. As the bill currently stands, the maximum penalty provided is 15 penalty units, or a maximum penalty of $112.50. Under the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation, or SPER as we better know it, the penalty for failing to pay a payment notice would be $112.50. I have received representations from the RACQ on this point. It believes that the penalty of $112.50 for not paying a $2 toll seems inappropriate. I understand that the fine is not for failing to pay the toll but in fact for failing to pay the payment notice. So in effect it is a second chance provision. I believe also that in practice it would be a third chance provision, because there will be a reminder notice in the event of a first offence. 1308 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

The RACQ has pointed out that the proposed fine for the failure to pay a toll, which is not a life-threatening action, can be compared with a $90 speeding fine for exceeding a speed limit by up to 15 kilometres an hour. The RACQ has suggested that a penalty provision of six penalty units would seem more appropriate for a SPER fine, or about $45, and I am inclined to agree with it. However, I will do the minister the courtesy of allowing him to respond to these concerns first, as I believe they were raised during the consultation process. I certainly raised them in the consultation process with the appropriate officers from the minister's department. I have a reservation also in relation to the service of the payment notice. Obviously, the notice would be directed to the last known address of the registered operator. In many cases I know that owners fail to update their addresses and are then served at some later date with a summons. I can understand that they are often upset by these circumstances, but in those cases it is basically their fault that they have failed to change their address as required. What is problematic, however, is where the department issues a notice but an owner claims not to have received it. I believe that we have to face facts. The fact is that some mail goes astray. I think we all appreciate that—perhaps not as often as some may want us to believe. I think that is probably applicable to a lot of people, be it in relation to a speeding fine, a red-light camera fine or whatever else. Nonetheless, I believe that a reminder notice system should be considered, particularly if a cost recovery administration fee is to apply. One other practical matter that I raised with the minister's officers was that of appropriate signage. I have been given assurances that the advance signage for the positioning of the e-toll lane will be placed a sufficient distance in advance to allow traffic, including heavy vehicles, to make the necessary adjustments in their traffic progression. That is only commonsense. As the minister would be aware, this issue has been a difficulty, particularly on the southern approach to the Gateway toll plaza, where the traffic jam can extend beyond the advance warning signs. Again, I understand that it is proposed to place signs above the appropriate lane and that the Gateway will replace its current advance warning sign. Arrows will also be painted on the road to indicate the correct e-toll lane, which I believe is a very meritorious and responsible way to approach signage placement. As I said to the minister's advisers when we were briefed on this legislation, I think the important thing is to make sure that the signs are placed sufficiently far back to alert the general motoring public as to the location of the e-toll lanes. I do not travel across the Gateway Bridge that often, but I know that many strangers to the region get into the wrong lane from time to time, leading to unnecessary delays. I am aware that the portable message signs are already in place and will be used for two weeks after the commencement of the system. I note also that there is no proposal to introduce advance warning signs on the Logan Motorway or the Gateway extension. I know that the argument is that there are fewer lanes and good visibility on these roads compared with the Gateway, but I also ask the minister to be conscious of the need for advance warning and to have their position reviewed when the portable signs are removed. I believe this will be an issue of concern to many motorists and I invite the minister in his response to assure motorists that the signage above the e-toll lane will be appropriate for their requirements. I assume also that their location will be consistent at similar toll plazas. The other major provision of this amending legislation refers to the revision of the port pilotage services in Queensland. The transfer of responsibility for pilotage services to the port authorities from Queensland Transport is scheduled for completion on 1 July this year. This legislation provides for a major change to the provision of pilotage as it deletes the existing restrictions on who can hold a pilot's licence. The purpose of this change is to provide for contestability for pilot services within a port at the discretion of port authorities. As the minister emphasised in his second reading speech, these changes allow for competition for the provision of particular types of pilotage within the port. There will still be only one pilot service for each class of vessel within the port. So we are not seeing deregulation of the market as such, but obviously the driver for this change has been compliance with national competition policy, about which I am always suspicious. Mr Bredhauer: So am I. Mr JOHNSON: I am pleased to hear the minister say that. I am suspicious that we are facing change for change's sake, but the proposal to open up the pilotage task for competition within the port seems to be an appropriate mechanism to generate additional employment whilst at the same time reducing costs for smaller vessels. I believe that this is a very responsible policy change. While we talk about competition, we also talk 30 May 2001 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 1309 about the viability of the operations of these vessels into and out of ports as quickly as possible. The National Party certainly supports any change that is going to be advantageous to this industry. This legislation also specifically provides for the training of pilots and permits for the licensing of pilots, who can now be licensed without being directly involved in the delivery of the service. This provision will have the effect of increasing the number of pilots who can provide a service. I am also aware that there is some concern about the extension of the immunity from civil liability to cover employees of pilots and pilots accompanying pilots for training or assessment. As the minister indicated in his second reading speech, this immunity is standard practice throughout Australia and other Commonwealth countries. However, the minister pointed out that as the alternative has the potential to significantly increase the cost of providing pilotage and, thus, increase the cost of both imports and exports, the last thing we need is to place our exports at further price disadvantage, bearing in mind that we in this nation are price takers, not price makers. Obviously, one of my immediate concerns about the freeing up of the pilotage market within each port was the question of standards and safety. When David Hamill, the then minister, introduced the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act of 1994, the emphasis—and it was the same emphasis in the amendments we put in place since then—was safety. Whether it is safety on the roads or on the water, it is of paramount importance. I have been assured that the licensing of pilots will remain with Queensland Transport. I hope that these changes within each port with regard to standards and safety will enhance the operation of our ports and also the operations of those who want to use our ports. I understand that the appointment of pilots will remain in the hands of the ports, and the standards will be improved with the adoption of the guidelines for the licensing and training of marine pilots in Queensland. I note that the department has consulted extensively on this legislation. I am not aware of any concerns about this proposed amendment to the marine legislation. I would like to put on record here this evening that when people with the ability and experience of Captain John Watkinson and others are employed within that department, it certainly places Queensland at the forefront of marine operations in this country. It is a very big responsibility, considering we have around 7,000 kilometres of coastline, and from time to time we do have little hiccups, especially in terms of foreign shipping. We certainly cannot take our finger off the pulse for one minute. At this point it would be very remiss of not only me but also other people in this House if we did not recognise the great work that these people do, which is paramount to the ongoing safety of marine operations. We talk about the sea, the environment, the Great Barrier Reef and the related tourism industry in north Queensland. Our marine pilot area cannot tolerate a cowboy element. I congratulate the government and the Department of Transport, especially the Marine Division of Queensland Transport, on making absolutely certain that we are still going to have a top level operation. As I have indicated, the opposition proposes to support this legislation subject to the minister's response to the matter I have raised in relation to the level of fines. I am sure that the minister will elaborate more on that. I take this opportunity also to thank the minister's staff for the briefing that they provided a couple of weeks back. The opposition leaves itself open to the minister's reply in terms of the fines. Other than for that issue, the opposition supports the legislation. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (9.05 p.m.): The electorate of Algester is a transport and economic hub of south-east Queensland. Many of the large transport carriers are located in my local area, as are many invaluable commercial and industrial activities. I am, therefore, always very interested in any new transport legislation. I support the minister in bringing these amendments before the House. The Honourable Steve Bredhauer is an astute minister and really has Queensland moving. As a transport and economic hub, the Algester electorate offers many job and economic growth opportunities. The down side is that, as a hive of commercial activity, my local area endures traffic congestion problems. An opposition member: Where? Ms STRUTHERS: Algester, the economic and transport hub of south-east Queensland. 1310 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

The Logan Motorway has provided a very useful bypass road, easing heavy vehicle and passenger vehicle traffic in the local area. As the Stapylton-Parkinson area develops into light industrial activity, that motorway is well positioned to be a national freight route, allowing good access to those activities. I support the e-toll concept provided for in this bill to allow vehicles to pass through the toll plaza without much delay. It certainly will minimise the congestion that gathers there at peak time. It is opportune for me, however, to reiterate my concern that the Queensland government, in conjunction with Queensland Motorways Limited and trucking operators, must put their heads together and must get their collective wisdom organised to make sure that we look at more strategies to ensure that more heavy vehicles use the motorway than at the moment. From reports I am getting from locals and from my own experience, it seems that many heavy vehicles are using local roads instead of the motorway. That was certainly shown in the freight destination study that was conducted about a year or so ago. Toll incentives and local management traffic planning—all those sorts of strategies—must be on the table for consideration. Local people in Forestdale, Pallara and Forest Lake are all reporting to me that heavy vehicles continue to use Forest Lake Boulevard, Ritchie Road and other local roads. The pick-up and destination paths of these vehicles may prohibit them from accessing the motorway, but every effort must be made to keep trucks to the major arterial transport routes rather than the local roads. I have raised this issue with the minister. He and his departmental officers always give me a good hearing. I welcome future action that eases traffic congestion on the south side of Brisbane. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (9.08 p.m.): In joining in this debate I think what has been put forward is a very progressive line of thinking on the part of the government. Certainly the e-toll collection system is going to be an interesting concept for our roads here in Queensland. I believe it will speed up traffic, reduce congestion and reduce the number of vehicles that are on the road at any one time. That will be so because a faster throughput of vehicles at toll gates will reduce traffic congestion. It is interesting to note that the minister says that e-toll will commence operating from 9 June this year on the Gateway and Logan Motorways. This system will be an improvement for customers who have to travel through toll booths, and they will be able to travel through the toll booths at something like 30 kilometres an hour. The major changes in this area will stop the necessity of fumbling for coins, as I do when I have to go across the Gateway Bridge. If one is not familiar with such a facility they have to find the right coins and it can take some time. However, this system is intended for travellers who use the area frequently. In the future they will have a transponder that will allow them to zip through the toll booths and not have to worry about finding the right change. The other intent of this legislation, which is an advantage, is that this system will become a national system that will enable people such as truck drivers to get through toll booths not only here but also in other states. The system has a lot going for it, but the shadow minister has raised the issue of penalties. I am sure the minister will address that in his reply. I turn now to transport infrastructure generally, because it is so important to the state of Queensland. The northern sector of the state has roads that are critical for the sugar industry. Sugar trucks traverse the highways—and admittedly they frequently travel the National Highway—but it is becoming a problem in relation to upkeep, especially when wet weather conditions and heavy transport are involved. I do not know the price differential between building a road in wet climatic conditions compared to drier climatic conditions, but I think it would be quite considerable. Mr Johnson: About six or seven to one. Mr ROWELL: The shadow minister believes that it is six or seven to one. I believe that would be the case in some areas if not all of them, and that might even be a fair average. Sugarcane is being trucked from farms in the tablelands, the Tully area and Maryborough area. As a result, there are more heavy loads on the highways than there has been in the past. Also, I want to put a rural perspective on the horticultural industry, which is important, because it has a high dependency on freight that goes to north Queensland having a return component. Of course, that assists greatly with the cost of freight both ways. However, that means more upkeep on the National Highway and state-controlled roads, because trucks have to leave the highway to get to the packing sheds of, say, banana and pawpaw plantations. The tablelands has a wide network of roads that are used extensively by the horticultural industry, which produces mangoes, et cetera. 30 May 2001 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 1311

Rail is becoming a very important component of these industries. I never thought these industries would use rail to the extent they are using it now. Refrigerated containers of 10 to 12 pellets get to Brisbane from Ingham in about 28 to 30 hours. Rail freight is able to regulate the temperature at a better level than trucks can. On top of that, rail gives the freight a better ride. I would urge any input possible to speed up that process. That may mean going to a heavier line or straightening the line out in places to increase the speed of delivery. If that occurs, I am certain that we will see more a competitive and higher usage of rail than we have seen in the past. As I said, I personally never thought that I would use rail to the level I have used it in recent years. Products arrive at market at a good temperature and in good condition. If this situation continues, I will have nothing but praise for the two years that I have spent putting freight on rail. I turn now to the National Highway. While the state does not get a great deal of determination as to how much money is spent on the National Highway, there is little doubt that the input from the state very often determines where that money is spent. The road from Moresby to Liverpool Creek in the Johnstone shire is in very bad condition. It is narrow, bumpy and is full of twists. Money needs to be spent on improving that road. Money also needs to be spent on the section of road just north of the North Johnstone bridge. Over the past three years the north has experienced some extremely wet years. Of course, weather of that kind causes a rapid deterioration in the highway. I urge the minister to use his best endeavours with the federal government to obtain extra funding, because that funding will not only benefit the horticultural industry but also the tourist industry will be a major beneficiary of this infrastructure. I refer in particular to the infrastructure in the bill, because it is an important issue. Mr Bredhauer: It's a longbow, but it's there. Mr ROWELL: As the minister also comes from the northern part of the state, he would agree that if north Queensland is to be developed roads are a vital and important component. In the Johnstone shire some 40-odd wooden bridges have to be replaced. Work is being done on Henderson Drive, which is a state-controlled road, because the trucks carrying sugar from the tablelands have to travel the narrow and twisting road. The road will be widened at the end of December 2002. Scheu Creek and Gracey Creek both have narrow bridges and both have been on the agenda for a number of years, and they both need to be replaced. It will also be extremely interesting to see how the $10 million bridge over the South Johnstone River develops. As we all know, a considerable deal of lobbying went on prior to the election in relation to this bridge. It is a bridge that is vital for people who live in the Mena Creek area. Of course, those people who live in the Japoonvale area may still be disadvantaged because they may not be able to travel in the event of flood. I am sure that the bridge can be built and the other section attended to, as well. This is all on the drawing board, and it needs to be attended to. Because of the size of farming operations, some farmers work part time in town or their wives work in town. In that regard, there is a higher dependency on the reliability of the roads. If people are to stay in areas such as Mena Creek, people need to be able to travel the roads. Therefore, the roads need to be kept in good condition, even in quite heavy rain. Bingil Bay Road is another such road, and that is going to be funded by the TIDS program. The shire is hoping for something like $600,000, of which it wants about $300,000 this financial year. The Cardwell shire is another interesting area which contains a National Highway. One of the main concerns in this area is the Cardwell range road. Recently there have been a number of very serious accidents on the range. It is a twisting road. An increasing number of semis are travelling that range. In fact, the other day one semi jackknifed on that road and it was quite a serious accident. That area needs to be attended to. Also, a bypass at Tully is being looked at. Funding of $3.2 million has been made available through the TIDS program. The other big issue is the Tully flats, which often causes traffic to be held up. It is not only passenger traffic that travels this road; there is also a dependency on this road to get fruit to market. In wet weather there is the need for the road to be another half a metre high or so to ensure that trucks can get through. There is an inland route, but sometimes that is not always available to trucks. The Tully Heads road— Mr Bredhauer: Which I'm fixing up as well. Mr ROWELL: Yes, that is good, and I hope that the government is going to do it soon. I know it is going to do it. In fact, all we are waiting for now is the tenderers to be named so that we can get on with the job. Weather conditions are perfect up there at present. That is not always the case in that part of the world. 1312 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Mr Johnson: What about the western areas of the state? Mr ROWELL: The shadow minister reminds me about the western areas. I will speak about those areas if I have time. It is quite important that that road be completed. There are a lot of elderly people living in that area and they need to be able to get out for medical supplies and so on. I am sure that the 800 millimetres or so that the road is to be lifted will be of major benefit. I refer to the bridge at Weiss Creek, a narrow bridge on the Davidson Road. That project is being deferred for a couple of years. We need some additional funding. There has been talk of the project being completed over a couple of years, but it is in this year's program. It is another vital project in relation to hauling cane, and it is vital that that road is improved. I turn to the Hinchinbrook shire, another shire that is very dear to me. I live in the shire. When the coalition was in government money was injected by the then minister through sugar roads. That has been of immense benefit. Also, the road up to the Wallaman Falls has been improved substantially. The shadow minister went with me up to Wallaman Falls. We had a very hairy ride courtesy of the then mayor. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr Johnson: No, Pino Giandeminico was driving. Does any more need to be said? Mr ROWELL: It was some experience. He did not look at the road too often, but we did get up and back. Mr Johnson: We did not go again. Mr ROWELL: He decided to improve the road. That would be his contribution, which is great. I refer to marine developments and in particular the Dungeness situation, which in some ways goes across portfolios. We are very anxious to get all-weather and all-tide access out of Dungeness. That has been a struggle over a period of time. The EPA, Coastal Management or the Beach Protection Authority—it keeps changing its name; I am flat out keeping up with it—is definitely looking for a better outcome. It is critical for Hinchinbrook Island and the tourism industry. It is the ideal jumping off point for the east coast walking track. Very often people come in on buses and cannot get out because there is not enough water. As a consequence, there is a delay of some hours while the tide gets to a point where even a small boat can be taken out. I will not go into that in any greater detail because it is not a transport-related issue. I would like to see some support for the Rollingstone boat ramp, which needs to be widened. It is widely used. There are increasing numbers of people living down at Mystic Sands. Mr Reynolds: The Rollingstone boat ramp is being funded. Mr ROWELL: Well, it needs to be widened. I have not heard exactly what is happening there. The minister says that it is being funded; I will certainly make sure that work is being undertaken and I will report back to him if it is not. As I said, that is an area that is growing rapidly. I am sure that better tidal access would also be greatly appreciated. I know that the Minister for Emergency Services would appreciate that a lot of these beach areas have very shallow water at low tide which makes it difficult for people to get out. In fact, had it not been for Port Hinchinbrook there would have been no place for a boat to be put in at low tide between Mourilyan Harbour and Townsville. If we are to develop the tourism industry, if we are to get people into the northern area of the state, we have to make sure that we have some good outlets, such as boat ramps. So many people come up to enjoy what we have to offer—the sea, the islands and so on. I have raised a number of very important issues. Technology moves on and we find new opportunities to speed up traffic, such as e-tickets. I believe that that will be of major benefit to the people who use those roads and who want to get through tollways quickly. It will also benefit the commercial operators. There is nothing worse than being lined up behind a number of cars and four or five trucks, all taking their time getting through. We will see a much faster flow through toll plazas. That will be of substantial benefit to roads users. All we need to do is pour some more money into roads in north Queensland and we will have a lot to offer those people who come to this state and who want to participate in many of the great adventures they can have in north Queensland. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (9.25 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill. The introduction of electronic tolling is a positive and inevitable step. Melbourne's City Link demonstrates the concept of user pays roadways 30 May 2001 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 1313 through its use of electronic tolling technology. The Melbourne experience indicates that the project just could not have gone ahead without electronic tolling. It avoids the queues, the waiting and the digging for loose change that holds up traffic on traditional roadways. Interestingly, Melbourne City Link is using an electronic tolling system based on military technology developed in Sweden by Saab. In Melbourne, before driving onto the City Link drivers prepay perhaps $100 into a special account at a variety of locations. As their vehicle travels on the City Link, instruments mounted on overhead gantries at three points on the 22-kilometre route read the tags electronically and the appropriate fee is deducted. For those who may be tempted to run the gauntlet of the advanced tagging technology, I mention that I read of a trial system in operation on a stretch of freeway in Austria which has already successfully read the tag of one vehicle travelling at 297 kilometres per hour. The idea is that vehicles without a tag or without credit on their tag will be photographed. Prior to its introduction in Melbourne, the proponents of City Link argued that it would provide easier, cheaper, safer and greener travel. All of these claims are based around the advantage of the electronic management of tolls and vehicles not having to stop to pay them. Electronic tolling will ease congestion and time pressure. It was claimed by these proponents that, because stop- start driving is overcome, fuel consumption will be reduced by 30 per cent for the same distance of road travelled and will save Victorian business over 20,000 tonnes of fuel each year. Also, because of proposed smoother traffic flow there is allegedly less risk entailed in being on an electronically controlled toll road. Finally, there is less pollution because vehicles will not be slowing to inefficient speeds at which the distance to emission ratio becomes higher. We in Queensland are fortunate to have been able to see the pros and cons of the Melbourne City Link experience. It has enabled proper consideration to be given, in the light of that valuable experience, and no doubt has also provided for ample time to study other alternatives, such as video tolling, e-cash and season tickets. The common objective of governments, toll road operators and motorists includes the implementation of toll road products, including toll road usage by infrequent customers. The requirement implies satisfactory solutions to user convenience, the economy, privacy and safety. For the road operator it requires economy of operation, including high probability of toll payment. I congratulate the minister for the introduction of this legislation. There is a common move for large industrialised and developing countries, especially those with large congested cities, to move from traditionally manned or unmanned tolls to electronic tolling. The most obvious advantage of electronic tolling is the greater free flow of vehicles per hour, which provides particular benefit during peak travel times. In conclusion and in summary—electronic toll roads avoid queues which erode travel time savings and avoid a reduction in safety and vehicle emission benefits which result from stop-start motoring. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.29 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 and to put on the public record that this is another bill that is not being opposed by the opposition, by the Liberals, by One Nation or by the Independents. And again it is being debated during time which, under the sessional orders agreed to by the House on 22 March 2001, was set aside for debate of private members' bills. I note that, at the moment, there are already three private members' bills on the Notice Paper awaiting debate. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (9.30 p.m.): I congratulate the minister and the department not only on this bill but on their great work. If one wants to see a prime example of the can-do Beattie Labor government, one needs only to look at the minister and the Department of Main Roads. I am proud to represent the electorate of Mansfield, which is no doubt now the public transport epicentre of the Asia-Pacific rim. As the No. 1 ticket holder of the South East Busway, I have seen first-hand this public transport epicentre at work. I wish now to talk about the e-toll which will be—as other members have said—a major benefit to the flow of traffic. What this means for my electorate is that there is yet another incentive for trucks to use the Logan Motorway—the southern bypass. This will result in positive benefits for the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road/Kessels Road corridor. It was great to see in today's Southern Star that the federal member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave—who will not be there for much longer—finally recognised the million-dollar study to 1314 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 look at the whole overall corridor. He has been telling people it is not needed, and coming up with lamebrain ideas. The study is the result of strong representation by me, the member for Archerfield, the member for Mount Gravatt and the member for Stretton to the minister, who took our cause to the federal body. Finally, there will be a study that, once and for all, will consider the overall picture of the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road/Kessels Road corridor. This bill will have a positive effect on that road, because the traffic—and particularly trucks—using the southern bypass will flow much easier. It will give truck drivers the incentive not to use residential streets and, instead, to use the southern bypass. I congratulate the minister on this bill, and I encourage all members who have not used the South East Busway to have a go. Mr Foley: The No. 1 ticket holder! Mr REEVES: I am the No. 1 ticket holder. People can get onto the busway from the Myer Centre, go out to Garden City and Eight Mile Plains and see first-hand the electorate of Mansfield—the public transport epicentre of the Asia-Pacific rim. Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (9.33 p.m.): Unlike the previous speaker, I commiserate with the minister. I feel some sympathy for his position in that there are so many demands which he has to try to satisfy. I would like to raise two issues that relate to my electorate. The first concerns a road which runs across forestry country. It is used by school buses, cane trucks and logging trucks, but nobody owns the road and nobody maintains the road. There have been some very close calls with school buses and cane trucks. Cane trucks have had to back 200 metres down a hill. In the event of an accident who is liable? The other issue I would like to raise concerns boat ramps on the Burrum River. The main boat ramp on the Burrum River is dangerous because the current bounces from one bank to the other. The current from the northern bank to the southern bank is very swift and dangerous, and several old people have been hurt there. The local residents and the local council are trying to rectify this problem. However, they find that the EPA says that they cannot do this; the fisheries department says that they cannot do this; and the Transport Department says that they cannot do this. Minister, this is a very serious issue of concern to the people of that district. A Government member: You're speaking through the chair, aren't you? Dr KINGSTON: Yes, I am. Mr Bredhauer: I'm listening. You're talking about the boat ramp on the Burrum River and how the current bounces around. Dr KINGSTON: Yes. And I am also saying that, because of the rulings of three separate government departments, that community is unable to take any functional action. There needs to be an overriding authority which can make something happen. The river is silting up; it needs dredging. At the moment, whichever way they turn they are told by fisheries that they cannot fortify the banks and they are told by the EPA that they cannot do other things. They are stuck. Three old people have already been hurt because of the current. Someone is going to be seriously hurt, and I wonder who will bear the responsibility for that. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (9.36 p.m.): I congratulate the minister on a great decision that he has made. Mr Foley: Hear, hear! He's a great minister. Mr PURCELL: He is a great minister. The decision relates to the Gateway Bridge in my electorate. Mr Bredhauer: Only half of it. Mr PURCELL: All of it is in my electorate. During peak hours some mornings and afternoons, because drivers have to stop to pay their tolls the South East Freeway becomes one long parking lot. What the minister is doing will turn that bridge into a freeway that flows. That is very important. Commerce from the south of Brisbane is held up in the morning, and from the north of Brisbane in the evening. There is a flow and ebb, to and fro. The bridge carries traffic to the port, which is becoming a very important commercial centre of Brisbane, and to the airport. So it is very important that this bridge does not restrict the flow of traffic north and south on the eastern side of Brisbane in my electorate. I am sure that the users of that bridge will thank the minister every day for making the traffic on the bridge flow a lot easier. I know that the minister and his department will be planning for a second bridge or second crossing in that area in the not-too-distant future. Mr Bredhauer: It's happening now. 30 May 2001 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 1315

