13 May 2003 Legislative Assembly 1643

TUESDAY, 13 MAY 2003

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

MARYBOROUGH BY-ELECTION Return of Writ Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to report that the writ issued by His Excellency the Governor on 1 April 2003 for the election of a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral district of Maryborough has been returned with a certificate endorsed thereon by the returning officer of the election, on 26 April 2003, of Christopher John Foley to serve as such member.

Member Sworn Mr Chris Foley was introduced, took the oath of allegiance, and subscribed the roll.

ASSENT TO BILLS 12 May 2003 The Honourable R.K. Hollis, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Speaker I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on 9 May 2003: "A Bill for an Act to amend the Motor Vehicles Securities Act 1986 and the Bills of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act to enable the Australian Sports Drug Agency to test State competitors for the use of drugs and doping methods, and for related purposes" "A Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines" "A Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act to make various amendments of Queensland statute law" "A Bill for an Act to amend the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act 1992". The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely (sgd) Governor

PRIVILEGE Member for Moggill Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to report to the House that the member for Moggill wrote to me on 7 May 2003 raising with me a matter of privilege. Following my consideration, I wish to report to the House that I have referred this matter to the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee for their urgent consideration.

PAPERS PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 1644 Legislative Assembly 13 May 2003

2 May 2003— Response from the Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland (Mr Reynolds) to a petition presented by Ms Lee Long from 1,167 petitioners regarding the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover— 02 May 2003 Mr Neil Laurie Clerk of the Parliament [email protected] Dear Mr Laurie I refer to your letter of 27 March 2003 to which you attached a petition from Mr S Klein of Atherton concerning the introduction of the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover. At the outset, I would like to assure the people who have signed the petition that this Government is committed to providing the best possible ambulance service to the people of Queensland. The Community Ambulance Cover will come into effect from 1 July 2003 and will be charged at a rate of $22 per quarter—or 24 cents a day. It is a broad-based charge, as opposed to a user-pays system, to ensure the majority of people likely to use ambulance services contribute to the cost of operating that service. Had the current Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) Subscription Scheme been maintained, the Government would have been forced to increase the annual rates to provide the required funding for Queensland's ambulance service. Family rates would have risen to $130 per annum and the Single subscription rate would have risen to $82 per annum. The levy is not based on electricity usage, as indicated in the position. The State Government is simply using electricity accounts as a collection mechanism, which will keep administration costs to a minimum and deliver maximum funds for frontline ambulance services. Under the general principle, the levy will be applied to both residential and business accounts. If the levy was restricted to residential accounts or principal places of residence, it would significantly reduce the base from which funds are drawn and the levy would have to be much higher. Community Ambulance Cover on business electricity accounts may qualify for a tax deduction, and I encourage business owners to speak to their tax advisor or the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) regarding eligibility in this regard. The ATO can be contacted on telephone number 13 2866. As the legislation is developed, the issue of multiple accounts is being examined and updates regarding this matter will be provided at www.ambulance.qld.gov.au as they become available. The State Government is currently working to minimise any anomalies and develop the fairest system possible. Final details of the funding and payment arrangements will not be available until this process is completed. After 1 July 2003, all Queensland residents will be covered for ambulance services anywhere in Australia regardless of their circumstances. The QAS will be provided with an adequate and predictable funding base through the introduction of Community Ambulance Cover. A copy of the Premier's latest Media Release is available on the QAS website www.ambulance.qld.gov.au. This website will be progressively updated as further details are announced. I trust this information is of assistance to you. However, should further information be required, please contact Mr Bob Hammill, Director, Corporate Initiatives and Communications, Department of Emergency Services on telephone number (07) 3247 8789. Yours sincerely HON MIKE REYNOLDS AM MP Minister for Emergency Services Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland 6 May 2003— Response from the Minister for Environment (Mr Wells) to a paper petition presented by Mrs Reilly from 210 petitioners regarding the parcel of land at Springbrook known as 'The Settlement'— Mr N Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE Q 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 14 March 2003 forwarding a copy of a petition tabled in the Parliament on 12 March 2003 regarding the parcel of land at Springbrook known as 'The Settlement'. The Environmental Protection Agency has received more than 40 submissions in response to the release last year of the draft management plan for "The Settlement" at Springbrook. The State Government, the Gold Coast City Council and several community groups are negotiating a broad 13 May 2003 Legislative Assembly 1645

planning process for the overall Springbrook area, which will provide further opportunities for public comment. There are many planning issues current at Springbrook, and there is interest in running a community- driven process to seek wide support in the pursuit of a long-term vision for the area. Springbrook National Park was part of one of Queensland's five World Heritage areas and the Springbrook plateau was of outstanding natural importance. This provides the potential for enormous conservation, community and economic benefits through the protection, enhancement and presentation of the area's World Heritage values. I am working with the Gold Coast mayor and his council to respond to the community initiative for a comprehensive planning process. It is intended to deal with the future management of 'The Settlement' land in the broader context rather than in isolation. I do not want to have the interests of the area stall so some current initiatives will need to go ahead in anticipation of the broader process. For example, the State Government has given a commitment to finalise tenure recommendations for the Nerang and Numinbah Forest Reserves under the South East Queensland Forest Agreement during this term of Government. Therefore, these recommendations will proceed within the SEQFA timetable. However, where such actions need to proceed, they will reflect the overall planning process as far as practicable. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely DEAN WELLS Minister for Environment Response from the Minister for Environment (Mr Wells) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr Johnson from 444 petitioners regarding the introduction of a Container Deposit Scheme in Queensland— Mr N Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE Q 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 27 March 2003 forwarding a copy of an E-petition tabled in the Parliament on 25 March 2003 regarding the introduction of a Container Deposit Scheme in Queensland. In Queensland the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a new Waste Management Strategy that will set the direction for waste management in the State for the next fifteen years. The process includes a stakeholder consultation phase. Assessment of economic drivers to maximize resource recovery, including Extended Producer Responsibility options such as Container Deposit Legislation (CDL), should take place within this process to ensure a strategic and integrated approach to waste management in Queensland. The New South Wales report into CDL recommended that agreement at a national level for the adoption of Extended Producer Responsibility legislation be sought to address constitutional and cross—border issues. At present, all levels of government in Australia are considering the CDL option. The implementation of CDL can have significant impact on local councils and the community. The National Packaging Covenant, the framework document for the management of used packaging materials in Australia, has the advantage of dealing with packaging waste through its whole life-cycle rather than solely at its end-life, which is the focus of CDL. The Covenant expires in less than two years. Whilst this voluntary initiative has enjoyed the support of Australian Governments and progress has been encouraging, the main administering body, the Covenant Council, needs to ensure that outcomes envisaged are achieved and are demonstrable. It is noted that the Covenant Council has agreed to a robust evaluation process which should be completed in time to allow the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, comprising the Commonwealth and State Ministers for the Environment, to consider options, including CDL, and whether the covenant should be extended. The Queensland Government is, through the EPA, constantly developing Smart State initiatives that will contribute to a reduction in waste disposal and consequently a reduction in costs for all Queenslanders. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely DEAN WELLS Minister for Environment Response from the Minister for Environment (Mr Wells) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr Lee from 525 petitioners regarding a ban on the duck and quail shooting season— Mr N Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE Q 4000 1646 Legislative Assembly 13 May 2003

Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 2 April 2003 forwarding a copy of an E-Petition tabled in the Parliament on 1 April 2003 regarding a ban on duck and quail shooting season. Concerns have been raised about the ecological sustainability of recreational hunting, impacts of hunting on non-target species, contamination of the environment by lead shot and the appropriateness of hunting as a sport in our society. Animal welfare also continues to be a major consideration in certain areas of the community. Alternative views, supporting the recreational harvest as sustainable, humane and necessary for the protection of agricultural crops, have also been expressed. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) determines whether or not a harvest period should occur based primarily on ecological sustainability, although animal welfare concerns are also considered. At present, the ecological impacts of recreational harvesting are not considered significant, especially when compared with the impact of land clearing and wetland reclamation on waterfowl populations. The QPWS has funded two independent studies into the accumulation of lead shot on waterfowl and wetland areas. Although these studies suggest that the impacts of lead shot on waterfowl and wetland species is minimal, the QPWS has, as a precautionary measure, imposed a prohibition on the use of lead shot in three areas and will phase-out the use of lead shot completely within in two years. The Duck and Quail Ministerial Advisory Committee consists of representatives with diverse views including conservation and welfare groups and hunting and shooting organisations. The QPWS licenses hunters involved in recreational duck and quail hunting in Queensland, sets strict guidelines in terms of how and when hunting occurs and closely monitors hunting activities each season. The Government administers this program but provides no subsidy to fund any activities associated with this harvest. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following advice from the Duck and Quail Ministerial Advisory Committee has decided an open season on ducks and quails will not be declared this year because of the potential impact on the birds' sustainability. The Duck and Quail Conservation Plan allowed for an annual duck and quail season as long as rigorous scientific process indicated conservation of the birds would not be unduly compromised. All the evidence this year points to a significant decline in the populations of ducks and quails, and the climatic conditions also indicate that they may take a year to recover. Despite recent rain, Queensland still has 89 shires that are drought-declared, and still in the grip of the worst drought this State has suffered in 100 years. The science that we he have been using for the last twelve years says that there should not be a season this year. The science used to make decisions about the season included comprehensive population surveys, surface water in lakes, dams and wetlands, statistics on the numbers taken in previous seasons and climatic conditions, especially rainfall. At present, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory continue to have a duck and quail hunting season. New South Wales and Western Australia allow the shooting of ducks under damage mitigation permits and the New South Wales Government is currently considering the findings of a scientific panel review which discusses the re-opening of a season for waterfowl. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely DEAN WELLS Minister for Environment 12 May 2003— Electoral Commission Queensland Research Report 1/2003—Statistical Profiles: Queensland State Electoral Districts STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971— State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 75 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994— Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 76 Coroners Act 2003— Proclamation commencing certain provision, No. 77 Queensland Building Services Authority and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003— Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 78 Health Act 1937— Health Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 79 Justice and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002— Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 80 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003, No. 81 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1647

Nature Conservation Act 1992— Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 82 Cooperatives Act 1997— Cooperatives Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 83 Security Providers Act 1993— Security Providers Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 84 Plant Protection Act 1989— Plant Protection (Wheat Streak Mosaic) Notice 2003, No. 85

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Maryborough By-election Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.): On 8 May the result of the Maryborough by-election was announced. As we all know, we can officially congratulate Chris Foley on his victory. We welcome him to the House and we wish him well. Indeed, I am sure that all members will do what they can to make him welcome. So good luck. I have a more detailed ministerial statement, but, because of time, I seek leave to incorporate it. Leave granted. The result gave Labor 37% of the vote. Chris Foley, now an Independent but well-known in Maryborough as having wanted to be the National Party candidate received 33.3% of the vote. And the official National candidate received 17.2%. In other words, voters leaning to the National Party totalled 50.5%. Despite my Government's major achievements in job creation, the fact that we have the best health system in Australia and our huge improvements to the education system, we only received just over a third of the vote. I say again—attracting one in three voters means we would not win the next election. This is a wake-up call for everyone in the Government and the party. What everyone should remember is that a majority gained in a single election can be lost in a single election. Remember, in 1995 all the experts said Wayne Goss was going to romp home. Nearly three-quarters of people in a Courier-Mail poll said they expected Labor to win. That's probably about the same as now. Even on election day a poll said Labor would win by 11 seats. Like me, Wayne Goss warned that Labor could lose. No one listened. What happened? The Goss Government was fatally wounded in the election. It was the start of three years of unstable government.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.): I have taken a clear position in relation to the Governor-General. That position was taken after detailed consideration of the report of the Anglican Church, which I tabled in this parliament on 1 May. The role of the Governor-General is to provide uniting, inspirational and sometimes healing leadership to Australia, and Peter Hollingworth cannot do that. Nor can he provide leadership on issues such as paedophilia. The Governor-General should put Australia first. He is entitled to defend himself, but the position of Governor-General is more important than the individual. The longer this sad saga continues the more damage it does to the institution of the Governor-General and our democracy. In the interests of time, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. I will provide in this statement the reasons for my decision to call on the Governor-General to resign. The position of Governor-General is critical to the operation of our democracy. It is the pre-eminent position in our constitution and system of government. The office and the holder of that office, require the trust and support of the Australian community. 1648 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003