Mr PURCELL: I thank the Minister for that. It is very important to do that now because of the lead times. There are many ways to pay for that bridge—not off the bottom line of our budget—and it will certainly help the commerce in those two hubs—the airport and the port of Brisbane—which are growing at very rapid rates. So we need to keep that traffic flowing to and from those places. That traffic comes from all over Australia, but mainly from Sydney and Melbourne. The port road will link in with this. The minister has worked very hard on that recently. We are two or three years away from having that port road operational. They are preloading and looking at planning for that port road at the moment. It will be very important, particularly for suburbs like mine that are on the fringe of those areas. The traffic runs through my electorate to the port and to the airport. We will be able to keep the heavy transport trucks from Sydney and Melbourne off our suburban roads. Once that port road is built, we will be able to provide designated heavy vehicle roads from the Ipswich freeway onto the Logan freeway and the South East Freeway to the port, the airport or wherever their freight is going. We cannot hinder those heavy transport trucks. The traffic lights between Lytton Road and the port at the moment allow something like only four trucks to pass through before they change from green to red. So trucks on the South East Freeway trying to reach the port can be banked up right to Wynnum Road. The reality is that the last truck goes through on the red light. We need to get the port road built so that there will be no traffic lights to hinder the travel of trucks from the Ipswich motorway right through to the port. This project is very important because it will take traffic off our suburban roads. My next suggestion may be a bit radical. I think we need to think beyond e-tolling. In cases where Queensland Rail competes with private companies for business, particularly in the minerals province in central Queensland, there should be a charge levied on heavy transport trucks, which have a capacity up to 750 horsepower and which may drag seven dogs behind a power pack. These vehicles are almost like a train on the road. They travel on roads that are not meant to carry this sort of heavy transport. These operators believe they have a right to drive those heavy trucks on our roads, and they chop the roads to pieces. In our competitive world, I believe we should be charging those heavy transport operators for the use of those roads. Queensland Rail had to bid against these companies to determine who would carry minerals to the Mount Isa smelter and other centres. The bids submitted by the trucking companies did not include the cost to the community in keeping those roads open and in a good state of repair. However, Queensland Rail has to build and maintain the railway tracks and maintain and run its engines. It was a very close-call tender. Queensland Rail just missed out on the contract. However, it was not a fair comparison. In such situations it is impossible to compare apples with apples because the cost of building, maintaining and improving the road was met by the taxpayer, whereas Queensland Rail carried all the costs for the rail infrastructure and maintenance. In this competitive world of ours, the minister should consider going that one step further and implementing as level a playing field as possible. Such contracts should be loaded up on the side of the trucking companies with their fair share of the cost of travelling on those roads. I know that Queensland Transport has conducted tests and placed weighing instruments underneath the culverts on those roads. It was discovered that many of the heavy transport vehicles that use the roads are 100 per cent plus overloaded. Mr Rowell: They get fined. Mr PURCELL: They do not get fined because they do not get caught. The member for Hinchinbrook is wrong. They should be getting caught, stopped and fined because they are chopping our roads to pieces. If a truck runs on unsealed roads in wet weather, it destroys the road for our country cousins for however long it takes to get our graders back out there and repair it. That is wrong. I know there is a problem with getting inspectors out into some of those areas. The trucking industry seems to have a very good network and learns when our inspectors will be in those areas with scales to weigh vehicles. We need to pay particular attention to this matter so that the cost of repairing and maintaining those roads does not blow out. I am not a person who is on the side of the establishment all the time, but the abuse of these roads by a small minority removes funding which would enable repairs to be undertaken on other country roads. I congratulate the minister on the work he is doing in my electorate with e-toll. I am sure that its introduction will make crossing from north Brisbane to south Brisbane that much easier, and it will save industry millions upon millions of dollars. 1316 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001

Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (9.45 p.m.): I want to make a brief contribution to the transport infrastructure bill and, firstly, support the introduction of the new electronic tolling system on the Gateway and Logan motorways. One of the things that interested me was the method by which people would be contacted in the event of an inadvertent or deliberate running of the toll. I think a very fair system has been put in place by the minister and by the government, in that if a person is detected as going through the toll without paying, it is not an offence in the first instance. The person will, in the first instance, be sent a notice informing them that they have breached the toll and be given an opportunity to pay it within a reasonable period. An offence will be created only if they do not pay within a reasonable time. I think that is a very fair system, and one which shows that this system is not intended to be used as a revenue raiser but is designed to give people more convenient access to these toll roads. If they do happen to breach the e-toll system, they are being extended an opportunity to rectify that without any financial penalty other than a small administrative charge. I want to make a couple of comments about a couple of local issues in terms of transport infrastructure. The first is the Nundah bypass, which is a $45 million project which principally exists within the electorate of the member for Clayfield. However, a lot of the works do reside in my electorate and, of course, many of my constituents are directly affected by the works. Along with the member for Clayfield and the member for Stafford, I took the opportunity last week to inspect the site. We were shown over the site by Stuart Reeves, who is the project officer there for the Department of Main Roads. The progress of the work is very impressive. I think that the contractors, the department and indeed the minister need to be congratulated on a project which is progressing very well. We are all looking forward to the progressive opening of the lanes in the Nundah area, which will significantly improve the traffic flow through that area. Of course, once the bypass tunnel is completely opened, it will provide a unique opportunity for the Nundah community, particularly the business community, in partnership with the Brisbane City Council, to significantly develop and create a village-style atmosphere in the Nundah shopping centre. The north side members at both state government and local council level are looking forward to providing significant support to that community to ensure that the Nundah shopping centre becomes a very vibrant business centre on the north side. The other issue I want to make a few brief comments about is the Airtrain project. Once again, I share this project with the member for Clayfield. The Airtrain line itself basically is the boundary between our electorates, and we both have been good supporters of the project. The Airtrain is, of course, a BOOT project—a build, own, operate and transfer project—which is being operated by Airtrain, and it will be transferred to government after a period of 35 years at no cost. It is a fact today that the infrastructure demands on government are becoming quite significant. Another fact is that governments do not have all the funds required to deliver all the public infrastructure that is required. There is enormous pressure on government budgets and finances to deliver the infrastructure that is required for the development of our industries and our communities. Therefore, we need to look at innovative financing mechanisms to put these projects in place. The Airtrain BOOT project is one such project. Of course, there are a number of other configurations of public/private sector involvement in these major infrastructures: build-own- operate, design-build-operate and other configurations. The important thing is that we work closely with the private sector to develop these innovative ways of financing major infrastructure and other public facilities throughout the state. During my term as chairman of the Public Works Committee, over the last term we made an effort to closely examine a number of arrangements pertaining to private and public sector involvement in major infrastructure projects. It came to light that there are a couple of critical issues that need to be developed in these projects. The first issue that the committee became aware of in our investigations and travels was the absolutely critical role that the negotiation of the contract plays in ensuring the success of the particular project. It is so important to ensure that the risk transfer or the risk allocation in those contracts is very carefully thought through. Although I have not seen the Airtrain contracts, from all the information that is available it appears that the transfer of risk, or the financial risk in particular, rests with the private sector operator. At the end of the contract period, the government will be getting a very fine asset as a part of our public transport network. The other critical issue in terms of these private/public sector partnerships is the ongoing contract management. At the end of the 35-year period, it is essential that the government receives an asset that is in tip-top condition. One way of ensuring that is through the ongoing 30 May 2001 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 1317 contract management. It is crucial that the people who have the task of managing those contracts over the 35-year period are properly resourced and equipped to ensure that all of the relevant maintenance is undertaken. In this instance, I understand that Queensland Rail will be undertaking the maintenance of the Airtrain link and that will assist in that process. Before finishing, I wish to give credit to a couple of people who were involved in the project. Brendan Peterson, the project manager for Transfield, did an excellent job. The whole Transfield team needs to be congratulated on the work that they have performed on that project. As a local member, one usually hears pretty quickly when there are problems in terms of impacts on the community. They set a standard in terms of providing information to the community and keeping local members well informed. I also give credit to Ruth Simpson, the public relations officer for the company, who did an excellent job, and also to Ken Devoncorn, the chief executive of Airtrain, who is doing a magnificent job in that position and is managing a very important and impressive asset. The good thing about this whole project is that it is a very effective partnership between the public and private sectors. We have Queensland Rail running the trains, maintaining the track and installing the signal system, and the private sector operating it. We are looking forward to its success in the coming years. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (9.53 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate this evening. As is usual with the passage of transport bills through the parliament, the debates tend to be wide ranging. That gives people an opportunity to put on the record a number of issues related to the bill, no matter how loosely. Firstly, I will address a couple of the issues that were raised by the member for Gregory in his contribution today. Essentially, the member for Gregory would like me to respond to four issues specifically. First and foremost was the administration charge. If a person goes through the e-toll booth or plaza without having a transponder, a digital camera will take a photo of their number plate. They will be subsequently sent a notice to pay the toll and an administration charge. The member for Gregory was concerned about the level of the administration charge and the fact that it may affect the public acceptance of the new system. At this stage, we have not finished refining the level of the administration charge. The member indicated that he thought it would be in the range of $10 to $20. I would hope—but I cannot commit myself now—that we would narrow it down to between $10 and $15. In other states, that is the order of magnitude of the administration charge. I can give an assurance to the member for Gregory that the administration charge is by no means a revenue raising exercise. It will only cover the cost of the administration of sending a notice to the person to notify them that they have gone through the toll plaza without paying the toll and asking them to remit that toll. I give a commitment to the member for Gregory that we will charge no more for the administration fee than is necessary for us to properly administer the system. I think that it will be in the range of $10 to $15. We also need to bear in mind that there are a range of other provisions that we have in place for people who may be unfamiliar with the system, including an amnesty for a period so that notices will not be sent in the first instance. We are very conscious of that issue. I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Gregory and members of the opposition. I would be happy to keep him informed as that matter progresses and we get to the stage of setting the charge. We appreciate that, whilst there will be significant benefits to motorists, and particularly commercial users, of the Gateway Bridge and our other toll roads from the e-toll system, price sensitivity is quite an important issue. The second issue that the member raised was the level of the fine. It needs to be borne in mind that it is not actually a fine for not paying the toll. If people go through the tollway without paying, we notify them that they have been through the tollway, that they did not have a transponder in place and that they are required to remit the toll plus the administration charge. In the first instance, no-one gets a fine. If one goes through without a transponder, all one has to do is pay the toll and the administration charge. There is no fine. The fine only comes into effect when, having been notified that they have not paid the toll, the person refuses to pay the toll or says that they were not driving the car and refuses to assist in identifying the person who may have been driving the car at the time. In essence, it is not a fine for not paying the toll. We will actually go to the trouble of writing to the registered owner of the vehicle, alerting them to the fact that their vehicle has gone through the booth without a transponder and that 1318 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 30 May 2001 they have a responsibility to pay the toll and the administration charge. If they continue to ignore their responsibility after that, the fine comes into play. The fine in Queensland is $105 and in Victoria it is $100. As a comparison, the fine for a person boarding a train without a valid ticket is $150. I do not think that the $105 fine is unreasonable given that we will be writing individually to each motorist who goes through without a transponder, saying, 'If you pay the $2.20 toll plus the $13 fee, that is, $15.20, that is fine. We will take that and it is all over and done with.' Everybody is happy. It is only when they refuse to pay that the fine comes into effect. There will be warning signs advising motorists who are approaching the tollway of the new system. We anticipate launching a significant advertising campaign. In fact, members may have already seen articles in the newspapers from Terry Brown at QML, alerting people to the change that is coming. As the member alluded to, there will be variable message signs on the approaches to the toll. We will do whatever we can to alert motorists to the fact that the transponder system is operating in particular lanes. However, there is a concern, as the member would appreciate as a former Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads, in terms of signage policy in that we need to make sure that we do not have so many signs that they are a distraction to motorists. There is a safety consideration there. Within the limits of those safety considerations I give the member for Gregory an assurance that we will do whatever we can to notify motorists. Mr Johnson: It can be confusing. Mr BREDHAUER: Particularly to people from out of town. People who use it every day know what the signs say and what lane they should be in. But people who have just driven down from Longreach and who have never been across the Gateway before can find the variable message signs and approach signs quite confusing. In the past when I have been to Sydney and tried get into the right lane to go across the harbour bridge I have had that problem. The other very important issue raised by the members for Gregory and Hinchinbrook is the interoperability of the electronic tolling systems here in Queensland with those operating in other states. The Australian Transport Council has come to a national agreement to work towards the interoperability of our tolling systems. We have made sure that the e-toll system that we have put in place in Queensland complies with those national standards and will be interoperable with similar electronic tolling systems that operate in other states, namely, New South Wales and Victoria, at present. Commercial users and the heavy vehicle industry in particular who are regularly travelling across interstate boundaries will find the systems compatible. As the member for Toowoomba North said, the system operates both in the sense that people can prepay on the transponder so that they have a credit or, alternatively, regular users of the system can operate under an account system. Those were the key issues that the member was looking for us to address. I mention briefly the contributions from the members for Algester and Mansfield. Both members, in conjunction with the members for Mount Gravatt and Stretton, have been very active in lobbying me about the problems on Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road and the traffic impacts on the local community. They are very concerned that the motorways operate as efficiently as possible. Efficient motorway operation encourages heavy vehicles in particular to use the motorway. Cost is a factor for them, but so is convenience and time. Mr Johnson: It depends on the location of commercial businesses, too. Down in that region they are all over the place. Mr BREDHAUER: That is a valid point. At the initiation of the member for Mansfield, we did an origin and destination survey of heavy vehicles on that road. Seventy per cent of the vehicles using Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road have either their origin or destination in that area—places like the Rocklea Markets and so on. It is very difficult to divert those. But for those heavy vehicles that have a choice, if we can make the operation of the motorways more efficient and timely, that is a factor in their making a decision to use those rather than the more congested roads like Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. The member for Mansfield in particular and I, and also the members for Algester, Mount Gravatt and Stretton, have been campaigning for a planning study to come up with a long-term solution. There is no quick fix or short-term solution. We need to look at the long-term solution to those issues. I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and federal Minister for Transport has come on board and allocated money for the planning study that we have been pushing for for probably 12 months now since we first approached him. We think it is an important issue in terms 30 May 2001 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 1319 of the long-time amenity of that community and also making the movement of heavy vehicles in particular through that part of the National Highway network as efficient as it can be. I am pleased to note that John Anderson has helped us with the funding for that project. However, I do note that the member for Moreton, who I have to say has never made a positive contribution in terms of helping to resolve these issues with me as minister—he is a regular critic of me and the actions of this government—has never once written to me to ask for any assistance or support, other than to whinge. Also, he basically denied the need for the study, saying that all we had to do was to declare that a section of the National Highway did not exist and make it a state-controlled road—something which would presumably sort out the problem. That is absolute nonsense. It is never going to happen. It is part of the National Highway. It is primarily the Commonwealth's responsibility. But I, as the state minister, and the state local members are prepared to play our part to try to solve that problem. I notice he came out in the newspaper this week supporting it. I welcome his belated support. I just wish he had done so a little sooner, because we might have made progress a bit earlier. I appreciate the contribution of the member for Toowoomba North and the issues that he raised. The member for Hinchinbrook spoke all about the roads in his electorate, particularly the National Highway. The member for Toowoomba North resisted the temptation to talk about National Highway issues in his electorate. I think we might leave that for another debate. He should rest assured that I am well versed on those issues; the member for Toowoomba North has already beaten a path to my door to talk about the second Toowoomba range crossing and various other issues up there. With the Gateway Bridge in his electorate, the member for Bulimba is fully cognisant of the congestion that occurs on the Gateway Bridge generally as a result of people having to stop to pay tolls. He more than any other honourable member would appreciate the benefits that will come from improving traffic flow as a result of the new e-toll system. I appreciate the contribution that he made, because the relationship between the Gateway, the motorway system and the new port motorway will deliver major benefits to the freight industry in particular. A number of other members made contributions on a range of issues that are not specifically related to the bill so I will not respond to those in any detail. But I do appreciate the sentiments they made. I know they are genuinely representing the interests of their constituents and that those issues are important to them as local members and to their constituents. With those words, I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 13, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS (LIABILITY) BILL Second Reading Resumed from 15 May (see p. 813). Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.09 p.m.): I apologise for the absence of the member for Maroochydore, who has taken ill. I will replace the member for Maroochydore, and I ask the minister to be kind. The opposition will be supporting the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 2001. It has broad support from the industry, which has been consulted and has in fact called for this legislation to remedy what has been described as the currently draconian regime. The bill provides a mechanism to restrict the no-fault property loss or damage liability of accommodation providers to an amount no greater than $250 where the accommodation provider displays a set notice. In fact, this bill will partly restore some of the protections for accommodation providers which were removed with the repeal of the 1912 Liquor Act at the commencement of the 1992 Liquor Act. With the advent of the 1992 Liquor Act, the omission of 1320 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 30 May 2001 the previous section 92 meant that accommodation providers became strictly liable under common law to an unrestricted amount for the theft or damage of a client's property according to the ancient innkeepers doctrine, regardless of whether the accommodation provider was negligent or not. The 1992 omission was unfortunate as it turned the clock back 130 years on a very reasonable principle which first was law in Queensland under the Innkeepers' Protection Act. In contrast to Queensland's situation since 1992, in other states and territories, with the exception of South Australia, the strict liability of an innkeeper is already limited to nil or a nominal sum subject to the innkeeper displaying the statutory notice where required. In those jurisdictions, as is proposed in this bill, there is no amount limiting the innkeeper's liability for loss to property where there has been default, neglect or wilful acts perpetrated. The concept of an innkeeper's liability, which we are limiting here today, goes back 1,500 years to the Romans and was carried into English common law in recognition that travel could be dangerous and some robbers worked in tandem with innkeepers to take advantage of guests and their property. The earliest case law making an innkeeper liable for the guests' stolen property despite the innkeeper's claims of innocence goes back to 1368. However, England and most countries which inherited common law had amended these principles of innkeeper's liability by statute by the end of the 19th century. It was Queensland that went backwards by changing these provisions by omission in 1992. As is mentioned by Trevor Atherton in his December 1996 article for the Australian Business Law Review, the tables have completely turned since Roman times and medieval England, with innkeepers now needing protection from imprudent and fraudulent guests. This bill does have the support of industry, although there are sections of industry, particular the backpackers sector, which have expressed concern about the $250 limit being too high. Given that the $250 limit can be applied over consecutive days, adding up to far in excess of this initial threshold and given that some accommodation providers in the budget market do not reap a particularly high return per room, this can still be a significant liability, particularly as the guest does not have to prove that neglect, default or wilful acts caused the loss. I understand, however, that this is better than the current legal position, which is potentially unlimited liability and not the $250 cap per day proposed here. Another concern—also quite a valid one—which has been expressed to me is the nature of the notice that has to be displayed in order to gain the benefit of this limitation of strict liability. The notice in this bill could, in fact, backfire by advertising that the guest can claim up to $250 off the accommodation provider even if the provider is blameless for the loss. The notice in section 15 of this bill reads— The Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Act 2001 changes the common law about innkeeper's liability. Under the Act, an accommodation provider may be liable to make good any loss of a guest's property in certain circumstances even though the loss is not caused by the fault of the accommodation provider, or the provider's agent. The strict liability of the accommodation provider under the Act— applies only to a guest of the accommodation provider on a day when an accommodation unit is provided for the use of the guest is limited to $250 for each accommodation unit provided for the use of the guest on the day, unless the guest's property was placed in safe custody facilities— and so on. This notice is considerably different from the one which previously had to be displayed to limit liability of accommodation providers or innkeepers under the law in Queensland before 1992. In my reading of the 1912 Liquor Act, the notice which an innkeeper displayed to restrict their liability was in fact section 92. The section, which was also the notice, read— No licensed victualler shall be liable to make good to any guest or lodger any loss of or injury to goods or property brought to his licensed premises, except in the following cases, that is to say— (a) If such goods or property have been stolen, lost, or injured through the wilful act, default or neglect of such licensed victualler or any servant or person in his employ; or (b) If such goods or property have been deposited with him expressly for safe custody. I understand that the law prior to 1992 did not allow guests to claim money from the innkeeper where the innkeeper was not at fault. That was a fairer law than what we are currently debating. It is immoral for someone to claim money from someone where that party was not at fault. However, I do grant that on balance this bill is better than the status quo, which provides no limitation and, thus, does not allow a reasonable accommodation provider who is taking all due 30 May 2001 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 1321 care to limit their risk. I do note that the minister has given a commitment to review the $250 amount in this bill, and I welcome that. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised some concerns with regard to the definition of 'accommodation unit'. I understand that the minister's proposed amendment, which has been tabled, seeks to address its concerns in relation to trains possibly being captured by the law. The amendment seeks to more clearly exclude train travel where people are accommodated. The opposition supports the bill. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (10.16 p.m.): As a local member for an area highly reliant on tourism, I am pleased to join other honourable members in supporting the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill, which is an important step towards stabilising at least some of the potential risks in the tourism industry. I dare say that members of this House will be aware that there are large numbers of visitors—international as well as domestic—to Cairns right throughout the year, particularly at this time of the year when I remind all honourable members how warm and balmy the weather is in Cairns, how comfortable and relaxing a trip to the Great Barrier Reef is and how good it is to paddle through those warm northern waters. I dare say that it is also known to honourable members of this House that there are many tourists, particularly international tourists, whose only stop in Queensland is Cairns and the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, the top three destinations in Australia for international tourists are first, Sydney; second, Cairns and the Great Barrier Reef; and, third, Uluru. Because of that high rate of international visitation and, therefore, Cairns' relative international fame despite its quite modest size, we are nonetheless aware of how fragile our reputation is and how little it takes in terms of undesirable tourist experiences for that reputation to be impugned. Of course, the loss of goods, quarrels in terms of quality or standards, and even theft from tourists to our fair city do the tourism industry particular harm, whether through word of mouth or, worse still, through media reports broadcast in the country of origin of the tourist. The other issue relevant to this bill and to the need for it is the broadening of our tourist industry, certainly in the far-north region. While some years ago we were primarily reliant on the four and five-star market under which our resorts and hotels were generally classified in the four and five-star range, many of which were therefore owned by international chains, now the accommodation choices are much wider and include much more in the way of small ventures and locally owned businesses, including bed and breakfasts, and many—and increasing in numbers—backpacker hostels as well as tapping into the middle-aged independent travellers market in which comfortable accommodation at the three-star end of the range is preferred. These tourists are just as important to us in Cairns as are those in the four and five-star range. In fact, the information we have is that those who spend less on accommodation generally stay longer in the region. Therefore, the spend, as the jargon goes, that they make towards the local economy is very considerable. Therefore, it is important for the tourists and the reputation of the industry in places such as Cairns as well as the sake of the owners of tourist accommodation premises that this bill is put into place. It is to the minister's credit that she has taken this bill through sensible consultation with the industry as well as received high-quality advice from legal experts. This debate gives me an opportunity to remind honourable members that associations like the Queensland Hotels Association, the Hotel Motel Accommodation Association of Queensland and the Queensland Backpacker and Independent Traveller Industry Association are well represented at the top end of the state. Marie Turner and Steven Welsh are frequent visitors to Brisbane in their state-level roles within their industry groups. They and others in Cairns will welcome this protection for the industry. It is reasonable liability but not undue risk in terms of unfair deals or even fraud on the part of travellers who may lose property. The bill is, as is the minister, balanced and sensible. It is well thought out. I commend it and support it. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.21 p.m.): I rise to participate in debate on the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 2001 and again draw to the attention of government members that this is the third government bill introduced this evening during time that, under sessional orders as at 12 April 2000, was set aside for the debate of private members' bills. Again, this bill is not being opposed by the opposition and flies in the face of comments made by the Leader of the House this morning when she said— I take this opportunity to assure members that there is no intention by this government to stifle any debate on private members' bills. There are already three private members' bills waiting for debate. I commend the bill to the House. 1322 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 30 May 2001

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.22 p.m.): I am very pleased to rise, albeit briefly, to speak in support of the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill because it gives certainty to an area that until now has been shrouded in doubt and misinformation. This bill benefits both accommodation providers and travellers alike by making very clear just where the onus of responsibility lies in relation to liability for loss or damage of a guest's property. The history underlying this bill is fascinating, as it takes us back to the days of ancient Rome when travelling the highways and byways was not for the faint hearted. Travellers in those days were vulnerable to the unscrupulous vagaries of innkeepers and stable managers who, it seems, had little respect for the notions of ownership or propriety. In order to give travellers some protection against exploitation and plain theft of their belongings, a rule was prescribed putting the onus of responsibility back on to the innkeeper by making him or her strictly liable for loss or damage to the traveller's property. It appears that this rule of law remained largely unchanged throughout the ages right up until the 20th century. Indeed, I am reminded of a memorable scene from Les Miserables in which the colourful yet devious innkeeper set out to lull his victims into a sense of false security or drunken stupor while at the same time plotting to lighten their load in the dead of night. I am quite sure that in reality the resulting scene would not always have been quite so entertaining or indeed as melodic. One can only assume that the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill would have been a welcome addition to French law during those turbulent times. This bill protects the modern-day traveller by placing liability for loss or damage of guests' property squarely with the accommodation provider but, importantly, limits the liability to $250 per unit of accommodation or $50,000 where the provider has safe custody facilities. In addition, there is a requirement that the accommodation provider must notify guests about the act by way of displaying a sign or notice in a prominent position. Significantly, the contents of this bill are known to and supported by the accommodation industry. Further, it brings Queensland into line with conditions in most other states and many international jurisdictions. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated in a state in which tourism is the second-largest industry and our biggest employer. As the member for Whitsunday—a fact of which I am sure all members are well aware—I am acutely interested in any legislation that brings certainty to the tourism industry. As I am sure all members will be aware, the Whitsunday region is one of Queensland's premier tourist destinations. While I admit to being somewhat biased, I believe that the Whitsundays is actually the premier tourist destination not just in Queensland and Australia but indeed the world. Statistics show that in 1999 the occupancy rate for accommodation in the Whitsunday region was 64.9 per cent, 4.2 per cent above the average for the state. In addition, the Whitsunday region accounted for nearly 10 per cent of Queensland's takings from accommodation. I am sure all members will agree that these are impressive figures. I take great pride in the fact that the Beattie government has actively supported tourism in the Whitsunday area in very tangible terms. Probably the most visible contribution of the Beattie government's support for tourism in the Whitsundays is the magnificent lagoon that graces the foreshores of Airlie Beach, providing a safe swimming facility that actually complements the natural surroundings. There is no doubt that the Airlie lagoon has directly contributed to an increase in visitor stay-nights on the mainland. The injection of $8 million into the local economy has had other positive flow-on effects. Following the Beattie government's demonstration of confidence in the future of the Whitsundays as a premier tourist destination, the number of building approvals for tourist accommodation units has escalated. It is the quality and variety of accommodation types in the Whitsundays that makes it the perfect destination for singles, families, economy travellers and those looking for the total holiday, complete with luxury accommodation and world-class reef and rainforest experiences. Accommodation in the Whitsundays ranges from hostel and bed and breakfast facilities to five-star resorts that offer the best of everything. This is why the passage of this bill is so important to my electorate. The bill will bring certainty and clarity to that most important area in the relationship between the traveller and the accommodation owner or operator. This bill is fair and sensible. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.26 p.m.): The Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill seeks to rectify a glaring gap existing in Queensland with respect to the law relating to innkeepers or, in today's parlance, hoteliers and moteliers. At the moment Queenslanders are governed by the position at common law—that is, the law is determined by the courts or judge- made law. This position has applied since, as has been referred to, 1992 when the Liquor Act 30 May 2001 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 1323

1992 amended the relevant position previously applying as contained in section 93 of the Liquor Act 1912. Section 93 of the 1912 act effectively adopted the relevant English legislative provision for responsibility of goods of lodgers. The section was in part read out by the member for Beaudesert. The second part of that section, however, states— In the case of goods or property so deposited, a licensed victualler may, if he thinks fit, require as a condition to his liability that such goods or property be placed in a box or other receptacle fastened and sealed by the person depositing them. Every licensed victualler shall keep a copy of this section always conspicuously exhibited on his licensed premises near the principal entrance thereof, and in default of doing so he shall not be entitled to the benefit thereof. The effect of the Liquor Act 1912 was to provide some relief for the providers of accommodation from the harshness of the doctrine of strict liability, provided of course that a copy of section 93 was conspicuously displayed. What was then and what is now the position at common law? Time does not permit any sort of proper and thorough examination. I would, however, recommend to the House the scholarly work referred to by the member for Beaudesert of Trevor and Trudie Atherton contained in chapter 13 of Law Book Company's Information Services 1998. The law—that is, the common law—dealing with innkeepers, like carriers, is derived from ancient Roman law which prescribed special rights and duties for those providing travellers with essential services, particularly shipowners, innkeepers and stable keepers. In those ancient times travel was dangerous, and carriers and innkeepers were notorious for exploiting and robbing their customers. This was referred to by the member for Whitsunday. Those customers were particularly vulnerable, given the conditions of the time. Proof was difficult to get, particularly if innkeepers connived with pirates or highwaymen. The practical solution devised in Roman law was to impose strict duties and liabilities upon carriers and innkeepers. These Roman laws survived through the Dark Ages until they merged into medieval common law in one of the earliest recorded cases—this was referred to by the member for Beaudesert—in 1368, known as the innkeepers case. Pertinent parts of that case state— ... [C]ertain malefactors ... broke at night with force and arms, that is to say, with swords etc, into a room in which Thomas, on a journey to London ..., Was accommodated within such an inn ... at Huntingdon, and took and carried away the said Thomas's goods and chattels namely, one belt, a seal with a silver chain, one sword with buckler, linen and woollen cloths and one dagger to the value of four pounds, as well as nine pounds of the king's money ... It goes on— And [the innkeeper's stableman, says that he] ... provided Thomas and his servants with a room with adequate locks ... and that at that time they expressed themselves content with the said room ... Notes on this case state— Medieval travelling conditions had changed little from Roman times and the common law took the same practical approach to making travel safer: remove the incentive to rob by making carriers and innkeepers strictly liable for traveller's property. As the common law evolved, additions to the innkeepers liability appeared. For example, there arose the duty to receive, stable and feed a guest's horse and receive a carriage. The common law has followed development from the horse and buggy to the motor car, and the transition is set out in the 1954 English case of Gresham v. Lyon, in which it was stated— It is clear on authority that today the keeper of a 'common inn' is under obligation to provide accommodation not only for the guest himself, but for his motor car, as he was in the olden days obliged to provide accommodation for the traveller's gig and horse ... However, it was not all against the innkeeper. For example, the innkeeper acquired the right to set rules of the house. For example, one sign in a local inn in Tudor times provided 'no more than five to sleep in one bed' and 'no boots to be worn in bed'. Having regard to the strict liability doctrine applying under the common law, and hence currently in Queensland, reform as contained in the bill is undoubtedly warranted. For example, currently innkeepers are strictly liable for the theft, disappearance or damage of their guests' goods. The innkeeper stands in the position of an insurer of his or her guests' goods. This position is of course subject to certain defences available being, firstly, the negligence of the guest himself or herself; secondly, that the guest retained the good in his or her exclusive possession; thirdly, that the goods were not infra hospitium, that is, within the bounds of the house; fourthly, an act of God; or, lastly, acts of enemies of the Queen. It must be pointed out, however, that in relation to the negligence of the guest defence the burden of proof still rests with the innkeeper. 1324 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 30 May 2001