There are two completely separate issues involving the Governor-General. The first issue arises from the material revealed in The Report of the Board of Inquiry Into Past Handling of Complaints of Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church Diocese of Brisbane. The second issue relates to those allegations made directly against Dr Hollingworth by a woman alleging he raped her. This second issue is a matter for the courts. Dr Hollingworth is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Whatever the outcome of this legal action, the matters revealed in the Board of Inquiry Report make his position untenable. Criticism of Dr Peter Hollingworth has tended to focus on just one case from this Report. And his defenders have suggested that he has made only one mistake and, therefore, should not be hounded out of office. It is true that the Board was only critical of Dr Hollingworth in two of the nine complaints it examined. A detailed reading of the Report led me to notice that in five cases there were some similarities in the way in which complaints were dealt with. These similarities include: The manner in which the accused was treated; The manner in which the complainant was treated; Questions about the enforcement of any disciplinary action; Differences in recollection. The official website for the Governor-General says: Possibly the most important role of the Governor-General, as the office has evolved over the years, is to encourage, articulate and represent those things that unite Australians as a nation. It is impossible for the Governor-General to unite the country on an important issue such as child abuse where the overwhelming majority of Australians want paedophiles subjected to the full force of the law. It is not feasible for Dr Hollingworth to encourage Australians to speak out against child abuse and sexual abuse—a topic which should unite us. It would not be believable for Dr Hollingworth to articulate the horror which Australians feel about child abuse. It is impossible for Dr Hollingworth to represent all those Australians who want a national figurehead who can stand tall and denounce child abuse, speak out against child abusers and talk proudly of his record. The official web site says that in this unifying capacity, the Governor-General accepts patronage of many national charitable, cultural, educational, sporting and professional organisations; and opens and participates in conferences where topics of national importance are discussed—such as educational, health, cultural, welfare, defence, economic and rural issues. Will all members of national charitable, cultural, educational, sporting and professional organisations feel a sense of unity about the prospect of Dr Hollingworth being invited to be their patron if they have any links with abused children? Will all members of national charitable, cultural, educational, sporting and professional organisations feel a sense of unity about Dr Hollingworth being invited to open a function or speak to them about topics such as child abuse? For these reasons it is not now possible for Dr Hollingworth to encourage, articulate and represent those things that unite Australians as a nation. 1993: Allegations against Father John Elliot The victim of child abuse at the hands of John Elliot says he expressed his concerns to Dr Hollingworth in 1993 "that John Elliot, now a priest with the Church, was a serial paedophile and should have no contact with the general public at all." (p383, 4.1) In December 1993 the victim's parents say Dr Hollingworth told them he would not dismiss Elliot because "at age 63 he would find it difficult to secure another job". (p392) The Treatment of the Clergyman and the Complainant Dr Hollingworth wrote to Fr Elliot: "The matter which has exercised my mind most strongly is the fact that your departure at this stage could cause unintended consequences that would make things worse for you and the Church. The major difficulty is that in not taking disciplinary action I and the Church could subsequently charged (sic) with culpability while as (sic) the same time an act of removing you would place you in an impossible situation at your age and stage in life." (p390, 7.3) The victim's brother wrote to Dr Hollingworth: "… surely it is not too hard to see that when his attacker is so easily forgiven and kept under your wing my brother is denied the right to properly work through his feelings regarding his own guilt (or lack of) and his anger towards his aggressor." (p396, 9.1) The Outcome Dr Hollingworth made it a condition of allowing Fr Elliot to continue preaching at Dalby that he should retire at 65. (p391) The Board comments that despite this condition, "Hollingworth allowed Elliot to continue in Church ministry for several years after his retirement …" (p392) 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1649

Different Recollections Dr Hollingworth's solicitors wrote to the Board saying: "It needs to be stressed that in reaching this decision, Dr Hollingworth had no reason to believe that the incident with the boys was anything other than a single, isolated and distant occurrence." (p390, 7.1) The Board reported that it "is satisfied that Dr Hollingworth was told by the complainant on 30 August 1993 that the sexual abuse was not an isolated occurrence but consisted of repeated criminal acts." (p48, 15.8) 1995: Allegations against Bishop Donald Shearman In 1995 Dr Hollingworth allowed Bishop Donald Shearman to continue his ministry despite Bishop Shearman having abused a girl in his care at a Forbes hostel. The Board said Bishop Shearman had failed to apologise for his behaviour which included "his seduction of the Complainant at Forbes, her dismissal on spurious grounds from the Forbes Hostel, the premature termination of her secondary education … and the consequent hurt and distress over many years." (p338, 20.1) The Treatment of the Clergyman and the Complainant Dr Hollingworth's solicitors say that one of the reasons why Dr Hollingworth decided not to stop Bishop Shearman from continuing to conduct his ministry was: "the potential pastoral and financial consequences for Mr Shearman and his wife if that permission were revoked." (p330) The victim wrote to Dr Hollingworth in 2001: "Again I am surprised by the ability of the church to protect its own when guilt has been admitted but to offer no such protection/support to the victim." (p323) The Outcome Dr Hollingworth decided Bishop Shearman should keep a low profile and not exercise his permission to officiate in Brisbane for the time being. (p330) The Report tells how at Easter 2001 a relative of the Complainant told her she had seen Mr Shearman "in all his finery" on television as a locum in the Cathedral. (p322) Different Recollections Dr Hollingworth's solicitors wrote to the Board to say: "Dr Hollingworth does not recollect the Complainant raising the matter of intercourse with her at age 15, or any admission by Mr Shearman in that regard." (p307, 7.1) But in 1995 Bishop Williams told the victim that Dr Hollingworth had been shown her original letter. The letter makes it very plain that the victim had complained that Shearman had engaged in a sexual relationship with her when she was a "school girl, a student in his care when he was in charge of St John's Hostel Forbes". (p297 and 292) The Board says: "Despite Dr Hollingworth's recollection, the Board accepts the descriptions of the Complainant and the Complainant's support person that the events at the hostel were fully canvassed." (p307, 7.2) 1997: Allegations that a volunteer at St John's Cathedral had a history of child abuse The Report says that in February 1997 a young man wrote to Dr Hollingworth saying he believed that an office bearer at St John's Cathedral had a history of child abuse, and given the access to children this post entailed it was extremely inappropriate for him to continue in that office. The complainant's intention, he said, was "to enquire into with a view to criminal prosecution an event which occurred to me whilst involved with St John's Cathedral and this person." (p461) The Report says that the complainant said: "It appeared to me … that, as this person held no paid or elected role, that the organization had no concerns for his doings. His role brought him into close quarters with young males and his acceptance in this role and involvement in official activities lent a certain credibility that was certainly undeserved." (p466/7) The Treatment of the Office Bearer and the Complainant Dr Hollingworth replied: "… the Dean informs me that the office bearer at St John's Cathedral holds no formal office other than a voluntary Sunday liturgical function as do many others. I'm not aware of any instances about the abuse of children by officers of our Church as you put the matter." (p462, 1.2) The Complainant said: "I also need to state that at no time was I offered any support or assistance to deal with my experiences, nor was I directed to or aware of any formal process through which I could raise such matters." (p467) The Outcome The complainant's recollection of a meeting with Dr Hollingworth is that the Archbishop told him that the individual was no longer involved in his honorary position and had not been active for some time. (p466) The complainant was 'disappointed' to now learn from a statement by Dr Hollingworth to the Board that the man had retained the role until 1998. (p466) Dr Hollingworth's solicitors say: "Because he could not be certain that this was in fact the man to whom the Complainant was referring and because this man occupied no position of pastoral trust within the Church, Dr Hollingworth considered that it was not appropriate for him to take any action in relation to this matter at that time." (p463) Dean Grimshaw has told the Board that: "The Respondent transferred his attentions to "helping" South East Asian students in their studies but I have no knowledge of whether anything actually transpired in this regard." (p464) Different Recollections Dr Hollingworth's solicitors told the Board: "The Complainant was at no time prepared to name the person against whom his assertions were directed." (p463, 2.2) 1650 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003