This bill brings Queensland up to date with the rest of Australia and in doing so corrects the vacuum which arose in 1992 when resort to the common law was necessary, owing to the passage of the repealing legislation of that year. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.34 p.m.): I rise to speak briefly to the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill. This bill will bring balance to the law relating to the rights and duties of traveller accommodation providers and their guests. Currently, under the innkeepers doctrine accommodation providers are liable for the property of guests, regardless of whether the accommodation provider is at fault. This bill will provide protection for both the accommodation provider and the traveller. A collaborative approach was used to form the policy contained in this bill. Major industry bodies, government departments, insurance companies and the Queensland Law Society were all consulted. As I stated earlier, currently the accommodation provider is liable for the loss of guests' property, even if the fault did not lay with them. This relies heavily on the honesty of guests not to lodge fraudulent claims; I cannot think of too many businesses that rely solely on the client's honesty. This bill provides limited liability for the loss and damage of property. It will limit liability to $250 per room, or $50,000 if an accommodation provider has provided safe custody facilities. It is important to note that this limit will not apply when the loss or damage results from the fault or negligence of the accommodation provider or an employee. This will be the highest limited liability in Australia, and to ensure that the level remains appropriate a review will take place in two years. I repeat: this gives protection to both traveller and accommodation provider. Another worthy part of this bill is the requirement for the accommodation providers to notify guests of this act. A notice of the act will be required to be displayed in the main entrance of the facility. It is also necessary that the provider bring the attention of the guest to this act. This can easily be done by means of a notice in the room or some other method. I know that when I have travelled I have never been told of the responsibilities of the accommodation providers. I believe that the requirement to inform travellers is a very important part of the bill. Tourism plays such an important role in contributing to this state, and I believe that this bill sets a framework for a cooperative approach to what can be a very stressful time for both the accommodation provider and the guest. The bill recognises the need for responsible industry practices that generate safer and more supportive environments. It provides information to guests so that they can plan according to their needs. Another reason I am pleased to speak on this bill is that it includes all types of accommodation provider. This is important to the electorate of Springwood. Although we are not a large tourism destination such as the Gold or Sunshine Coasts, we are certainly becoming known as a great place to stay close to Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and, of course, the Darling Downs tourist spots. Springwood has the Springwood Motel, Springers Motel and the new Springwood Towers. There are only two high-rise buildings in the Pacific Motorway corridor, and one of them is the new, privately-funded towers. It is a five-star facility and certainly represents a vote of confidence in Springwood, servicing the business and tourist visitors to the Pacific Motorway corridor. I am pleased that these facility operators will be better protected by the introduction of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (10.38 p.m.): As members would be well aware, the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill addresses an ancient and archaic doctrine, referred to previously as the innkeepers liability. These much-needed changes will be well appreciated by tourism operators across the state. Being a former board member of Tourism Sunshine Coast, by far the most dynamic regional tourism authority in Queensland, I well realise the benefits. The tourism industry will greatly appreciate these amendments that will bring many accommodation providers into the 21st century. At present the modern accommodation provider must put full trust in the honesty of the guest, and there is obviously scope for fraudulent claims. We realise that not all travellers or tourists are as honest as we would wish. Obviously many are. Many insurance policies do not presently cover the risks that are addressed by this bill. In light of the present turbulence within the insurance industry, I will not go on about legal cover and so on. As all honourable members would realise, what is before us will benefit the Queensland tourism industry and one of the most dynamic places in Queensland—the Sunshine Coast—through ensuring that the rules remain fair and suitable for travel in contemporary modern 30 May 2001 Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill 1325 times. This legislation will apply to a whole range of traveller accommodation establishments—backpacker, bed and breakfast, hotel, motel, resort and serviced apartments. Not many years ago, I was fortunate enough not only to have a full head of hair but to travel the world, as many thousands of young and old Queenslanders do. I was lucky enough to venture overseas for an extended working holiday through the United States, Britain, Europe, Africa and parts of Asia. These changes will bring us into line with other states across Australia and many other parts of the world. I realise that, since taking over this portfolio, the minister is well respected in the industry. I commend the urgency within the House for this bill. Obviously, I commend the bill to the House and applaud the minister. Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (10.40 p.m.), in reply: As outlined in my second reading speech, under the innkeepers doctrine a traveller accommodation provider in Queensland has strict and unlimited liability for the property which a guest brings to the premises. The purpose of this legislation is to reform the laws regulating the rights and duties between providers of traveller accommodation in Queensland and their guests. This is what the Traveller Accommodation Providers (Liability) Bill is all about. It is about restoring balance to the equation through providing protection to both accommodation providers and guests. Ultimately, strict liability could be removed from the innkeepers doctrine by the evolutionary processes of the common law; but this is unlikely to happen, because the increasing cost of litigation and the statutory limits which apply in most jurisdictions mean that few cases ever reach the higher law-making courts. Accommodation providers have been naturally nervous about the extent of their liability and possible fraudulent claims. In response to industry concerns, the government has acted as quickly as possible to rectify the situation, restoring balance to the equation while ensuring that the rights of guests are addressed. Importantly, where the accommodation provider is at fault, the statutory limit will not apply. The bill also places certain requirements on traveller establishments to notify guests about the act, such as displaying a notice at reception or the main entrance of the establishment. The notice is also required to be displayed in the room or drawn to the attention of the guest in some other way. I know that this issue was raised by the member for Beaudesert. If I could add to my previous comments, the notice to be displayed balances the rights of the consumer to be notified of liability. It has been updated and modernised to meet community standards and expectations. I also hope that it will encourage guests who have items of value to approach the management and make sure that they are put into special safety deposit boxes. Guests will be made aware of the limit and provided the opportunity to take special precautions, if necessary. The introduction of a new legislative scheme to address this area in the law will provide protection to both traveller establishments and their guests and maintain substantial uniformity with other state and international jurisdictions. The accommodation industry has been naturally worried about its ongoing legal position, and the government has acted as expeditiously as possible to address the issue. The bill goes a long way in addressing this issue through mitigating the harshness of the common law. I reiterate that this legislation is all about finding the right balance—a balance that will provide appropriate protection to both accommodation providers and guests. I thank very much all members for their contributions. I thank the member for Beaudesert. I know that the member for Maroochydore, the shadow minister, is unwell. I do hope that she has a speedy recovery. I thank her very much for her support. I did organise for my staff to brief her about this bill, and she was very supportive. To all members on the government side who participated in the debate—the member for Cairns, who is a great advertisement and advocate for tourism in the Cairns region; and the members for Whitsunday, Toowoomba North, Springwood and Kawana—I thank them all for their contributions. I know that this legislation will be very welcomed by accommodation providers throughout the state. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. 1326 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001

Clause 6— Mrs ROSE (10.46 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1 circulated in my name— 1 Clause 6— At page 5, lines 19 and 20, from ', accommodation is'— omit, insert— '— (a) accommodation is not traveller accommodation unless it includes an accommodation unit; and (b) accommodation in or on something, that is a means of transportation, is not traveller accommodation if the particular thing is being used, or is ordinarily used, for transportation.'. This amendment clarifies an issue that was raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee concerning the application of the bill to situations where provision is made for people to sleep as part of their transport arrangements, such as long-distance train travel. The amendment will clarify that the legislation does not apply to accommodation in or on something that is a means of transportation where the thing is being used or is ordinarily used for transportation. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr LINGARD (10.47 p.m.): The member for Maroochydore has asked me to ask about clause 12. But when I read clause 12, I notice the examples that are given there. The member for Maroochydore has asked: if a backpacker takes a bed which might be worth $40 and there are six people in the room, and another married couple takes a unit which might cost $200, if the married couple are robbed of $1,000 and the backpacker is robbed of $250, is it true that the backpacker is considered as an accommodation unit and, therefore, is refunded the whole $250 whereas the married couple are refunded only $250 of their $1,000 loss? The basis of the question is: is the backpacker's bed—when there are six people in the room worth $40 each—considered an accommodation unit? Mrs ROSE: I thank the member for the question. It is $250 per unit. So whether or not there are six people in a unit or only a couple, it is a maximum of $250 per unit. Mr LINGARD: I do not require further clarification. However, I point out that there could be the anomaly of a backpacker who has paid $40 for a bed being robbed of $250 worth of goods and receiving the whole $250 in compensation, as against the married couple, who receive only $250 of their $1,000. The minister is saying that that is correct. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I note that there is a limit of $250. I am interested in the basis of the minister's research to set that limit. The example of a married couple says that the husband lost a $200 camera. Most cameras, even modest models—even a point and shoot—now cost more than $200. SLRs and those sorts of things are worth considerably more than that—probably add another zero. I wondered what the basis of the minister's research was to set a $250 limit. Mrs ROSE: The $250 limit was negotiated with the industry. The proposed amount of liability is the highest in Australia. I think in New South Wales and Victoria it is something like $100. So we are more than double any other state in Australia. I have said that I am happy to review it after two years. It was a figure that we negotiated with the industry, but we are mindful of the need to make sure that the limits remain appropriate and reflect contemporary requirements. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 17, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

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

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS OFFENCES BILL Second Reading Resumed from 1 May (see p. 455). 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1327

Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.53 p.m.): The Racial and Religious Offences Bill was introduced into this House by the member for Southern Downs as a private member's bill on 1 May this year. The explanatory notes state that the primary objective of the legislation is to ensure that those who commit hate crimes based on racial or religious grounds are punished not only for their actions but also for the motivation behind their actions. These are laudable objectives. I can only agree with the sentiments expressed in the explanatory notes, where it says— It is in the interests of society for there to be a clear determination that hate crimes are unacceptable. Many crimes are based on racial and religious hatred, and it is the responsibility of the government to deter such crimes being committed by reinforcing how socially unacceptable such actions are. However, the form of the proposed amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 simply will not achieve the objectives and will add an intolerable burden to the administration of the criminal law in Queensland. The proposed bill provides for a generic circumstance of aggravation for all offences where— imprisonment can be imposed; and the offence involves the person, by a public act, inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons on the ground of the race or religion of the person or members of a group in a way that includes— (a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons; or (b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons. 'Public act' as used in this bill is very similar to the definition of 'public act' to be found in the Anti- Discrimination Bill. This bill very closely mirrors the wording of the criminal offence of serious racial or religious vilification to be found in the Anti-Discrimination Bill, the amendments to which we debated earlier today. However, there are significant differences. The offence of serious racial or religious vilification is a substantive offence. It will be prosecuted upon complaint with the consent of a Crown Law officer in the Magistrates Court. In contrast, this bill seeks to apply an aggravating circumstance at large to all criminal offences for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed. It is very difficult to see how the aggravating circumstance would attach to an offence of actual violence unless the violence involves some incitement to other persons to perform the same act or threaten persons or their property. I want to make this very clear. This bill would not increase the punishment of offenders whose criminal acts are motivated by racial or religious hatred if they do no public act inciting hatred. To that extent, the bill simply does not meet the objectives set out in the explanatory notes. The bill does not provide for a judge to impose an increased penalty when sentencing a person who has committed a crime motivated by racial or religious hatred. A reading of the proposed sections shows that the gist of the proposed aggravating circumstance is inciting hatred. With respect, such a requirement makes sense when one considers the government bill but makes no sense if the objective of the bill before the House now is to punish motivation. This bill would inevitably cause great confusion about the extent a sentencing court could take into account a racial or religious motive for a crime. The present law clearly allows a sentencing court to consider a racial motive when sentencing. The case of The Crown v Dempsey and Perks, an unreported Court of Appeal decision in 1999, is clear authority for this proposition. The amendments to the Evidence Act made last year by the Evidence and Other Acts Amendment Act now set out the degree of proof required for any allegation of fact so that a sentencing judge or magistrate can act on that allegation. If an allegation of fact is challenged, the judge or magistrate must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a fact is true. The degree of satisfaction required varies according to the adverse consequences of a finding. In contrast, this bill would require the aggravating circumstance to be charged on an indictment as part of the criminal offence. The Criminal Code defines a circumstance of aggravation as— Any circumstance by reason whereof an offender is liable to greater punishment than that to which the offender would be liable if the offence were committed without the existence of that circumstance. In other words, section 564 of the code requires any aggravating circumstance to be relied upon to be charged in an indictment. The aggravating circumstance would have to be determined not on the balance of probabilities for the purpose of sentencing; rather, beyond reasonable doubt by a jury or a magistrate as part of the primary offence. I note that the report of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee on this bill thought that this also is the likely position given the present law. Importantly, a series of High Court cases has established that if an aggravating circumstance is available and has not been charged, it cannot be relied upon on sentence. 1328 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001

Trials involving substantive serious offences would be prolonged and complicated by trying to determine this very complex aggravating circumstance. Indeed, proof of motive generally is not required in the criminal law. The law focuses on the substantive offence. This is understandable when one considers that the elements of a criminal charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent to do an act is sometimes difficult to prove. How much more difficult would it be if one were required to prove motivation beyond reasonable doubt? In fact, motive may be so secret and so hidden in the psyche of an offender that it cannot be proved at all. Honourable members may think back to some notable and horrific cases, and remember that a usual comment was, 'What would make a person do that?' We can speculate, but can we really expect our law enforcement agencies to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt? Where this aggravating circumstance was charged, trials would inevitably become mired in trying to decide the issue of the existence of a motivation to incite hatred on the basis of race or religion rather than trying to decide whether the offender committed this substantive offence. For example— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I advise the Attorney-General that the Clerk has brought it to my attention that the sessional orders actually state that anybody other than the mover may speak for only 10 minutes. The Attorney-General has only three minutes left. I thought that I had better warn the Attorney-General about that. The sessional orders are very clear about that. I am sorry that we put up 60 minutes, but on private members' bills all members other than the mover have only 10 minutes to speak to the bill. That is in the sessional orders. I think it is a good idea. Mr WELFORD: The difference between this bill and the existing circumstances of aggravation is easily illustrated by an example. Robbery is an offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. However, various circumstances of aggravation lift the maximum penalty to life imprisonment; for example, if the offender is armed, if the offender is in company or if the offender used personal violence or wounded any person. Those aggravating circumstances are part of the charge that is decided by the jury. Clearly, those circumstances are factual and easily proved by objective observation. In contrast, the circumstance of aggravation in the bill proposed has a number of different elements, including proving whether the offence was done on the grounds of race or religion. In my view, the government's approach of not interfering with the substantive criminal law but creating a separate offence to deal with serious religious or racial vilification is the preferred and correct approach. It is fair to concede that the new offence of serious racial and religious vilification will require a high standard of proof. That is entirely proper, as the government wanted to be quite sure that the democratic right to express opinions was not unduly compromised. The intention of the offence is not to deny people freedom of speech or stifle debate on issues of public importance, but to prohibit acts that undermine the social stability and cohesion of our community. If someone who is motivated by racial and religious hatred commits other offences like unlawful wounding, those offences can already be prosecuted. A jury will decide if someone was, for example, wounded and a judge can then determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. This may include if the prosecution can prove the fact to the appropriate standard, that is, on the balance of possibilities, a motivation of hatred on the grounds of race or religion. The government's approach reflects the existing underlying and well-established principles of our criminal law. Unfortunately, the private member's bill proposed by the member for Southern Downs today will simply not achieve the objectives it sets out to do. It is misconceived and, for those reasons, the government is unable to support the bill on this occasion. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.04 p.m.): It is interesting that this debate has been brought on at 11 o'clock at night after we had quite a sound roasting of the government, to use a soft term for endeavouring to deny the opposition its right to have private members' bills debated on Wednesday night. Whilst what happened this morning was the height of arrogance, tonight we have probably seen the ultimate in arrogance as the government brought this debate on without the normal sorts of courtesies that the minister herself spoke about this morning. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr HORAN: That is right; she spoke about certain courtesies this morning. The record should show the circumstances surrounding this debate. This morning, the Leader of Government 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1329

Business moved to stop private members' bills being debated. We debated that and made it quite clear that the government was trampling over this House with its arrogance and its dangerous majority. After that box around the ears, tonight at 11 o'clock— A government member interjected. Mr HORAN: We will have a look at the paper in the morning anyway. After that box around the ears, the government was chastened enough—I'm nearly getting to the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that I will be a little tolerant for a couple of minutes, but that debate was held earlier today and we will not revisit it. Very shortly, I would like the member to get back to the bill. Mr HORAN: This is a different matter to this morning. This morning the debate was cancelled. Now, at 11 o'clock at night, it has been brought on. I wonder what the average person outside the parliament would think of the behaviour of the government and the way that it treats this place. We heard government members pontificating this afternoon, trying to make out that Australia is the worst place in the world instead of the best place in the world when it comes to tolerance. Australia is a great place with great freedoms of speech and a tolerance developed within its people. The government would have us believe that it is the worst place in the world. It would impose the heavy centralist hand of the Labor government across everybody, affecting where they walk, what they think and what they say. As I said this morning, we will work through all the hours of the day and the night. We are not frightened of a bit of hard work. However, the ultimate arrogance has been the treatment of this important private member's bill. The government endeavoured to take it off the face of the globe this morning and in a tricky, sneaky and mean way has brought it back onto the agenda tonight. All members opposite have little grins on their faces. They are all half-smart smart alecs who are feeling very good about this. The people will judge them. Already the feeling around the state is that they are an arrogant lot— Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. Mr HORAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that you are going to get advice from the oracle. Honourable members interjected. Mr Seeney: Let him do his job. You sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mansfield, what is your point of order? Mr REEVES: Mr Deputy Speaker, you spoke to the member about your tolerance in relation to relevance to the bill. Four minutes have gone and still the member has not talked on the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I still have a little tolerance left. Mr HORAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are not only tolerant of me but you are also tolerant of the oracle who regularly gives someone of your experience advice. This is an important bill and it did not deserve this particular treatment. It is an important bill because, by introducing it, the opposition is giving a strong and positive response to crimes that are committed on the basis of racial or religious hatred. I noted that the Attorney-General talked about the difficulties of proving motivation. This is very similar to the operation of the racial and religious vilification laws that are in place in Western Australia. As our shadow Attorney-General has said, an actual act of racial or religious vilification must have been committed before there will be grounds for charges to be brought against a person. This bill indicates our commitment to addressing an act that results in a crime. It is a very important bill for the House to consider. As I said, it is a pity that it is being debated at this time of the night. The purpose of our bill is to amend the Penalties and Sentences Act. This new part would make it an aggravating circumstance to any crime punishable by imprisonment. This sends out a serious message to people that the ultimate penalty will be paid if they engage in racial or religious hatred and vilification that leads to the commission of a crime. Under the provisions of this bill, these aggravating circumstances will apply if the event involves any communication, conduct, dissemination or distribution of any material that is vilifying on the basis of race, religion or incites racial or religious vilification. This is a practical bill. It is a bill that brings forward a very strong point, namely, that we in this state will not stand for crimes that have been caused by racial or religious hatred. But at the same time, as we discussed this afternoon, it preserves the wonderful freedoms of our society that 1330 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001 make it so attractive to people all over the world. People come to this state and country because of its freedoms. The amazing thing in this wide brown land of Australia— Ms Bligh: interjected. Mr HORAN: I used that term in a speech to the Irish Club a couple of years ago. We have seen the hatred that exists in the other lands from which Australian immigrants have come. When they come here they leave that behind. It is because of the tolerant nature of our society that has developed as we have grown— A government member: This brown land. Mr HORAN: The member might like to throw off at Australia, but that is the way it is and that is why people want to come here. This country has not had the heavy hand of government imposed over everything. We have been able to develop a tolerance in Australia through the growth of generations and the experiences of people—a true Australian tolerance that is real and attractive to people from other parts of the world. This bill is worthy of support. It is a serious bill. It allows us to stand up for the right to free speech—one of our great democratic rights. This bill imposes penalties in relation to actual incidents. I notice that the ministers opposite seem to think that this bill is a great joke. They think it is a great joke, but it is a pity they do not think it is a great bill— Ms Bligh: It's a 10-minute joke. Mr HORAN: Let the record show that members opposite think it is a laughing matter. The real issue is that this bill is a very practical way of providing a set of penalties for the aggravating circumstances of racial or religious hatred. It actually targets real actions, not thoughts, and it does not interfere with the way our society normally works. I think this bill is needed in our justice system. There is obviously a need for this sort of legislation. If these acts occur and lead to crime, obviously the perpetrators should receive the punishment they deserve. The bill deserves every consideration. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.14 p.m.): I was somewhat surprised by the behaviour of the Leader of the House this evening. She is a person of great intellect, ability and responsibility. I was also somewhat surprised that, while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking in relation to a very serious issue—the Racial and Religious Offences Bill 2001 introduced by the member for Southern Downs—members opposite, including the Leader of the House, were making jokes. This is a serious issue. Yesterday my colleague the member for Gladstone and perhaps some other honourable members had occasion to attend King George Square for White Wreath Day. That day drew attention to suicides in Australia. That day and this piece of legislation are about those who are less fortunate than we are. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly said, we live in a wonderful country made up of wonderful peoples of many different coloured skins, ethnic backgrounds and cultural and religious beliefs. During my childhood when I was educated in Sydney I saw a lot of people who were victimised because of their ethnic background. Thank God we have become a tolerant country now and we are learning not to support people who engage in that type of behaviour. Yesterday was about identifying the reason we have so many suicides in this country. It was about finding out how we as a society and as members of parliament can help those people who have problems. A lot of it stems from what the member for Southern Downs is trying to identify within this legislation. In the year 1999 in Australia there were 4,436 suicides. I wonder how many of them were as a result of some sort of persecution, torture or offence addressed by the legislation we are discussing this evening. I do not say this lightly. The person responsible for yesterday's observance, a Mrs Fanita Clark, lost a 19 year old son two years ago through suicide. That young man would have been 21 today. Federal Labor members, federal conservative members, ministers of religion and I all heard the same message about the unfortunate plight of people and sad stories from around the country. We should not be laughing about these private members' bills or even the serious bills introduced by the government. We are here as responsible, elected people. I applaud the member for Southern Downs for bringing the Racial and Religious Offences Bill into the House. The great American President Thomas Jefferson said that all people are born equal. No truer words were ever said. All people are born equal, regardless of their origin, culture, creed or skin colour. But unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who do not go along with that. I will 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1331 quote another great American who I believe has brought about a lot of change to make our society a more tolerant one as we progress into the 21st century. Unfortunately, that man lost his life because of his commitment to trying to make the world a better place. I speak of the late Dr Martin Luther King. He said, 'When you reach the top of the mountain, don't forget the valley below.' The real message behind his words is equality and the need to look after each other, because some people are less fortunate than others. It is about making absolutely certain that we let people live in society as they see fit. This legislation that we are debating this evening is certainly about many of those things that I have identified this evening. As the member for Southern Downs says, under the provisions of this bill these aggravating circumstances will apply if the offence involves any communication, any conduct, dissemination or distribution of any material that is vilifying on the basis of race or religion or that incites racial or religious vilification. I believe that is a very good thing because a large number of these sorts of crimes are committed. If people knew before they committed the crime that their actions would incur a penalty, I think a lot of people would be saved and they would have a happier lifestyle because they would not be victimised, bullied or subjected to unfair treatment. Again, it comes back to what we do in this country today. We do live in a multicultural society. We do live in a tolerant society. I think it is only fair that we pay respect to those people whom we are trying to protect with this legislation. Whether we are black, white or brindle, we deserve the same rights and the same chance of being able to survive in the society that we live in today in Australia. I will touch on democracy for a moment. We saw what we believed was the erosion of the opposition's rights this morning when the opportunity for private members' bills to be debated this evening was postponed until about 30 minutes ago. This bill was not brought into this place by the member for Southern Downs for the sake of just bringing in a piece of legislation, it was introduced because he and the opposition believe that it is going to make Australians' lives better—and especially Queenslanders' lives—in an environment in which we all want to live. As the member for Southern Downs says, the opposition stands up for the right of freedom of speech, which is inherent in this great democratic state in which we live. The important fact to remember is that here we are bringing our kids into a world which we want them to understand; we want them to be part of Queensland and part of the Australian system. I believe we must have precise rules and regulations in place so that young people, whatever their walk of life, will go about their lifestyles and their professions and make their lot and the lot of those who come after them better. Many of us in this House have a great deal of experience of this type of thing. I hope and pray that the young people whom we see born in this state and nation today are not going to be subjected, because of their ethnic origin, to some sort of persecution or trauma. Ms Molloy: No, but they seek to deny them a decent education. Mr JOHNSON: I do not think that comment is worth replying to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! You have just got it into Hansard. Mr JOHNSON: I think the most important thing about this piece of legislation is that if this sort of crime is committed, if somebody wants to make somebody else's life difficult, they will certainly pay the penalty for it. This is about giving a fair go to all people and standing up for the rights of Queenslanders, regardless of where they live, who they are or where they come from. I urge members of the government to show some support and feeling for what the opposition is trying to achieve here this evening. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (11.23 p.m.): I am gratified to have a chance to make a contribution to the debate on this important piece of legislation. I need to place on record my regret at the frivolous way this piece of legislation has been treated by the government, both in the way that it has been brought on for debate at this late hour and the way that ministers and government backbenchers have conducted themselves during the debate thus far. They have brought no credit to themselves. They have treated this legislation as some sort of a joke, and it is not a joke. It is an important piece of legislation. It is a genuine attempt by the member for Southern Downs to address what is a very important issue to everyone in the House. I say to the members of the government that, if those tearful hand-on-the-heart speeches that we heard earlier on in this parliament meant anything, they would be giving this piece of legislation some real consideration. Instead they come into the House at this late hour of the night, bring it on for debate without any warning and break all the conventions. What did they really expect us to do? Pack up and go home! Did they really expect that we would do that? If 1332 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001 they did, they were dead wrong. We will be here to debate this piece of legislation and any other piece of legislation for as long as they like and whenever they like. They cannot hide from these issues by adopting these types of childish, stupid tactics. This is an important piece of legislation. It sets out to address the problem of racial and religious vilification. None of us supports that. Most people in this society, including every person in this parliament and most people in the electorates that we represent, would agree that racial and religious vilification needs to be addressed by us as law-makers. It also needs to be addressed by society as a whole. Irrespective of the laws that we make here, the most powerful pressure that is brought to bear on people is peer pressure, in other words, what is considered acceptable in society. We can never legislate fully to replace that feeling of what is acceptable in a society, what is an appropriate course of action and what is socially acceptable and what is not. This piece of legislation goes some of the way towards providing a legislative base for an approach to the problem of racial and religious vilification. It makes that type of vilification an aggravating circumstance when a crime has been committed with that as a motivation. I want to say some things in reply to the contribution made by the Attorney-General earlier in this debate. That contribution should not be taken seriously. Here is a man who has no credibility in the parliament at all. He was an absolute failure in his previous portfolio. He earned the wrath and the anger of every person who had an interest in the area that he was charged with administering. Every such person was left with a very poor opinion of his administration. He has been Attorney-General for only a short time. There is no way that he has established enough credibility for government members to base their opposition to this legislation on this man's contribution to the parliament. Let us look at the substance of the contribution. What bureaucratic gobbledegook! I wonder who wrote that for the Attorney-General. He sits over there like an overgrown, giggling schoolgirl. That is the type of approach that he adopted with a range of legislation in the previous parliament. Here we see the same approach. There is no credibility in anything that the Attorney-General says to this parliament. There is certainly no credibility in his address to the parliament tonight. He did nothing to enhance his already badly tarnished reputation. He did nothing to suggest that his success as an Attorney- General is going to be any better than his lack of success as the Minister for Natural Resources, and we all remember that. He can be assured that every time I stand in this parliament I will continue to remind him of the baggage that he carries. The people of rural and regional Queensland will never forget his administration of that portfolio. We will be watching with eagerness to judge his performance in his new portfolio. I suggest it will probably be of the same standard. To return to the substance of this legislation, this is a sensible alternative to the attempt that the government made today to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act with its Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill. That was the government's approach to this problem. It was a heavy-handed and over-the-top approach. Because it was forced through this parliament by the bloated numbers on the government benches, that approach has created a whole range of grey areas that are unnecessary. The legislation that we are debating now, moved by the member for Southern Downs, is a much better alternative, a much better way of approaching the problem. We need to take this legislation— Mr Purcell: And throw it out! Mr SEENEY: We need to take this legislation hand in hand with the social and peer pressure I spoke of earlier, and I do not expect the member for Bulimba to understand that. He understands a different sort of pressure: he understands the BLF type of pressure. I understand that sort of pressure too, old mate, but we both have to agree that it is outdated. It is a long way out of date. We have to start looking at other ways of identifying and addressing certain issues within our community, and racial and religious vilification is certainly one of those issues. This legislation is a sensible alternative to the legislation that was forced through this parliament this afternoon. It preserves the freedom of speech that so many Australians hold so dear. That is part of the Australian psyche. It is part of the Australian character. Mr Bredhauer: It preserves your freedom of speech and your right to speak freely. Mr SEENEY: It is part of the character of the Minister for Transport, just as it is part of my character. We should value and protect that. Those opposite say things that I find offensive at times. In fact, most members on the other side say things that I find offensive at different times. But I will defend their right to say them, just as I will defend my right to stand up here and attack them, because that is the concept of freedom of speech that we believe was so callously 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1333 attacked by the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill that the government forced through this place this afternoon. In relation to all the things said by the tearful backbenchers opposite who were sent in here with written speeches and crocodile tears streaming down their faces, no-one disagrees that all of those things need to be addressed. They need to be addressed urgently, but they need to be addressed within the confines of what is acceptable to most Australians. They need to be addressed in a way that preserves the freedom of speech that we all hold so dear, and it is important that we recognise that. It is important that we do not lose sight of the importance of freedom of speech when we try to address these very real issues. That is what this legislation is about. It is a good alternative way to address an issue that we all agree needs addressing. I urge all members of the government to take off their blinkers and look at this legislation for what it is. They should not take any notice of the nonsense that the members opposite sitting at the front of the chamber have peddled. I urge them to support this legislation. It is deserving of their support, because it is a genuine piece of legislation introduced into this House by the member for Southern Downs. It deserves support. Time expired. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.33 p.m.): I rise to support the Racial and Religious Offences Bill introduced into this parliament by the member for Southern Downs. Government members interjected. Mr COPELAND: To paraphrase that king of righteous indignation, the Premier: the members opposite can be rude. They can interfere with what we are trying to say. Hypocrisy is shown by the Premier when he stands up and talks about non-government members in this House interjecting, being rude and not listening, yet those opposite are not giving us a fair go to say what we want to say tonight. I rise to speak in support of this bill, and I welcome the opportunity to speak to it. It is a shame that it has been brought in so late and it is a shame that it was brought into the parliament so quickly. I have to disagree with the Leader of the House— Government members interjected. Mr COPELAND: The members opposite can be rude and can interject, but we will continue to fight this issue. Government members interjected. Mr COPELAND: Isn't it incredible that those opposite are the first to cast stones but they live in the biggest glass houses? It is a shame that the debate of this legislation was dropped on us at very short notice. The Leader of the House said we were given 30 minutes notice that we were going to debate this bill. That is incorrect, because we were given approximately 15 minutes notice. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. Following the passing of the Anti- Discrimination Amendment Bill today, the debating of this legislation is timely because it is in direct contrast with many issues we raised today. Government members interjected. Mr COPELAND: They continue to interject. It is incredible that they love to cast stones. This legislation endeavours to impose punishment on people who commit actual crimes. Today the opposition spoke at length about the problems it had with the legislation debated in the House this morning regarding infringements on freedom of speech and on the difficulties in interpreting what may or may not be offensive. The member for Bulimba spoke in the debate and raised a whole range of things that he did not consider to be offensive whereas someone else may have found those things offensive. Therein lies the problem with the legislation that we debated earlier. The legislation, as introduced by the member for Southern Downs, quite clearly tries to punish definite acts of crime. Earlier the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, in speaking to this legislation, said how difficult it was to prove motives in actual crimes. Of course it is difficult. Therein lies one of the rationales for introducing this legislation. We are trying to punish actual crime. If it is difficult to prove the motives in actual crime, how difficult is it to prove motives in something someone may have thought someone else said or did or posted or broadcast? 1334 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001