The victim says: "I believe that Dr Hollingworth is mistaken in his recollection that I was "at no time prepared to name the person against whom his assertions were directed." … I had previously named this person to Dean Grimshaw …" (p466) 1997: Allegations of homosexual advances by Father Ross McAuley The Report says that in December 1997 a young man reported he had been the subject of homosexual advances from Father Ross McAuley. The man believed McAuley was a threat to other young men. (p340-45 and 351) The Treatment of the Clergyman and the Complainant The Complainant told the Board that he had been told by Dr Hollingworth … "that because of the psychological state of Ross McAuley and because McAuley would be devastated to lose his priesthood, he would be moved on in a more indirect manner, and in a period of time." (p375) In making his complaint, the young man wrote: "The unwanted physical and verbal approaches, sexual innuendo, name-calling, threats, attempts to discredit me, intrusions into my personal life, abuse of his position, and his manipulative actions have caused me great hurt and concern. I am also sad that I had to leave the church …" (p344) The Outcome The Complainant says: "The Archbishop gave me the indication that McAuley would not still be in the position within the following 12 months and that a lack of funding for a position of precentor could be publicly used as the reason." (p375) The official decision by Dr Hollingworth was to allow McAuley to return to his post as Precentor after receiving treatment. (p378) Different Recollections After being shown documents by the Board, the Complainant says: "It disturbs me now to read private documentation of the events and to see that Peter Hollingworth's actual view of the matter was that there was 'no evidence on which to act, nor any way in which I could discipline him', particularly in light of admissions made by McAuley, and testimony of others who had experienced very similar behaviour as myself. It also disturbs me greatly to read the damning report on McAuley and the risk he posed that the Committee {for Complaints of Sexual Abuse} had drafted and to realise that the Archbishop ignored almost every recommendation." (p375) Dr Hollingworth's solicitors told the Board that Dr Hollingworth had concluded there was no evidence on which to act. The Board says a letter from Dr Hollingworth makes it clear that while he did not follow the recommendations, he had not ignored them. (p377 and 372) Solicitors for Hollingworth say that he believed then and continues to believe that, notwithstanding that McAuley's conduct was blameworthy and not to be condoned, there was no evidence that warranted disciplinary action. (p377) 1999: Allegations involving a priest and a man's wife A man living in a Queensland town complained that the parish priest had written a love letter to his wife at a time when she was vulnerable and he was suspicious of their relationship. (p421) The couple had children and he owned a business in the town. He felt compelled to leave town and install a manager to run his business which then went down hill. The couple are now divorced. (p443 and 441) The Treatment of the Clergyman and the Complainant Archbishop Hollingworth wrote to the clergyman saying: "… we have sufficient evidence to show that you have committed a serious pastoral indiscretion in relation to a vulnerable parishioner." (p435) Archbishop Hollingworth said in the same letter: "I have offered you an honourable way out …" (p435) The man wrote to Dr Hollingworth: "Never did the Church offer to help us, never did they ask after our welfare nor did they offer us counselling in this matter." (p445) The Report says: "There may have been better or other ways of handling the situation, but they are matters of judgement. This includes the desirability of the Diocese offering counselling to the Complainant." (p442) Dr Hollingworth's solicitors wrote: "Dr Hollingworth's recollection is that he did discuss with Bishop Smith the prospect of counselling but that they concluded that this was not only not necessary but also inappropriate." (p442) The priest resigned but has now become a priest in another diocese. (p50) Different Recollections The Report says of the documents involved in the complaint: "Whilst Dr Hollingworth expressed some doubt that he had received all the documents, it seems clear he had received all." (p427) Mr Speaker, these similarities became apparent after reading the Report and led to me calling for the Governor- General to resign. The issue of paedophilia is a leadership issue. We had a problem with D'Arcy and I dealt with it head on by tackling him as soon as I learned police were investigating him. I was prepared not to accept his vote, despite my Government's precarious position at the time. On January 22, 2000, I issued a media release which set out how, from the time it was revealed in 1998 that police were investigating D'Arcy's behaviour, I had taken the only action open to me—seeking to obtain D'Arcy's resignation from Parliament. Having put pressure on D'Arcy to resign I was attacked by National Party Leader and Opposition Leader Rob Borbidge who drew my attention to the presumption of innocence. 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1651

And on January 10, 2000, the Opposition Leader acknowledged I had been successful in forcing D'Arcy out. The release read: GOV'T IN STRIFE—MUST WORK HARDER THAN EVER The Bill D'Arcy court case would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the State Government, Premier Peter Beattie said today. "It doesn't matter what my Government has achieved in just 18 months, we are now in trouble and we will need to work all the harder to regain the public's confidence," said Mr Beattie. "This is certainly our darkest hour. "I can confirm that as soon as I learned of the allegations against Mr D'Arcy I urged him to consider resigning. "I can also confirm that I continued to encourage him to resign. "It is also true that I was prepared to go into minority Government if Mr D'Arcy had refused to resign. "I was prepared to rely on the vote of Independent Peter Wellington. "The fact is that Opposition Leader Rob Borbidge opposed my attempts to get rid of Mr D'Arcy. "When I took action way back in August 1998 to try to get Mr D'Arcy to resign, Mr Borbidge attacked me and sided with Mr D'Arcy," said Mr Beattie. "As soon as it was revealed that police were investigating Mr D'Arcy's behaviour of 30 years ago I sought his resignation from Parliament. "I immediately told the public what I had done but Mr Borbidge attacked me for this example of leadership. "Mr Borbidge said—and I quote: "These are very serious allegations but the presumption of innocence is very serious too. "For Mr Beattie to declare himself judge, jury and executioner when no charges have been laid is an act of political treachery towards one of his colleagues that in days to come he will regret." "I can assure you today that I have no regrets at having consistently encouraged Mr D'Arcy's resignation from parliament. "I said on September 1, 1998, that if Mr D'Arcy stayed in Parliament then there would be questions about the future of my Government. "And I said on the same day that if Mr D'Arcy decided to resign we would move quickly to have a by-election. "Even the National Party's president at the time, David Russell, defended Mr D'Arcy against my call for him to resign. Mr Russell said Mr D'Arcy was entitled not to be pressurised into actions such as resignation from Parliament. "When I finally succeeded in gaining Mr D'Arcy's resignation Mr Borbidge acknowledged on January 10 that—and I quote again— "There's been attempts by the Labor Party over a period of time to force Bill D'Arcy out; Mr Beattie on this occasion has been successful." "My role over the last 18 months ever since we learned of the allegations has been consistent. "It is equally plain that Mr Borbidge is a total hypocrite on this matter because the Coalition has only sought to score political points. "The result of my actions is that the people of Woodridge now have the opportunity of voting for an energetic local candidate in Mike Kaiser who will knock on my door to get things done for them." "I understand that Mr Wellington wants to move a motion in connection with Mr D'Arcy's superannuation. "It would be improper to discuss this or debate this during Mr D'Arcy's trial. No action can be taken unless he is found guilty. "I will talk to Mr Wellington when Parliament resumes about this issue. "Clearly, any retrospective legislation would also need to consider the precedent set by the pay-out of superannuation to former National Party Ministers Don Lane, Geoff Muntz, Brian Austin and Leisha Harvey who were all found guilty of misappropriation of public funds." January 22, 2000.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Federal Budget Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): Tonight when the federal treasurer, Peter Costello, delivers his budget speech, we will be hoping for a budget that is smart and a budget that has heart. The last thing Queenslanders want is a Commonwealth obsessed with a massive cash surplus but blind to what should matter most: better lives for all Australians. Unfortunately, the signals from Canberra are that the coalition is in a mean mood. We can expect lean pickings for average Australians and even tougher times ahead for the people who most need a break, that is, the sick, the disabled and people struggling to keep a roof over their 1652 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003 heads. Seven thousand young Queenslanders—and some of them potential Nobel Prize winners—are already missing out on university places. On top of this we need 800 additional undergraduate university places in each of the next five years just to keep pace with national participation levels and population growth. That ought to be a budget priority. This federal government's attack on education is limiting the opportunities for young Australians. It has no vision for our future. We already know the coalition plans to spend $1 billion less on public hospitals over the next five years and to throw $21 million into marketing its plans to destroy Medicare. It will leave in the lurch families with sick kids and incomes as low as $32,300. This is a last-minute plea for a touch of kindness from the coalition. When Peter Costello distributes Queensland taxpayers' money, he must ensure Queensland's public health services get their fair share. He must give back the $1 billion the Prime Minister has said he will take from public hospitals over the next five years. He must restore Medicare as a health system for all Queenslanders and he must reverse the decision to deny bulkbilling to millions of Australian families. The federal budget must fund the full range of public health services—not just hospitals—such as increasing aged care, mental health, child health and rehabilitation and prevention programs. It remains to be seen if what has been promised will have a real impact on our shortage of doctors, nurses and allied health professionals with fully funded, additional university places. Regional Queenslanders, in particular, want an increase in radiation therapy services, which have been provided to other states but not to ours. Queensland families will be holding out hope for more child care places and parents and students want the return of their $3.8 million in national Asian languages funding. Queenslanders are crying out for the federal government to change its mean-spirited stance on public housing. Queenslanders have lost more than $90 million in Commonwealth public housing funds since 1998 and we will lose about $100 million over the next five years because the Commonwealth will not provide adequate GST compensation. We look forward to a major increase in road funding, with the coalition at least making up for the $78 million it cut last year. Queenslanders need $600 million in Commonwealth funds over each of the next five years to address a backlog and put us on a par with other states. The budget papers should reveal funds to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway, six-lane the Bruce Highway south of Cairns and north to Caboolture, upgrade the Barkly Highway, complete planning and secure the Toowoomba Bypass corridor, implement the recommendation of the Burdekin road safety audit and improve safety at the Warrego Highway-Plainland Road black spot. People with disabilities and their families are hoping desperately for inclusion of disability growth funds for Queensland, paltry though they are—$2.9 million this year and less than $1 million for the following four years. They also want to see directions for the future of jobs for people with disabilities. Indigenous communities deserve more federal funds to stimulate economic development plus dollars for infrastructure, tertiary scholarships and training. We look forward to finding drought assistance in the forward estimates to match Canberra's statements that there will be more than $360 million over three years. The budget needs to cover the national hand gun buyback and provide additional funds in the event the Commonwealth follows through on its voluntary surrender suggestion. The people of the far north need a new fixed wing aircraft to help prevent weapons and drugs infiltrating our borders. The ABC deserves more cash for a dedicated TV news service in the far north and an expansion of JJJ and News Radio services in rural and regional Australia. People who live and travel in remote areas are waiting on the line for Mr Costello to fill in the remaining black holes in continuous mobile phone coverage on Queensland's western highways. The Smart State's research community deserves a decent cut of federal funding to match the state government's commitment. The Commonwealth's underfunding of Smart State research and development is an insult to the intelligence of Queenslanders. Queenslanders will also be keeping a close eye on budget commitments to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, to tackling illegal fishing in our waters and to farm financial advisers. Some things we do not want in the budget papers are the amalgamation of James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science or the axing of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1653