The crux of this legislation to is punish severely those crimes committed on the basis of race or religious hatred. All members of this House believe that those crimes that occur are absolutely disgusting. All of us recognise that we must fight this with everything we possibly can, but we must also recognise that we should not infringe on freedom of speech. It is a right that we take for granted. It is a right that we have fought for many years to defend. It is a right that is gradually, with every encroachment and every extra piece of legislation, being taken away from us. I do not agree with what people say in many cases and I do not agree that we should promote racial or religious hatred. Of course we should not, but we must recognise that we live in a free and democratic society and we must recognise that people have the right to say those things in this society. We must try to do everything we can to make clear that that is not acceptable in our society, but we must not introduce an arbitrary restriction, as the legislation debated this morning did, that is open to all sorts of interpretation and all sorts of grey areas as to what someone may or may not find offensive. Regardless of the mirth this legislation has been greeted with by members opposite, it is serious legislation trying to address a serious problem. As the member for Southern Downs said, it closely resembles legislation currently in existence in Western Australia. It introduced its legislation for similar reasons to those given for the introduction of this private member's bill. As the member for Southern Downs said in his second reading speech, this bill is designed to protect the rights and liberties of innocent individuals whilst punishing those who commit crimes based on the race or religion of those whom the crimes are committed against. That is what we are here for. This legislation seeks to increase penalties so that we can punish real crimes that can be proved and not unsubstantiated allegations. Instead of trying to judge thoughts or freedom of speech issues, this bill sets out to punish actual deeds. It does not impinge on or erode the right of freedom of speech, which we in this country quite rightly value. We should continue to value that right. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, freedom of speech is a great thing we have in this country. It is one of our great strengths and is one of the things that is most attractive to people from right around the world. We should not underestimate how valuable that is and we should not underestimate how hard the fight will be to continue to promote the right of freedom of speech. I place on record again my personal commitment to the values of multiculturalism—the value of people who have come from other countries and the contribution they make to Australia. We are all immigrants, the whole lot of us. We may have come here last week, we may have come here last year or we may have come here 100 or 200 years ago. There is no difference at all in terms of when we came here, and we all must recognise that everyone has a right to be here and everyone has a valuable contribution to make to our society. I believe that we do recognise that. I certainly do on a personal level. I also believe that we should be protecting the rights of our people—freedom of speech, democracy and the egalitarian society that we enjoy and that is so highly valued right around the world. I have travelled to and lived in a lot of different countries. There is not a country on earth that can boast the proud record we can. No other country can boast a society as strong and egalitarian as ours. We do have equality. Yes, we have problems. There is no argument about that. Yes, we do have people who should not be doing some of the things they do. Notwithstanding that, we can hold our heads up high. We must defend the rights on which our society is built. It may hurt us on occasion, but there will be people who will say things that offend us—there is no doubt about that—and we must defend their right to say them. This is an important bill. I am very pleased to speak in support of it. It seeks to punish actual crimes, not some thought, word or deed by the thought police. It sets extra penalties. As the Attorney-General said, those motives are very difficult to prove, but just how difficult will it be to prove an offence when no actual crime has been committed? That is a very good question we should all ask ourselves. I commend this bill to the House. I hope that members opposite will not treat debate on this bill as simply another little game. They think they can bring it on and be smart and try and catch us out. That is not the point of bringing this bill on for debate. We will continue to fight. We will continue to debate this bill, and other bills if this happens again. It is a demonstration of the absolute arrogance of this government that it has brought the debate on in this way. Time was allocated in the sessional orders. Those were abandoned, but the debate was later brought on with 15 minutes notice. That is all right. The government has done that. That will simply reinforce in the minds of the Queensland public just how arrogant this 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1335 government has become in such a short a time. It will be a very long three years if this arrogance continues to grow. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.43 p.m.): I also place on record my disappointment at the tactics used tonight to bring this bill on at such a late hour. However, this is a private member's bill that deserves some respect and some consideration in the standing orders set by this Legislative Assembly. The objectives of the Racial and Religious Offences Bill were defined in the explanatory notes as 'ensuring that those who commit hate crimes based on racial or religious grounds are punished not only for their actions but for the motivation behind their actions'. I know that the judge decides these matters, but on what basis does the judge decide the motive? The initial problem I have with the legislation is that the test for motivation is still a subjective test. The crime itself will be defined under the Criminal Code, but the test of aggravation is very subjective. Whilst I know that those who have legal qualifications will say, 'Trust the judges,' there are many people in the community who might not have the same confidence in them as those in this House who are solicitors would have. If a person contravenes the law and commits a criminal offence, it is intended that this legislation will come into force. If the offence carries a prison term and it is deemed that racial or religious vilification is involved in that offence, the court will consider such vilification as an aggravating circumstance. There is still no definition in this piece of legislation of religious vilification. The definition of vilification in the dictionary is 'the action of vilifying by means of abusive language'. It is to degrade, to bring disgrace on, to bring dishonour upon or to defame. Each one of those is a relatively subjective test. As I said in the debate on the anti-discrimination legislation this afternoon, I do not support racial or religious slurs, and the vast majority of people in my electorate and in other electorates do not either. They do not support bigotry and they do not support intolerance. However, there are things that I and many people with strong beliefs cannot accept as appropriate. If one or more of these issues was deemed to be a religious issue and as a result of espousing that point of view an incident ensued—it often happens that situations escalate; people get angry, they feel provoked and they lose control—and I was involved in what subsequently was deemed to be a criminal offence, the very fact that I hold strong views about a particular thing that has been deemed a religious point of view will be used against me as a point of aggravation in that incident. I am not supporting violence; I am saying that in many instances in real life violence is an unplanned consequence of an escalating situation. The saving in this bill is that an offence under the Criminal Code must first be committed. However, the bill fails, as did the government's anti-discrimination bill, to clarify what religious vilification is. Is a statement of belief held reasonably, openly and in good faith, made in a public place and that provokes another person vilification? I do not believe it is. This bill fails, as did the anti-discrimination bill, to give clear guidelines to people who speak and make statements publicly in good faith with regard to matters about which they hold strong and firm beliefs. If others see those statements as provocation and an incident ensues, this bill again continues not to protect the person who made those statements in good faith. On the basis of that lack of clarity, I will not be supporting this bill. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (11.48 p.m.): There might have been a difference of opinion between the Leader of the House and me this morning about whether there had been a discussion about government business taking precedence tonight. However, there is no doubt about what has happened here tonight. With half a minute to go in debate on the previous bill, which I was conducting for the member for Maroochydore, the Leader of the House approached me to say that we would now have debate on a private member's bill. It might be very funny for the government to watch us try to find our shadow ministers to work out who is actually going to speak to the legislation. If that is the way this government will run this parliament for the next three years, then it will be extremely flippant and the opposition will be particularly upset. I have no doubt that the government backbenchers will get very upset when they see this action occurring. With half a minute to go we were told that our shadow minister had to be found to speak to a private member's bill. That was of no concern to us tonight because we could talk a little longer about the previous bill until all of our members returned to the chamber. But if that is to be the attitude for the next three years, then cooperation between the Leader of the House and the opposition will be difficult to achieve. 1336 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001

I also say for future reference that a few ridiculous things have occurred here today. A time limit of 60 minutes has been given to the mover of the motion. Therefore, at 20 past 10 on an ordinary day the mover of the motion has 60 minutes in which to speak. It is absolutely impossible and ridiculous. I ask the government: why would it ever bring in a ridiculous sessional order to provide that? Then it has given the person who replies to the bill 10 minutes. That is ridiculous as well. Why would the government do a thing like that? And every other member has 10 minutes within which to speak to the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I point out to the member for Beaudesert that we are not debating the sessional orders that the House has already approved. Mr LINGARD: I agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will return to the bill. Mr LINGARD: And finally, the mover of the motion has 30 minutes in which to reply. According to the sessional order, on every Wednesday night we are supposed to finish debate on private members' bills at 11 o'clock. That is the specific provision. Yet this Wednesday night we can go all night. That is absolutely ridiculous. I suggest to the government that when it again considers sessional orders it should look at the ridiculous things that have occurred here tonight. Quite honestly, this sessional order as it deals with private members' bills is ridiculous. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.51 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Racial and Religious Offences Bill 2001 and thank the Leader of the House for allowing private members' bills to be brought back on for debate tonight at about 10.50 p.m. I also reflect on the comments made this morning by the Leader of the House. She said that she was very surprised at the level of agitation that her motion had caused. Then she went on to speak about the need to build a good working relationship in the interests of parliament and the interests of members. Actions speak louder than words. I believe that, if the government wants to build a good working relationship with Independents and the members of the opposition, it is a two-way street. And all I can say is that the government's actions today and tonight do nothing to convince me of its genuine interest in building a good working relationship with the opposition and Independent members. I note that it is now 10 minutes to midnight, and I am pleased that the government has suddenly had a change of heart and has allowed private members' bills to be debated during time allocated to government business. Thank you, Leader of the House! I recognise that the government will not be supporting this bill, that it has the numbers to defeat the bill, and that in due course it will be defeated. Whereas I acknowledge that there may be room for improvement on this private member's bill, I congratulate the member for Southern Downs on having the initiative to have a go—yes, to have a go—to bring forward a private member's bill that attempts to respond to issues of concern to many Queenslanders. Notwithstanding that, I will be supporting this bill as a sign of support for the member for Southern Downs for having a go. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (11.52 p.m.): It is disappointing to see what is happening here tonight. As other members have said, at very short notice we are now debating a private member's bill because of the debate that occurred here this morning, and for no other reason. The attitude of the government is absolutely pathetic. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I refer to standing order 141, which deals with repetition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I am aware of the standing order. I thank the member very much. Mr ROWELL: I remind the member that, if he wants to raise an objection, he should go to his correct seat and launch the objection from there. But he thinks he is above the rules of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member may not have been here, but in an earlier debate I indicated that I am going to allow the member for Mansfield to sit there because he is acting in his capacity as deputy whip. I do not want him to be like a jack-in-the-box running all over the place. I have allowed him to speak from there, so I do not want that brought to my notice. I ask the member to continue. Mr ROWELL: Whatever sort of a jack he is is up to him, I suppose. 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1337

People who travel around the world would be aware of the difficulties faced in many countries. I have been to countries where there is great concern about racial vilification. Anyone who has been to Israel would have a full appreciation of the difficulties that country is facing at present. A lot of that is because of race, and much of it is because of religion. We are fortunate in Australia not to experience those sorts of difficulties. People are going to the absolute extent of annihilating one another in some countries. We do not do that sort of thing in Australia, and that is not likely to happen, either. But I suppose that it is necessary to have some rules in relation to what may happen in the future. We are accepting migrants from other countries. Unfortunately, in some cases those people might bring some unwanted traditions to this country. I have mixed amongst many people who have come here as migrants—the Italians and the Yugoslavs. And my goodness, sonny, they would give the minister an exercise in humility if he ever had to mix amongst them. Mr Welford: Is that right? Mr ROWELL: Yes, it is right. If he worked with them he would understand where they have come from and the difficulties that they have had to face. Working with them gives a better appreciation of their past difficulties. They have come to this country with some hope that, in the future, they can bring their families here. In many cases that has happened and they have brought them across the sea, they have settled here, they have worked and they have become good Australians. Does the Minister for Transport have something funny to say? No. He just has that funny look in his eye, like the Leader of the House. Mr BREDHAUER: I withdraw the funny look in my eye. Mr Johnson: He's treating this thing as a joke. Mr ROWELL: The minister is treating the whole bill as a joke. This bill represents a determination to try to do something about a serious situation that could have developed. The member for Southern Downs, who introduced this legislation, has made a real attempt to deal with the problems that we may face in the future. I have worked amongst Aboriginal people, and I employ quite a few of them from time to time. I do not do that in the hope that because I support them they are going to vote for me; I actually get them out there, work with them, employ them and certainly mix with them to a level where I believe we have a high level of acceptance by a race of people who have inhabited this place for some 60,000 years. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr ROWELL: The attitude of the Leader of the House to this entire debate is very neat and cute. It is pathetic. Her attitude to this bill is absolutely ridiculous. But there are other countries in the world. The Chinese really are breaking their necks to get here. They realise what a great society— Mr Welford: Breaking their necks to get here! Mr ROWELL: What a pathetic Attorney-General we have in the state of Queensland! People come here with great hope. They trade with us and they bring their customs. But, unfortunately, at times some of those customs are the types of things that we do not necessarily want to see. But it is important to acknowledge the presence of those people when they do come to Australia. Anyone who has been to those countries and experienced the poverty and the deprivation that people in those countries experience would have a better understanding of exactly how difficult their lives are compared to living in Australia. Vilification and religion are two elements that have started a lot of conflict around the world over a long period. We are fortunate not to have had to experience that. In fact, we have not seen a foreign invader on our soils. People in other parts of the world have lived in absolute poverty in times of conflict, and have done it particularly tough. This is a glorious country; we do not need to go to the lengths contained in the government's bill that was earlier supported with hand on the heart by government members. It is very opportunistic of the Leader of the House to bring on in a very sanctimonious way a bill at such short notice. Yes, we were caught unaware temporarily. But I assure the Leader of the House that she can keep doing it, because we enjoy the frustration that the government is trying to create by its absolute contempt for the processes of the House. When I interject on the Premier he says, 'You're rude,' and continues pontificating. This is not a Premier for all Queensland, this is a Premier who is using his persona to fool many Queensland people. 1338 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001

Mr Hobbs: Where is the Premier, I wonder? Mr ROWELL: Where is the Premier? He came in here and graced us with his presence. He walked around the back bench, had a few laughs, did a bit of smiling and walked out again while the giggling gerties on the front bench continued with the stupid behaviour they have displayed during the debate on this bill. Mr Welford: Oh, get on to the bill. Mr ROWELL: I know that the Attorney-General does not like it being rubbed in. He has a bit of a glass jaw at the best of times. He loves dishing it out but he does not like it being dished out to him. He is a sanctimonious person. He comes from a position of knowing very little about the practical side of Queensland. He introduces laws into this state— Mr Welford: Are you attacking me personally? Mr ROWELL: I thought I might do that, because I have the privilege of parliament at the present time to do exactly that. Mr Welford: I got that impression. Mr ROWELL: Yes, I am attacking you at this moment. Mr Welford: You're a coward. Mr ROWELL: No, I am not a coward. Do you want to come outside? Maybe you would like to do that. Government members: Ooh! Mr ROWELL: You made the suggestion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is an unparliamentary phrase. I ask the member to withdraw it. Mr ROWELL: I withdraw it. He provoked me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest to the member for Hinchinbrook that if he addresses his comments through the chair, perhaps he will not find himself being provoked. That is the idea of speaking through the chair. Mr ROWELL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is enlightening. I was provoked. I did not intend to say that at all; it just slipped out. I am sure you understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are such a gracious sort of person. These things happen. The shadow Attorney-General has presented a bill to parliament. He has done so in good faith. I think there was a fair bit of provocation in terms of bringing the bill into parliament. I know the government feels that it has the upper hand at the present time. It feels it can do exactly what it wants. But I can assure the government that the opposition will not bow to any of the smart manoeuvres that the government might try. The Leader of the House can smile in the very cute manner that she does. I am simply putting forward the case. I am describing the situation as it appears. That is all I am doing. It looks as if I have run out of time. Time expired. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (12.02 a.m.): It is a shame that we have to speak on this bill at this late hour. As of this morning we were scheduled to debate government business, and suddenly at— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I bring to the attention of the House standing order 141, which refers to debates becoming tedious and repetitious. I have been extremely tolerant, because it is part of my nature, unfortunately. In fact, I have been too tolerant. I would like a member to speak to the bill shortly, otherwise my tolerance will wear out very quickly. Mr MALONE: I am very sorry. I was leading into my discussion of the bill, and I had to make these comments to start off with. As I said, it is disappointing that at this late hour we are discussing such an important bill. It is a private member's bill. This is the only chance the opposition has to put bills before the parliament, and they are rushed through without any consideration at all for the opposition. The bill that the member for Southern Downs has put before the parliament is a very important one. It reflects the way in which Australians deal with a conflict of interest. This bill provides that, for there to be an offence, an unacceptable action or behaviour must in fact take place. That is in contrast to the anti-discrimination bill which was passed through the parliament earlier today. We saw many government backbenchers put their hands on their hearts and have 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1339 tears in their eyes while promising that people cannot be charged for making a comment as they walk down the street. However, I believe that under the government's legislation we may reach the scenario of thought police, where someone's comment can actually be used against them. This bill at least gives some comfort in that there has to be a physical action before a matter can be brought before a court. Of course, this is the way in which Australians deal with conflict. It is a shame—and certainly, from my point of view, it is strange—that we have to bring this bill before the House. Unfortunately, we are in an era of litigation where people bring cases before the courts over what happens to them personally. In the good old days you offered to have it out behind the chook house and sort it out properly. At least the bill before the House provides that something has to happen before a person can be charged with an offence. Along with many other members, I have travelled overseas and talked to people who live in other countries. They always have a very high opinion of life in Australia. It is always good to get back on Australian soil to experience the freedoms that we enjoy. People from all over the world have come onto Australian soil and taken on board the easy living, give everybody a fair go sort of attitude that we have here. It is unfortunate, as I said earlier, that we now have to have laws in this country that make it an offence for a person to say something that may reflect on somebody's religion or race. It is the Australian way to make fun of ourselves. Quite often the Irish joke, the blonde joke or whatever is part and parcel of the party. Mr Lawlor: What about National Party jokes? Mr MALONE: We can have National Party jokes; we can have Labor Party jokes. They are all a bloody joke as far as I am concerned. The fact of the matter is that we now have laws in this country that make it an offence to say something. The bill we debated in the House today is even more stringent in the fact that a person can be charged with doing something that does not constitute an assault—something intangible. As I said, I find it very difficult to come to terms with what has happened today and the way in which it all came about. At a very late hour, we are debating a very important bill. I compliment the member for Southern Downs for having the guts to put together this bill and make sure that it is debated in the House, because it really is a very important piece of legislation. As I said earlier, Australians are unique in the world. We believe in a fair go, the opportunity to say what we think. Being able to say what we think means that we should be able to say whatever we think. It seems almost unbelievable that we now have laws which provide that, at certain times, we are not able to say what we think. From time to time, there are cases where people do step over the line a little bit. In times past we were able to deal with that. Unfortunately, those times seem to have passed. It is unbelievable that we are in this situation tonight. I am probably getting away from the debate a little bit, but the fact of the matter remains that we are being forced as an opposition to debate this legislation with only 10 minutes being allocated to each speaker. We have been forced into this position when, earlier in the night, we believed that this bill was not going to come on. It is really harking back to the days in the last parliament where we saw very important debates—such as the dairy industry debate and the sugar industry debate—gagged in this parliament. It seems to me that we are going down that track. I warn the government that in my electorate and a lot of other electorates around this state, people would not look very kindly on what is happening tonight and what has happened in the past. I think we are returning to a position where the government, because of its 66-seat majority, is feeling very confident about the way in which it can run this place. With an effective media, I do not believe that the government can get away with that for too long. I believe that sooner or later it will be brought to heel. Unfortunately, so soon in its term, it seems that somehow or other the government has lost the plot. Mr Terry Sullivan interjected. Mr MALONE: We are getting a comment from a guy who got up today and just about lost his nerve. I cannot believe that this guy has the gall to interject on me. The issue that he raised today was unbelievable. I will leave it at that. I support the bill. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—ONP) (12.10 a.m.): I rise in support of the Racial and Religious Offences Bill. This bill clearly outlines the fact that any offence carried out to either incite or promote racial or religious hatred will be treated seriously and provides a penalty that has been put in place to, hopefully, deter those people whose aims may be to show contempt for a person or group based on their race or religion. 1340 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001