I look forward to a budget that acknowledges the coalition's past errors, that recognises the stunning potential of Queenslanders and that reflects Queenslanders' belief in a fair go for all.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Ambulance Levy Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): Yesterday the Minister for Emergency Services and I outlined a number of changes to community ambulance cover. We have expanded the list of exemptions from payments in the Community Ambulance Cover Bill 2003, which will be introduced by the minister today. There were about 600 submissions to the implementation committee we set up to carry out consultation. We have listened and carefully considered the views and situations presented in the submissions. Wherever possible we have compromised without backing down on the scheme's aim of delivering a well-funded ambulance service to all Queenslanders anywhere in Australia while maintaining a broad collection base. Pensioners, Seniors Card holders and Gold Card veterans will continue to be exempt for their principal place of residence. Payments of 24c a day will be made through an electricity account, but because we have extended the list of exemptions fewer accounts will attract a payment. As a result we have extended the exemptions so that a single premises used for a single business or other non-residential activity will pay only one account, even when it receives more than one electricity bill. Caravan park residents will not pay on sub-metered sites, as parks will only pay on accounts held with electricity retailers. The farm shed exemption has been widened to cover more primary producers. For example, silos and boat sheds used by commercial fishers will be exempt. Church buildings and other places of worship will be exempt unless the electricity contract includes a commercial activity. Domestic water and sewerage pumps are exempt. In light of the importance of this, I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. It includes a number of answers to questions people will want to ask. Leave granted. About 412,000 families who already subscribe to the ambulance service will save, because Community Ambulance Cover is 10 percent cheaper than the current family subscription rate of $98. Without the switch to Community Ambulance Cover, family subscriptions would have risen to $130, and single subscriptions $82. Under Community Ambulance Cover many singles who share accommodation will pay much less. Queenslanders without subscriptions will no longer face the risk of having to pay $755 for emergency ambulance transport. The switch to a broad-based scheme gives all Queenslanders the peace of mind of ambulance cover, and allows the Queensland Ambulance Service to carry on its tradition of saving lives. Question: Will the CAC attract GST? Answer: In most cases the CAC is not subject to GST. However GST may apply to the recovery of the levy by on-suppliers. On-supply arrangements for business may attract GST on the CAC. However, they are also likely to attract an equivalent input tax credit. On-supply arrangements for residential units may attract GST, as is currently the case for rates. These issues need to be taken up with the ATO which administers the GST. Q: Why should business people pay multiple times? Answer: The CAC is being shared across the community to business and residences to keep the charge down. A number of amendments have been introduced to reduce the incidence of business paying a number of times—for example a single premise used for a single business or other non-residential activity will pay only one account even if it receives more than one electricity bill. Remember: less than half of ambulance call-outs are from homes. Primary producers also enjoy a benefit for farming sheds, pumps and silos. The CAC should attract a tax deduction for business—but the exact treatment will depend on individual circumstances. Keep it in context: for a business with a $50,000 per annum turnover: ¥ To recoup the ambulance cover from customers would require prices to rise by 0.18 per cent—less than $0.01 for a $2.50 meat pie or $0.04 cents for a $20 haircut. ¥ CPI increases by around 2.5% per annum. Community Ambulance Cover is only one-fifteenth of the price increase of the CPI. (For a business with a turnover of $100,000 pa, the figure is just one-thirtieth, and for a business with a turn-over of $1 million the figure is one-three hundredth.) 1654 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003

Question: Will a business or residence still be subject to a CAC charge for common user infrastructure (eg security lighting in a unit complex, antennae example) that has a separate electricity contract? Answer: The body corporate will receive a CAC charge for common user infrastructure if it has a separate electricity contract. The cost will then need to be divided amongst tenants. Question: What will be the funding shortfall from the Government extending these concessions? Answer: Our ballpark is that the concessions would reduce the number of CAC bills by up to 50,000. (This could cost $4 million to $5 million). Any funding shortfall should be able to be covered by a contribution from the Commonwealth, which is being negotiated. Question: How has the bill changed to reflect consultation? Answer: We invited submissions to an implementation unit, which received about 600 submissions. As a result, we have extended the exemptions so that: ¥ A single premise used for a single business or other non-residential activity will pay only one account, even when it receives more than one electricity bill; ¥ Caravan park residents will not pay on sub-metered sites, as parks will only pay on accounts held with electricity retailers; ¥ The farm shed exemption has been widened to cover more primary producers—for example silos, and boat sheds used by commercial fishers will be exempt; ¥ Church buildings and other places of worship will be exempt unless the electricity contract includes a commercial activity; and ¥ Domestic water and sewerage pumps are exempt. Also, as a result of consultation, we have modified and simplified administrative arrangements for on-suppliers, such as home unit managers. Question: What changes have been made to simplify the administrative arrangements for on-suppliers? Answer: Following consultation we have aligned the collection of the levy with the existing billing processes used by on-suppliers for residential units and have applied the levy to premises to which electricity supply is available. We've removed the pro-rating of the levy which would have applied for units with frequent turnover of tenants and have applied the levy on a daily basis for the entire year. Rights of recovery have been extended to either the owner or the occupant, rather than just the occupant as was previously the case. This will simplify the recovery process. Q Refusal to pay Your electricity retailer is required to take the debt recovery action they would usually take when recovering outstanding amounts on electricity accounts. Q Tax deductibility A Where the Community Ambulance Cover charge is a business expense, it should be able to be claimed as a tax deduction. This can be confirmed with a professional advisor or the ATO. Private Health Funds Two health funds have signalled they will be taking account of community ambulance cover—Medibank Private and MBF. We wrote to the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth-approved private health fund premium increases should have taken ambulance cover into account. Medicare Federal Government has confirmed in writing that the Medicare levy is not available to fund ambulance. It has also barred the ambulance subscription scheme from accessing the 30% private health insurance rebate. Bodies Corporate Bodies corporate will pay on an electricity accounts—e.g. for common area lighting. Living arrangement for Pensioners To be exempt, the electricity must be supplied only to your principal place of residence. You must either live alone or share the premises with one of the following persons. ¥ Your spouse including a de facto spouse; ¥ A person who is wholly dependent on you; ¥ A pensioner; ¥ A social security beneficiary who does not pay rent; ¥ A person who provides care and assistance to you and who does not pay rent. Defence Force If you live in a Commonwealth facility such as military barracks and you don't receive an electricity account, you will not be required to pay the Community Ambulance Cover. If you live in your own home or rental property and receive an electricity account, you will be required to pay the Community Ambulance Cover. 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1655

Definition of primary production: The definition has been extended to include: (a) agriculture; or (b) dairy farming; or (c) pasturing of animals; or (d) maintaining animals for the purposes of selling them or their bodily produce, including natural increase; or (e) apiculture (bees); or (f) aquaculture; or (g) commercial fishing; or (h) horticulture, other than amenity horticulture. Q Do primary producers need to apply for the exemption? A You will need to apply for an exemption for all accounts that relate solely to a farming shed. Your electricity retailer, where possible will attempt to identify eligible pumps based on the tariff being charged. Exemption application forms will not be available until after the legislation is enacted. Electricity Providers Q I live close to the border with New South Wales and receive electricity via a New South Wales power provider. Do I have to pay the Community Ambulance Cover? A Yes. Arrangements will be made with your provider. Charities An electricity account of a public benevolent institution will be exempt if it meets a two part test: 1. The objects of the institution and the type of activity which generates the electricity account must be for ¥ Care of the sick, aged, infirm, afflicted or incorrigible persons (but excluding hospitals, nursing homes and aged care hostels); or ¥ Relief of human poverty, suffering, distress or misfortune; or ¥ Care of children by being responsible for them on a full time basis, providing them with all the necessary food, clothing and shelter and providing for their general well being and protection; or ¥ Religious worship. 2. The Constitution of the organisation must provide that its income and property are used solely for promoting its objects, and must limit the distribution of income and property generally and on dissolution of the institution, to distribution to a similar institution. Places of Worship A Churches (or other public places of worship) will be exempt for electricity accounts which relate predominantly to their principal place of public worship. A Church complex with a church (which may include other minor activities such as counselling rooms etc) and church hall (which is not hired out on a full commercial basis) will still qualify for an exemption. Manses, presbyteries or halls which operate registered day care centres would not attract an exemption. Builders' poles A If the supply of electricity is metered you will be charged the Community Ambulance Cover charge on each electricity account for the duration of supply. Un-metered supplies will not attract the charge. It's a sad fact of life that accidents do occur on building sites. Local Government A Local Government will pay the Community Ambulance Cover charge except in relation to the provision of core local government services or for public infrastructure, such as: sewerage/water treatment works, bus sheds, public toilet facilities, traffic signals, cemeteries, park lighting, libraries.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Blue Cards Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): We all know the importance of the blue card system. Our screening program for people working with children is the best in the world. People working in certain categories of child related employment cannot work with children if they do not have a blue card. They cannot obtain a blue 1656 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003 card unless they undergo a criminal history check and are assessed as suitable by the Commission for Children and Young People. Since the card scheme began on 1 May 2001 with the screening of new paid employees, the commission has issued 103,709 cards. This figure includes those issued to volunteers and child related businesses. The commission advises that 277 applications have been withdrawn, with 165 of those deciding not to proceed after the commission sought further information about their criminal histories. The commission has prohibited 23 applicants from working with children. As required under the Commission for Children and Young People Act, my Department of Premier and Cabinet will review the blue card system. The review was planned to take place two years after the implementation of the act and commenced recently. It is expected to gauge the effectiveness of the process and will involve community consultation. A discussion paper will be submitted to cabinet for its consideration and approval. We will then invite the community to make submissions on the system. In light of time, I seek to have the remainder of my ministerial statement, together with a letter I have written to the Prime Minister in this regard, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, no system is ever perfect but based on those figures I have provided to the House, the blue card scheme is working. The negative notices issued and the number of applications withdrawn have a clear deterrent effect on those who are not suitable to work with children and young people. I would like to see the Working with Children Check extended into the national arena. Peter Carnley, the Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, last week told ABC Radio child abuse and child protection are issues which must be addressed nationally. He said and I quote "Government should be putting in working with children checks. They should be put in place in every State, they're only in New South Wales and Queensland at the moment. We've called a long, long time ago for a national approach to this and a standard approach to it." To progress the issue, I wrote to the Prime Minister last Friday telling him I believe there'd be considerable merit in establishing a national system of blue cards. I table a copy of that letter for the information of Honourable Members. I have pointed out to the Prime Minister that paedophiles and other predators are quick to exploit any opportunities offered by differences between jurisdictions. As political leaders in Australia, we need to ensure we take every measure to close any gaps in the law. I also stand by my call for a national Royal Commission of inquiry into the sexual abuse of children. We must protect our children from predatory adults and do everything we can to destroy this evil which has damaged, and continues to damage, the lives of so many Australians.

Premier of Queensland and Minister for Trade MAY 2003 The Honourable John Howard MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear John, The release of The Report of the Board of Inquiry into Past Handling of Complaints of Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church Diocese of Brisbane has engendered considerable disquiet in the community about the protection of our children from predatory adults who hold positions of authority in the community. It also has highlighted that many social institutions are ill-equipped firstly to ensure that these people are quickly identified and then to respond appropriately to the needs of the victims and their families. Furthermore, I think we are still unaware of the true extent of abuse which has occurred. I was shocked to hear that the Anglican Church in Brisbane has opened nearly 160 sexual abuse files since early last year. In Queensland, in 2000, we introduced a system in which people who wish to work with children under 18 years of age as an employee, a volunteer or in a self-employed capacity must undergo a criminal history check—the Working with Children Check. The Queensland Commission of Children and Young People screens people who work in residential facilities, school boarding houses, school employees, churches, clubs and associations involving children, counselling and support services and private teaching, coaching or tutoring. If an applicant is suitable, a notice is issued to them in the form of a 'blue card'. This system complements screening systems already in place for teachers, government child protection workers etc. I believe there would be considerable merit in establishing a national system of 'blue cards'. Paedophiles and other predators are quick to exploit any opportunities offered by differences between jurisdictions. As political leaders in Australia, I think we need to ensure that we take every measure to close any gaps in the law. Furthermore, I think we need to be much better informed about the nature and extent of the problem on a national basis. It is apparent that the only way to achieve this is by holding a national Royal Commission of Inquiry. Only in 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1657 those circumstances will we be able to ensure that organisations and individuals are confident in providing information, frankly and fearlessly. I seek your agreement to this course of action as a matter of urgency. Yours sincerely (sgd) PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER AND MINISTER FOR TRADE