Our society is made up of people from a number of different races, religions and cultures. This bill will show all Queenslanders that vilification of a racist or religious nature is not acceptable. If a specific act can be proven to have been caused as a result of intolerance of another race, then that person or persons will be punished with the severity that such an offence requires. This government must stand firm and make it known that it will not tolerate any crimes against a person because of their race or religious beliefs. The type of persecution outlined in the bill has occurred and does occur daily throughout the country. Let us in Queensland make a stand against those types of crimes and show our strong support and appreciation of the many wonderful cultures that make up this beautiful and most tolerant state. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (12.11 a.m.): I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill tonight. Recently we have heard the word 'tricky' being used, and this certainly is tricky. The government is being tricky and mean by bringing on the debate at 11.30. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr HOBBS: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know: order 141— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am going to have quite a deal to say on this. The honourable member was not here before, but I have heard the debate from every member opposite about the procedure that brought this bill on. There is a standing order that does not allow repetition and it certainly does not allow it to be tedious. I will ask the member to debate the bill. Mr HOBBS: I am very pleased to debate the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am getting a bit cranky, because the time is getting on. Mr HOBBS: I would not like to see you cranky, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be cranky, either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am a good guy. Let us have an understanding that we will debate the bill. Mr HOBBS: I do not want to be cranky, either. Between the both of us, we can work something out. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would not have the heard the word 'arrogance' tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heard it many times, at least 20 times. Mr HOBBS: I will not say 'arrogance' again. I believe that this legislation is a genuine attempt to do something to improve the lot for Queenslanders. That is exactly what the member for Southern Downs is trying to do. Honourable members who were in the chamber at the time would have heard a very eloquent speech from the member for Callide, who spoke very strongly about some of the issues. I was in my office trying to get here— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am surprised that the member for Callide has not taken a point of order and asked you to withdraw. Mr HOBBS: Thank you for your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was in my office trying to get myself together because I had not realised that the debate was going to be brought on tonight. I had some visitors and I was trying to do some other things. Suddenly, I heard that the bill was to be debated. I heard the member for Callide speaking and I could not help listening to what was going on. It was then that I realised that the debate had been called on. The member for Callide and many others made the point that we must put some genuine thought into the way in which Queenslanders manage racial vilification statements. That is very important. At the end of the day, we have to put some genuine thought into what is right and what is wrong. An offence that incites or is motivated by racial or religious hatred is quite a determined act. Quite clearly, nobody could deny that this bill is a genuine attempt to address that issue, and thus make Queensland a far better place. We do not want racial or religious vilification to operate in this state. We have to be able to judge the people who act in such a way against the law of the land. On many occasions in this state, in Australia and throughout the world we have seen cases of this occurring. For instance, in Indonesia tonight there is probably an impeachment crusade going on. That type of lawlessness does go on and we are very lucky in Australia, and certainly in Queensland, that we have a 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1341 secure and a safe place in which to live. However, we must have rules so that Queenslanders and Australians can continue to live with that security. All that the ALP does is make platitudes to the underprivileged. I really do not believe that they are genuine in what they say. Mr Horan: They've got a grin on their faces. Mr HOBBS: Absolutely. They have grins on their faces. They go out and talk about all of these nice things— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is my second warning about the member becoming relevant. The member will get only one more warning and then he will be sat down. Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I can sit you down now. Mr HOBBS: I would not debate it with you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the fact that the ALP really does not have a genuine intent in relation to racial or religious vilification. They do not honestly believe in the right of free speech in relation to the issues that matter to most of us. They are happy to talk about issues such as social justice in the press, but when those issues are related back to them they do not and will not stand up and be counted. We have seen that on numerous occasions. This morning government members said that Queensland's parliament will be a place for democracy, yet what we saw was a sham. That is also what we see at the present moment. Queensland—and Australia—is one of the few places in the world where we still have free speech and we can talk about the issues that are important to all of us. We should not deny that. I cannot see why the Labor Party will not support this legislation. The Racial and Religious Offences Bill imposes an additional penalty on those who incite vilification or commit offences under circumstances of vilification. What is wrong with that? Is there some reason why this parliament will not support that sort of— Mr Barton: How about the content of it? Mr HOBBS: Has the minister read it? Mr Barton interjected. Mr HOBBS: I am trying to explain this to the minister. The member for Callide made a very good speech in relation to the issue, as did the member for Toowoomba South and others. They were able to point out the issues that I believe are very important in this bill. I support very strongly the bill before the House. The parliament should support it. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (12.19 a.m.), in reply: In rising to summarise this bill, I would like to say that I think the government's change of heart was not so much about a genuine commitment to parliamentary democracy but more about addressing some negative feedback in the press tomorrow morning over its performance earlier on today. It is very aware of that issue. The aspirations outlined to the House in the debate earlier today by the Leader of the House when she said that we needed to suspend our standing orders are certainly not matched by what has happened tonight. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the second reading debate. I wish to make some general points and some very specific ones. We saw a rather pathetic and appalling performance from the Attorney-General. He failed to address the issues. At the outset, he said that this is going to impact unduly on the courts. At the end of the day, the greatest impact on the courts that we are seeing in Queensland now is from their appalling mismanagement and lack of resourcing by this state government. One needs to look no further than the CJC's report released last week which stated basically that our criminal justice system in Queensland was operating more by good luck than by good management. In the courts in Queensland, particularly in the Magistrates Courts, we see no greater caseload than there was under the former Borbidge-Sheldon government yet in the 10 major Magistrates Courts there has been an extension in the time that people spend waiting to have their matters processed in the criminal jurisdiction. I suspect that the caseload in the civil jurisdiction is very similar. In this state the government's mismanagement of the courts through a lack of resourcing and positive direction has been creating most of the concern that the Attorney-General is talking about. At the end of the day, if we are going to do something positive to address the fundamental problems in our community, if we are genuinely concerned about racial or religious vilification, do we come into this parliament and say, 'We're not going to do it because we have 1342 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001 some concern that it is going to impact on the courts'? Surely that is a concession in itself that it is going to work, be effective and address the problems that might exist out there, namely, people who commit a crime based on a racial or religious motive. That is what this legislation is all about. There is no doubt that this legislation is about increasing a penalty which would otherwise be imposed on a person who commits a crime as laid down under the Criminal Code. If that person commits a crime and there is a racial or religious motivation, that person may face additional time in prison. We make no excuses for that. This is all about imposing an additional penalty—something very similar to what the member for Toowoomba North mentioned earlier on today but not in this context. He said that if we are about deterring these things from happening and making our society a better place in a whole range of areas, we have to look at the issue of penalties as an effective deterrent. I hope I am not misquoting the honourable member, and he may not necessarily want it used in this context. I concur with his general sentiment in his contribution to the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill earlier today. The Attorney-General was extraordinarily blinkered in his approach. He did not properly consider the merits of the bill. Basically, the Attorney-General has led the blind government on this piece of legislation by trotting out some sort of legal argument that was rather convoluted and, I think, a degree confusing. Anyone can come in here, quote all sorts of legal concepts, give a so-called erudite performance and make it sound as though they have a perfectly good legal reason for voting something down. At the end of the day, they might not have a very good reason at all. It might be just about creating diversions. I suspect that is what the Attorney- General did earlier on when he came in here and outlined the government's opposition to this bill. In looking around the world for precedents as to why we should be looking at the bill, we see that it is similar to but not exactly the same as legislation in place in Western Australia. Western Australia decided to go a different way to other Australian states when it came to the issue of addressing racial vilification—it does not carry the religious context—by actually prescribing that a crime must have been committed. That is something more tangible and definite. Then we can go to a court and prove a case. The rules of natural justice apply and there is a higher standard of proof. We then feel far more comfortable in dishing out sanctions that might be prescribed in law by the state. But it is not only Western Australia that is keen on addressing the problems of racial and religious vilification along similar lines to the Queensland National Party opposition, and quite clearly the intention from other non-government members of this parliament. One of the most successful governments currently in the Western World has gone down this track. The Blair Labour government in the United Kingdom has legislation that is extremely similar to this. That is the home of our Westminster democracy and the foundation of the court processes. That is the foundation of much that we enjoy in this country. If they do not have the fundamental concerns that the Attorney-General in Queensland has, what is altogether wrong with it? They have decided that it is appropriate to look at the issue of racial and religious offences and to impose a circumstance of aggravation that could see the offender receive an additional penalty. If it is good enough for the Blair Labour government, which has been a significant reforming government in the United Kingdom, to go down this track, why is it not good enough for the Labor Party government in Queensland also to consider this approach? That is a question to which an adequate answer has not been offered tonight by members opposite. The reason for that is that they could not. They were embarrassed. They came in here and boo-hooed, guffawed and carried on unbelievably during contributions by the opposition. But not one of them other than the Attorney-General, who offered a rather weak and legalistic opinion, was prepared to stand up and argue the relative merits or otherwise of this piece of legislation. That is extremely unfortunate, because there is much that is meritorious in it. And I am not saying that it is absolutely perfect. As has been identified by the debate on the government's legislation earlier today and also as raised by the member for Gladstone, whom I will come to a little later on, there are some issues in defining racial and religious vilification or offences. There are subjective tests and objective tests. But we were not able to have a good solid debate in this parliament because government members were not serious about it. We entered into the discussion today on their legislation in good spirit and tried to indicate that whilst we understood the intent we were concerned about its motivation and about where it might lead further down the track. They were not prepared to have the common decency to offer the same to us. This bill, as I saw it when I introduced it into parliament, is a compromise bill. It is about trying to meet the expectations and concerns that the government had about addressing these 30 May 2001 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 1343 perceived and real issues in the community, but addressing, also very importantly, the freedom of speech issues, which I think are manifestly important if we are dealing with the way that our country has developed, and the relative freedoms that we have enjoyed in the unique democracy we have built up in this country over more than a century. It was a compromise. It was a way of saying, 'Look, there are some issues here. Honourable members, how do we go about best solving this?' We go about best solving it by saying, 'Yes, there may be issues of racial and religious vilification, but at the end of the day do we want to get involved in deciding something which may—it had not happened—have led to racial or religious vilification under the government's bill, or do we want to have something which we can actually see, that is, not just something rustling in the bushes but something we can see and something that is not just a phantom concept? I am speaking about a court process, police investigating a crime, a person being charged for a crime, the process of committal, trial and adjudication by a person's peers in a court—a filtering process. Once a person has been found guilty of that crime, we then start looking at the circumstances of aggravation. That is what this is all about, namely, determining whether in the context of the Penalties and Sentences Act there is a circumstance of aggravation which may be racial or religious. There are circumstances of aggravation and mitigation currently laid down by the Penalties and Sentences Act that judges have to adjudicate every day of the week. Earlier on the member for Gladstone mentioned the issue of motive, as did the Attorney-General. At the end of the day, if something is injected into the court process during that particular stage—the stage where there is an opportunity for the rules of natural justice to apply—and the court is comfortable and confident that there was a circumstance of aggravation whereby racial or religious contempt contributed to that crime, then that person may face an additional penalty of up to three years. So you are looking at the list of prescribed crimes which are laid down and you are working on that. In many ways, that is something that is far more objective—you have got the rules of natural justice—than what the government proposed earlier on in the parliament. Unfortunately, it is not going to come to pass. As I said, it does not target freedom of speech. The other problem with the government's legislation, as I said today, as opposed to what we are talking about tonight, is that the talk does not always transpose into actions. What we are dealing with here is something that is incited, something that actually transposes itself into an action which causes somebody to be harmed in some way, rather than the tens, the hundreds or the thousands of cases out there where subjectively somebody might have said something that somebody else finds offensive, which might lead to some conciliation or some charges being laid further down the track and therefore it does not impact upon freedom of speech. Mr HOBBS: I move— That the Attorney-General wake up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I see him smiling at you. I think he is awake. Mr SPRINGBORG: Also, if we believe that having a decent penalty regime in law is about rehabilitation, about punishment and about deterrence, then having something which indicates to a person who might perpetrate a racially or religiously motivated crime that they may incur an additional penalty should, for some people at the very least, act as a deterrent. I believe that there is a very positive deterrent aspect in this legislation. That is, if people are aware through public education that if they do go out and commit a crime that is racially or religiously motivated they may go to jail for much longer, that is less likely to happen. The Attorney-General did mention—and I want to come back to this matter—the issue of establishing motivation. There are so many obvious cases that are written about in the press in which it may have been black against white, white against black—whatever the case may be—where there has been a racial motivation. You can see it. It sticks right out. It is quite obvious. These matters do come before the courts, but not all that often. That is why we are talking about targeting them. I do not believe that it is all that difficult. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised an issue in regard to whether it was a new offence or whether it was a circumstance of aggravation to be established by the courts on the balance of probabilities, or whatever. I wrote back to that committee and indicated that it would be similar to what is normally provided for in the Penalties and Sentences Act when it comes to sentencing people on each of the charges on which they have been found guilty. This parliament actually passed legislation last year that sought to clarify issues that had been raised by the Supreme Court. They said that it should be beyond reasonable doubt. I said that generally I think 1344 Racial and Religious Offences Bill 30 May 2001 the balance of probabilities would be fair enough once a person is convicted. This is something about which I would be very pleased to talk to other members if there were issues that we could tighten up, but unfortunately we are not going to get that chance. We live in a world based on tolerance. This is about encouraging tolerance, that is, encouraging people to participate as free members of our society—not to have their freedom of speech impacted upon but to say, 'If you step out of line and actually do something, then the law is going to jump on you very, very quickly.' I talked about the view of many immigrants in my speech earlier today. Many of the members on the other side believe that they are the only ones who know immigrants, work with immigrants and sympathise and empathise with immigrants. Many of us have them in our electorates. We understand them; we are all immigrants one way or another. We do those people a disservice by saying that they are automatically in favour of the government's approach and against ours. They are not. Many of them are first generation Australians or even new immigrants to this country who have the same concerns that we have raised here today. I would like to turn quickly to the contributions of individual members. I thank the members of the National Party for their support. I think that they understand the concepts and the issues raised very clearly and were able to articulate them tonight. I think that we are one on this issue, and that is extremely important. The member for Gladstone raised some issues in what I thought was a very genuine, sensitive and thoughtful contribution, and I do thank her very much for that. I do not know whether anything that I say might change her mind. There is the difficulty in seeking to define religion, which I pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate on the other bill earlier today. The ABS basically accepts a group of people who put themselves down as believing something. I do not necessarily agree with that process. We could even have witchcraft, and the government decriminalised witchcraft last year. That is not what I consider to be a religion. That is why I have sought to take it from a process under the government's legislation whereby an Anti-Discrimination Commissioner may be going into court with the Attorney-General's consent to a situation in which the court and the processes of natural justice and the opportunity for some cross-examination or some further legal consideration would be able to try to get to the facts that enable a decision to be made on whether it is a genuine religion or whether it is a ruse. I think that the member and I have a fairly well-defined idea of religion and therefore religious vilification. If somebody had a set on Muslims, Buddhists or Catholics and they went out and assaulted them and said, 'I hate you so-and-so Catholics'—bang!—and they were charged with grievous bodily harm, under this bill that would be a fairly open and shut case. That is what I am trying to indicate. That does not necessarily overcome all of the member's concerns, but if we can get it into the court process, if we can get it into the situation in which a person is convicted beyond reasonable doubt, if we can get it into the process whereby there may be this circumstance of aggravation, then I think the court is more easily able to actually decide that and look at those issues than adopt the more nebulous front-end response suggested by the government. I do thank the member for expressing her concerns. I do think they are genuine. Nevertheless, I think we have a better chance of being able to work them out through a court process after an offence has been committed and sanctioned as per the Criminal Code. I would very much like to thank the member for Gympie for her support. She very succinctly summarised the issues and the intent of the legislation, and I think she underlined and espoused to the parliament the very genuine commitment that we all have to the rich multicultural history of our nation and the very strong fabric that binds us together. However, there are issues of concern that we must deal with. Certainly the issue of freedom of speech is one of those. She very sincerely stated that we should not tolerate racial or religious crimes and indicated her support for this legislation. I thank her very much for that. In conclusion, this is good legislation. It is compromise legislation—legislation which was designed to address many issues that manifested themselves after the government indicated its intent to introduce such legislation. I have had discussions with representatives of religious and ethnic groups. Whilst they indicated that they would like the government's legislation for their own reasons, which I respected, it was also indicated to me that they were comfortable with what we were going to bring to the parliament as well. They did not have a problem with it. I think ours is a more pragmatic, more reasonable approach and response, and therefore deserves the support of all members of this parliament. 30 May 2001 Adjournment 1345

Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 15—Copeland, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 51—Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Strong, C. Sullivan, Welford. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (12.45 a.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Hinchinbrook Channel, Coastal Management Plan Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (12.45 a.m.): The coastal management plan proposal by the Environmental Protection Authority will have detrimental effects on tourism in the Hinchinbrook area. Many current projects have unnecessary restrictions on them and the management plan will cause any future projects in the region to be ridiculously scrutinised, making it impossible to generate future jobs through development. To stop accidental deaths of dugongs, a speed limit has been imposed on vessels in the Hinchinbrook Channel. Despite the fact that reports of dugongs being killed by vessels of any sort are unheard of, a speed limit of four knots has been imposed, ruling out any waterskiing activities. The issue of transit lanes has also been raised for the channel, but this seems unnecessary as well. Cleveland Bay off Townsville is inhabited by dugongs but has no proposed transit lanes and no limitations on vessel size. A double standard is being applied to the Hinchinbrook Channel. Tourist vessel operators can only apply for permits for 50 trips a year, with restrictions on size and vessel speed, yet sugar cargo vessels navigated the Hinchinbrook Channel for 50 years with minimal disturbance. A passive dugong-watching operation was denied a permit to show dugongs to tourists in national park waters. The plan has gone so overboard with environmental restrictions in the Hinchinbrook Island area as to impose a minimum height restriction of 1,500 feet on planes flying through the area. That restriction brings about a safety risk that pilots who fly through the area know. The Hinchinbrook Channel is often covered with thick cloud and light aircraft can be forced to fly as low as 500 feet—the minimum safety level—to get under the cloud to safely navigate the area. This blatant anti-tourism behaviour is having a severe impact on the region's economy and is not based on evidence that supports claims of the destruction of the environment that warrants such strict regulations. This extreme coastal management plan has been implemented with limited input of relevant community operators. Some 24 people were on the committee for this plan. No less than 14 of those were academics and bureaucrats. One would have thought that local interest groups would have had more involvement in the consultation process. Time expired.

Banking Services Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (12.49 a.m.): Last week a Sherwood resident brought to my attention yet another withdrawal of bank facilities from our community. After closing its branch in Sherwood in May 2000, Westpac Bank promised residents in the surrounding suburbs that they would continue to be provided with deposit and withdrawal facilities through an in-store service. This did not eventuate. Instead, residents were provided with an ATM on Sherwood Road that provided basic deposit and withdrawal facilities. Many of the residents were unhappy with that, but they simply accepted it and stayed with the bank. Two weeks ago Westpac customers in the area were stripped of the deposit facilities in this ATM without warning. When I say 'without warning', I do not mean at short notice; I mean customers were literally queuing to use the ATM's deposit facility when they found out that it no longer accepted deposits. While this may seem a small matter, the consequences of this latest display of contempt for the residents in and around Sherwood by Westpac are numerous. Residents and businesses in the area who previously used the facility to do their banking are now being forced to travel to 1346 Adjournment 30 May 2001 either Mount Ommaney or Indooroopilly. This has been particularly hard for the small business owners in the area, who are now forced on a daily basis to make a choice between shutting their stores early to go and do their banking and leaving money on their premises overnight, thus creating opportunities for their takings to be stolen. These people made the choice to stay with Westpac because they were promised when the branch closed last year that they would continue to be provided with services. Mark Twain once said that a banker is a person who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining and wants it back the minute it rains. Unfortunately, for many people in my electorate these words ring true. A number of residents and I have sent letters to Westpac, asking it to reinstate the deposit facilities so that customers can stay with Westpac and be put out no longer. So far, not one single person has received a reply from Westpac. I am assuming that the continued decrease of Westpac's banking facilities in this area is for financial reasons. However, unlike in the Twain quote, it is not raining. The fact is that the four major banks in Australia are recording larger profits than ever before. I find it unacceptable that Westpac treats its customers in Sherwood with such disdain. I have instigated a petition which I hope will prompt Westpac to reinstate enough services in Sherwood so that its customers can at least conduct essential banking transactions in their neighbourhood. A decent level of service must have priority over the endless pursuit of profits.

Gladstone Electorate, Dental Services Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.52 a.m.): I rise to speak on behalf of so many residents of my electorate waiting protracted periods of time for oral health services. Last month the wait time for general dental services at the Gladstone clinic was 100 weeks—just under two years—while the wait time for prosthetic services was 88 weeks. That 88-week wait is, I believe, a little optimistic on the basis of people who have contacted my office concerned at their delay. I will deal with several cases in a moment. I believe that emergency patients are treated within 24 hours, but only during normal working hours. The number of emergency patients is growing exponentially, and that is quite understandable given that general oral hygiene is so poorly managed. People simply cannot get in for regular check-ups—at best two-yearly—and therefore patients who may have been fine when they first listed for a check-up quickly become emergency patients as their teeth deteriorate. This method of cavity chaos management is totally unacceptable at a time when preventive oral hygiene is clearly espoused. We currently have an allocation of three dentists at the clinic. These wait times indicate that that number is inadequate. The dental therapists do a great job at the schools, as do our technicians and assistants. Indeed, the dentists do a wonderful job but simply cannot manage such a high number of patients. I commend the regional manager, Di Barr. Although I have little to do with her as she is based in Rockhampton, I know that she endeavours to do her best in what must be trying circumstances. A retired resident, Rex, called my office to complain about long waiting lists for the dentist. He was told in April that the clinic had only one dentist and that he had to wait 15 to 18 months. I understand that there are now two dentists, with a locum to come. Sonya is 24 years of age and has been on the official waiting list since August 1999. Sonya said that she has been waiting for over two years. No doubt the latter time is closer to the mark, given the long wait time for even an appointment. Jurgen is 38 years of age. He had his teeth removed in February 2000 and was told in April that he had at least another 10 months to wait for a denture. His health is being affected, he is losing weight and he has completely cut himself off from his friends and social life because of his embarrassment. After I made representation on Jurgen's behalf, his case was put up for review. These are not isolated incidents. One elderly lady who waited almost two years for dentures was to be hospitalised because of her deteriorating health. She could not eat properly. After her family contacted my office she was reassessed and dentures were fitted promptly, but in the interim she had suffered acute problems. There are many other examples. The current situation regarding waiting times is completely unacceptable. People face embarrassment, health impacts and trauma because of the approximately two-year waitlist just to see a dentist. I call on the minister to review the resourcing of oral health and increase the number of dentists, even with a travelling team of dentists to reduce area waiting times to alleviate the obvious pain and discomfort to our residents and to others. 30 May 2001 Adjournment 1347

Virtual Home Tours Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (12.55 a.m.): The new marketing tool for real estate agents is the virtual home tour. This feature has a certain appeal. People can log on and inspect a property without leaving home and without being subjected to an agent's sales pitch. However, a case has come to my attention which highlights the need for privacy protection in the use of this marketing initiative. Last week I was contacted by Ms Ann Phillips, one of my constituents, who told me that she was renting a home and that the owners had recently placed the house on the market. She told me that she was contacted by the agent, David Deane Real Estate of Strathpine, who advised that they would be conducting an inspection. Ms Phillips took this to mean a regular inspection by the agent. She was not told about the virtual tour potential of David Deane Real Estate's web site or that the vendor would be using this facility. Ms Phillips was not at home on the day of the inspection and heard no more from the agent. She was not aware that the inside of the house, with her furniture and her family's personal effects, was videotaped by the agent for placement on the World Wide Web. Her bedroom, lounge room, son's room and even the family dog were up on the Web for all the world to see. It was only by accident that Ms Phillips found this out and, understandably, she was and still is very upset by what she sees as the great intrusion into her and her family's privacy. She complained to the agent and to the REIQ and now the virtual home tour has been removed. This case illustrates once again the need for better protection of personal privacy by a government sponsored initiative. Clearly, tenants of privately owned properties are obliged to allow the owner of the property and the owner's agent to enter premises and inspect them. This is embodied in our residential tenancy laws. Also, it is perfectly reasonable if a tenanted home is up for sale that potential buyers may come at reasonable times and with notice to inspect the property. But the tenant has rights, too. And having one's personal effects photographed and published for all the world to see, without their knowledge, let alone their consent, is totally and utterly unreasonable. As this case reveals a potential serious problem for tenants, the REIQ should immediately place on the public record where it stands on the use of video footage and photographs of rooms of tenanted properties to promote sales through virtual home tours. If there is not a code of practice which guides its members as to how the Internet technology is to be used in a manner consistent with personal privacy, then one should be developed immediately. While it is hoped that an industry as potentially intrusive as the real estate industry might take measures to regulate privacy matters itself, there is little doubt that a state legislative privacy framework is needed. I made a call for such a regime one year ago, and the experience of Ms Phillips is another reminder that our laws remain inadequate. A year ago it was— Time expired.

Gregory Electorate, Police Resources Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.58 a.m.): This evening I draw the attention of the House to policing in the Gregory electorate. As many people appreciate, the Gregory electorate covers a fair amount of Queensland. It covers nearly a third of the land mass. There are police districts that cover that area based in Longreach, Mount Isa, Charleville and Rockhampton. Emerald, which is the largest town in the electorate, does not have an inspector. I call on the Minister for Police to look urgently at the situation in Emerald and to upgrade that centre to an inspector region. That region would then be able cover the Central Highlands region, going north to places such as Clermont and down to Springsure. I refer to the issue of one-man stations in the electorate. A lot of times these one-man stations have been unmanned because of the unavailability of police to fill the void created by transfers and so on. I call on the minister to place particular emphasis on these one-man stations. When these stations are manned and the officers are not in attendance, a lot of times it is the wife of the officer in charge who takes the phone call or who redirects the operation. I know that they get looked after in various ways, but at the same time they are virtually unpaid police officers doing a magnificent job. I wish to emphasise the importance of placing extra police officers—maybe two or three—in places such as Mount Isa, Emerald, Charleville and Longreach so that the void can be taken up 1348 Adjournment 30 May 2001 when those one-man station officers are on transfer, vacation or sick leave or undertaking in- service training. It is important to the people of a region that their towns are covered because of the isolation factor. It is over 400 kilometres from Birdsville to Windorah, and from Birdsville to Bedourie it is 200 kilometres. Those are big distances to cover. And there is also the isolation factor and the remoteness factor to consider. It is absolutely paramount that we have police officers in those areas all the time because of the tourist traffic, the domestic traffic—the whole deal. I will be writing to the minister in relation to this, but I do want to bring to the attention of the House the important work that police do in the western part of Queensland, quite often under great difficulties. I salute them for their efforts, because on many occasions they are required to go beyond the call of duty. Time expired.

Bowen Turf Club Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (1.01 a.m.): One of the many surprising facts about the town of Bowen is that it is home to a quality country racecourse. I am pleased to report that the Bowen Turf Club is going from strength to strength and is a prime example of what can be achieved when communities work together. Bowen entered the north Queensland racing scene well before federation and is indeed one of the oldest turf clubs in Queensland, having been established in 1863. Over the years, the fortunes of the Bowen Turf Club have ebbed and flowed as the club, which once hosted 26 races each year, dropped back to 12 and then six races on the annual calendar. Despite this reduction in the number of races, there are convincing signs that the club is determined to survive and prosper. In recent years, the turf club has taken advantage of the Beattie government's Community Jobs Plan. This program saw the club benefit from the replacement of both inside and outside running rails, as well as general improvements within the turf club grounds. Perhaps the best outcome was that the four project participants went on to acquire employment—two with full-time and two with part-time work. The most significant advancement in the club's recent history undoubtedly revolves around its success in building stables and securing a professional trainer out of Brisbane who works on site training 10 horses. I know that the members of the turf club committee are keen to extend their potential and are actively contemplating the construction of even more stables on site. Having the capacity to attract quality trainers to Bowen not only ensures an expanded field on race days, it also provides a significant economic boost to the town itself. It is estimated that every horse trained at the racecourse is worth $200 each week to the local economy. Mr Speaker, I could not conclude without telling you about Bowen's premier race day for 2001—the Federation Cup—which will be held on 18 August. I would like to extend an invitation to your and all in the House to join the Bowen Turf Club on that most prestigious day. Not only will you experience country racing at its best, you will also have an opportunity to explore Bowen's beautiful beaches under warm and sunny skies. Bowen is, after all, the climate capital of Australia. Where would you prefer to spend your day on 18 August: in cold, windy Brisbane or warm, resplendent Bowen? One of the highlights of the day will be the official naming of the racetrack and surrounding complex as Ben Bolt Park, in honour of a former racehorse from Bowen that won the Caulfield Cup in 1886. It is the committee's earnest hope that the Minister for Tourism and Racing will be present on the day to officiate in the naming of Ben Bolt Park. In recognition of the hard work and dedication of the Bowen Turf Club's committee, I would like to pay credit to the current members of that committee: president Robert Mellon, vice president Cyril Vains, secretary Janette Heartman and treasurer Jim King. Given their track record, I would be prepared to wager that the future of the Bowen Turf Club has inside running in the race to become a local and interstate favourite.

Dairy Industry Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—Ind) (1.04 a.m.): I had intended to make this speech this morning as a two minuter, Mr Speaker, but as you know we got cut short. And by rights, I think I could ask that you ring the bells to form a quorum, but out of the goodness of my heart, I will not 30 May 2001 Adjournment 1349 do that. Unfortunately, the Primary Industries Minister and the Premier will not be here to listen to this. As this House is probably aware, our federal government has made available a second stage of the compensation package to dairy farmers. I welcome this package to help our struggling dairy farmers. However, it is extremely flawed. A lot of our dairy farmers—who, I might add, are very good dairy farmers—will get absolutely nothing out of this package simply because the quota milk they supplied was not adequate percentage-wise. Let me give you an example, Mr Speaker. A farmer who owned 1,000 litres of quota and produced 2,000 litres of milk will get the full package, which is 50 per cent quota milk supply. However, the farmer who owned 1,000 litres of quota and produced 3,000 litres of milk per day will get nothing out of this package simply because the package starts at 35 per cent quota production. There is no doubt that the second farmer is maybe a better producer than the first in my example. A farmer who lives about two kilometres away from me stopped selling his milk to a processor two months ago, but he is still milking cows and feeding the milk to beef calves to enable him to exit the dairy Industry. He will get absolutely nothing out of this package. Farmers who have been forced out of the industry cannot get a cent of this package. It is not fair. It is simply not fair. The ones who need it most cannot get it. I think it should also be made very public that the package is funded by an extension of the 11c per litre levy on milk. The government has not put in one cent, yet it will be taxed over the next eight years. A farmer who leaves the industry and has received this package—and no doubt the bank has gobbled it up—finds it very hard to get any welfare payments as the package is classed as income over the next eight years. I believe this has not been passed yet in federal parliament, and we must lobby to have it changed so all dairy farmers can get something out of this. While the industry is divided like this, it simply cannot stand. Payments to one farmer and not the other continue to divide our farmers. Thus they are vulnerable and can be ruled with an iron rod by our processing gurus who continue to milk our industry with their ludicrous wages and packages. We need strength in leadership, and I believe we can lead by pulling the dairy industry together by paying every dairy farmer equally.

Alpha Show Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (1.07 a.m.): During the week before last, I had special leave from parliament to open the 35th Alpha Show—and what a beautiful country show it is. I am pleased to have this opportunity to thank the people of the Jericho shire for the honour of opening their show, as well as Mayor Keith Bettridge and wife, Sharleen; show committee president Michael Ingram and wife, Libby; Reid and Pam Baumann and all the members of the council and show committee as well as the people of the Jericho shire for taking me in on the day and treating me like family. As soon as I arrived, the atmosphere of the show was overwhelming. Looking at the program of cooking events, I was glad I had not been in town during the week. The smells of home- cooked food wafting through the town I am sure would have driven even the animals wild. The variety of foods on display was incredible—jams and cakes of every type. Thank goodness the show committee and the local P&C of the Alpha State School—thank you Jane Williams and her committee—had provided a wonderful lunch, or I would have been in the pavilion looking longingly at all the delicious exhibits. I must say that I am glad I was not a judge. Popular Mayor Keith Bettridge won the celebrity cake competition with an old family recipe, so we hope he was not involved in the judging! The range of horses, poultry and stud cattle was wonderful. The champion dog show went well. But of course, my favourite place is always with the horses. I have always said that the first person to preserve the smell of horses in a bottle will make their fortune, and I still believe that to be true. The range of needlework I saw was amazing. Both the photography and fine arts competitions had diverse exhibits, but who could forget the stockman's challenge? Because that is just what it is. I have heard it said that once one has worked in a boarding school one is never safe from supervision again, and I was pleased to make welcome on the day the Columba Catholic College students, ably looked after by Sean Dillon and his mum. We claim Sean as an Alpha boy, because even if he lives in Clermont now he was born in Alpha and so is regarded as 1350 Adjournment 30 May 2001 a local in both places. The students and stock from the Columba Catholic College were an integral part of the show, as were those from the Emerald Agricultural College. I was also enthralled with the performances of Dougie and the Dung Beetles, a group of madcap people from Barcaldine, proving again what multitalented people school teachers are. Again, I would like to say how pleased I was to be in Alpha on show day—or any other day—and how honoured I was to be asked to open their show. As Mayor Keith Bettridge reminded me, I am not only the member for Charters Towers but also the member for Alpha and Jericho, so I look forward to spending show day in Alpha many times in the future. I wish the people of the Jericho shire many more years of successful shows. I am also delighted to place on record my congratulations to all involved, because truly country shows like this are the very heartbeat of the bush and deserve all the support that we can give them.

Health Services Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (1.09 a.m.): Of all the core responsibilities of the state government, few would argue that any are more important than the provision of health services. Queensland has long enjoyed a universal free hospital system that has been the envy of other states in Australia and certainly the envy of other people from countries around the world. Increasingly that free hospital system is under strain to cope, and the signs are easy to see. Unacceptable waiting lists for operations and dental care are the most obvious signs. I want to table tonight a letter that was written to a constituent of mine who lives in the Widgee area and accesses health care from the Gympie Health Service District. This letter is from Peter Murphy, the District Manager of the Gympie Health Service District. I quote one small section of the letter— I advise the best estimate of the wait is 108 weeks from when your name was placed on the list ... I table that letter. That is similar to a number of letters that I have in my office that indicate a totally unacceptable waiting time for constituents in my electorate, and I know that situation is shared by constituents in other electorates throughout the state. Increasingly, community groups are focusing their efforts on making up for the shortfall or filling the gaps in the government-provided services. I was especially gratified to officially open a special care unit at the Monto Hospital last weekend that had been funded by volunteers who had raised money over a period of time by a range of methods, up to and including some highly successful pig races. Other groups of volunteers are currently raising funds to provide a heliport at the same hospital. In every community that I represent, volunteers are raising funds to make up the shortfall in hospital and health services. Last week I also attended a number of functions to mark Australia's biggest morning tea where other groups of volunteers were raising funds for badly needed cancer research. I know this fundraising campaign was conducted across the state. But there are some things that volunteers cannot do. It is a core responsibility of the state government to provide the health services that constituents in my electorate need, that constituents like the one who was written to by the manager of the Gympie Health Service deserve. Our constituents deserve reliable health services. They do not deserve letters which suggest they need to wait 108 weeks for what should be their right. During this last two weeks in parliament, we have heard debate about the expenditure of $300 million for the upgrading of Lang Park, $200 million for a new arts centre, $32 million for a footbridge across the Brisbane River, and so the list goes on. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that our priorities are very wrong. Just a portion of that expenditure would be welcomed in the state's hospital system. Just a portion of that expenditure would be welcomed even more by the people on hospital waiting lists, like the constituent who received the letter that I tabled earlier tonight. Just a portion of that expenditure would be most welcomed by the volunteers who are working hard out there in all our communities to fill the gaps in our health system. Time expired.

Mooroobool Community, Cairns Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (1.12 a.m.): I would like to pay my respects to some members of the Mooroobool community in Cairns by recording their earnest efforts on behalf of their community through the proceedings of this honourable House. 30 May 2001 Adjournment 1351

Mooroobool is a suburb of Cairns, one in which there is a small-lot but highly dense public housing area. Unfortunately, a high proportion of the people who live in the Mooroobool public housing area are unemployed and have become used to living on benefits. Unfortunately, too high a proportion of the children do not attend school regularly and, of those in adolescence, do not look like completing high school. Unfortunately, too, there has been a high rate of juvenile crime in the area. The community in Mooroobool is very mixed in terms of culture, though most of the people reflect the indigenous peoples of Australia as well as a healthy mixture of Cook Islanders. The Mooroobool community has been very admiring of the good work done in the neighbouring suburb of Manoora under the community and urban renewal programs, and they look forward to being the next on the list, particularly for a community renewal program. In the meantime, however, I would like to give recognition to Antonio Pinto, who is the Mooroobool Community Centre's neighbourhood liaison officer. He is an absolute ball of energy and has got many new initiatives going within the community, together with people like Marie Tabuai, Mial Bingarape, Sharon Loving, Ari Kirikava, Rebecca Nai and Tammy Joinbee. The community is hopping with community calendars and many worthwhile activities, particularly for the young people of the community. They have been using the Mooroobool Community Health Centre for all kinds of worthwhile purposes, such as having people from the public health section of Queensland Health talk with parents about good nutrition for their children. They have been establishing a community garden, and I am pleased to say that the Balaclava State School and Rotary have been involved in that worthwhile project. Young people have been, instead of graffitiing a fence, painting a culturally appropriate mural, one that is colourful and gives some pride to community members. Parents know that they need to learn how to be familiar with computers, and they are attending the community centre for that purpose. To see some of the grand Islander ladies of somewhat advanced age sitting at the computer terminals making the fingers go and getting over their technophobia is a wonderful sight. On top of that, there are some self-esteem-building courses for members of the community who have not had an easy start in life. I offer sincere congratulations to those community members. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. (Thursday)