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sir Sydney Williams Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): I wish to pay tribute to Sir Sydney Williams, who died on Sunday night in Cairns at the age of 83. Sir Sydney was a driving force behind aviation, tourism, business and racing in far-north Queensland. Sir Sydney contributed to the development of the aviation industry through helping to establish Bush Pilots Airways. He was convinced of the tourism potential of Cairns and far-north Queensland. He was one of the key people involved in the efforts which led to local ownership of Cairns airport. Sir Sydney promoted the far north as a holiday destination and a place for business by founding the Far North Queensland Amateur Turf Club and organising the Cairns Amateurs—the two-day race meeting which brings thousands of visitors to Cairns. Both Heather and I have attended this event on a number of occasions. It is a great success and a great tribute to him. I was pleased to nominate him for the centenary medal, which he was awarded. Sir Sydney was a former post-war commander of the 51st Infantry Battalion. He remained honorary colonel of the Far North Queensland Regiment. Sir Sydney was knighted for community services in the 1983 Queen's Birthday honours list. He was awarded an Order of the British Empire in 1977. I send condolences to Lady Joyce Williams, his four sons and the rest of his family. I have asked two of my parliamentary secretaries, Darryl Briskey and Lesley Clark, to represent me at the funeral in Cairns on Thursday. I also table a list of the numerous positions Sir Sydney held. He was a great Queenslander and he will be sadly missed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Schooling, Middle Years Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.46 a.m.): I am pleased to advise members that Queenslanders are being invited to have their say using the new Consult Queensland direct online link to the state government. This Smart State initiative, implemented by the Community Engagement Division of the Premier's Department, gives Queenslanders an alternative and smart method of providing input into government policy and decision making. This e-democracy initiative is a 12-month trial which officially started on 6 May. I thank the Premier for agreeing that consultation on the important issue of the middle phase of schooling will be the first topic for discussion in this new e-democracy trial. The public's view about the educational years 4 to 9 will be valuable in helping the state government decide the best way to improve the approach to teaching and learning in these years. Research shows that children in their middle years of school are starting to think in a more abstract way about global issues. They are for the first time moving beyond the home and family. It is this cognitive shift, along with the social, physical, emotional and psychological changes happening at the same time, that needs to be considered when we strive to engage these students. Research also shows that the lack of learning success and engagement experienced by some students in the middle years significantly contributes to the decline in retention in the senior years of schooling. What this means is that the middle years of schooling are important and we must pay more attention to them. These children have distinctive and diverse learning needs which need to be met to improve their chances of succeeding and staying on at school. Significant issues about this phase of schooling were raised during the public consultation to develop Queensland the Smart State—Education and Training Reforms for the Future, which our government released last year. Through Consult Queensland, the public can discuss matters related to the middle phase of schooling, such as helping students make a smooth transition from primary to secondary school, 1658 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003 connecting learning to the world beyond the classroom, improving literacy and numeracy skills, and maintaining students' interest in learning. We are interested in hearing the views of parents and students, educators, other professionals and members of the broader community about these matters. Participants will be able to see how the government has considered their views after the online trial closes. The government's response to the consultation will be provided in a feedback report which will be published on the Consult Queensland web site. I urge members to encourage their constituents and their school communities to have their say in this important area of education—the middle phase of schooling.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Bachelor Kisses Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.48 a.m.): Nick Earls is one of Queensland's most celebrated contemporary authors and soon his colourful Queensland characters will be brought to life. The popular novel Bachelor Kisses has been developed into a television feature film, and the Beattie government, through the Pacific Film and Television Commission, has invested $300,000 in the project. The Brisbane based story remains true to its place of genesis, with shooting to take place throughout our capital city. Bachelor Kisses will be produced by Penny Chapman, the principal of Chapman Pictures. It is the first screen credit for Nick Earls, who adapted his popular novel into a screenplay and is the credited writer for the project. Bachelor Kisses is a trolley ride through the underbelly of a hospital and a household. It follows the story of a Brisbane doctor, Jon Marshall, who shares a house with Jen and Rick. As with most of Nick Earls's works, it is a fast paced comedy that nonetheless retains an element of seriousness through its very human characters. Jon finds his life spiralling out of control and we are taken on the hilarious journey of three friends trying to work out the fine lines of life—between men and women, happiness and sadness, and life and death. That these characters live in Brisbane makes it even easier for us to relate to the story. Productions such as this are at the very heart of the Beattie government's vision for the local film and television industry. It is about Queensland people telling Queensland stories to the rest of the world. These productions are absolutely essential in providing training opportunities for local cast and crew. It is a point sadly lost on the Howard government, which to date has refused to extend the refundable tax offset to television production. Television production provides longer term employment and invaluable training opportunities for local cast and crew. It is the bread and butter of our local film and television industry and has been in sharp decline without the extension of the tax offset. It is to be hoped that in tonight's federal budget the Howard government will at last respond to the needs of the local film industry and make this long overdue adjustment.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Chronic Disease; Food and Nutrition Strategies Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.51 a.m.): Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House that applications are now open for $800,000 towards the development of food and nutrition strategies to fight the causes of chronic disease, including obesity, in Queensland. This Queensland first project is aimed at disadvantaged groups in the community and is designed to help these people obtain better health outcomes through good food and nutrition. Funded through Health Promotion Queensland, a Beattie government initiative, Queensland Health is embarking on a three-year project that recognises the impact that good nutrition has on preventing illness and death due to chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease—the major cause of death in Australia—type 2 diabetes, stroke and some forms of cancer. It is intended that the project will have strong links with business and the community. I was interested to read about new findings in America based on a study of almost one million Americans showing that obese people are at least 50 per cent more likely to die of cancer 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1659 than those who are not overweight. The American Cancer Society study found that overweight women had cancer death rates 62 per cent higher than those of normal weight, and overweight men had rates 52 per cent higher. In Queensland, treating diet related diseases accounts for at least 14 per cent of the annual hospital budget. We know that many of these conditions can be prevented by improved nutrition and physical activity. Already the Beattie government has moved towards addressing these issues through the development of Get Active Queensland, an initiative of Sport and Recreation Queensland. Further, my esteemed colleague and member for Algester, Karen Struthers, has recently launched the orientation program for new public health and community nutrition and indigenous child health and nutrition staff of Queensland Health. These new positions were made possible by this government's commitment to nutrition by announcing $1.75 million of recurrent funding to provide 27 new public health and nutrition positions located from the cape to Coolangatta. These new positions will complement the Queensland public health forum and the government's commitment to the recently launched food and nutrition strategy, Eat Well Queensland: Smart Eating for a Healthier State. As members would agree, our record on fighting the causes of chronic disease in Queensland is clear. During the course of the Health Promotion Queensland project, organisations will develop, implement and evaluate strategies which may be aimed at assisting people on low incomes, sole parents and their dependents, homeless people, indigenous people, residents of remote areas, people with disabilities, aged people, asylum seekers, migrants, people with mental health problems or alcohol and drug dependent people. The Health Promotion Queensland expression of interest closes on Friday, 13 June 2003, and I encourage interested parties to apply.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Namoi Cotton Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.54 a.m.): Recently the Leader of the Opposition raised questions about this government's efforts to attract head offices to Queensland. Therefore, I wish to inform the House of a recent success that has been achieved by this government that will lead to more jobs—and, importantly, in one of our regional areas. Australia's largest ginner and marketer of Australian cotton, Namoi Cotton Cooperative Ltd, has agreed to relocate a significant proportion of its head office functions from Sydney and northern New South Wales to Toowoomba. This is great news and will provide a substantial economic boost for Toowoomba. Namoi Cotton processes more than 25 per cent of Australia's cotton crop and operates 15 cotton gins, three warehouses and four regional offices located throughout New South Wales and southern Queensland. The Department of State Development began negotiating with the company about two years ago and at that time was successful in attracting Namoi's eight-person IT team to Toowoomba. This latest move of many of the head office functions has been driven by the need for a more cost-effective corporate office location. Functions moving to Toowoomba include finance, corporate services, company secretary and some marketing. The decision means that initially up to 40 positions will be located at Toowoomba, with some of these positions filled by current Namoi Cotton staff and the rest being recruited into Toowoomba. That number has been estimated to be about 20 new jobs. The company has estimated that annual office and staff expenses in Toowoomba of more than $3 million will provide new work and opportunities for local suppliers. The government did provide some assistance to bring Namoi Cotton to Toowoomba in respect of payroll, relocation and training. I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation of the Toowoomba City Council and the mayor, Di Thorley, in assisting Namoi Cotton to select the garden city as their new corporate office location. The CEO of Namoi Cotton, Mr Bob Bell, told the media that the company's extensive review of locations to support their corporate head office activities quickly identified Toowoomba as a strong potential location. Further, he said that the efforts of the minister and his team then ensured that on all financial measures Toowoomba became the preferred option for their domestic and internationally focused business. The department is pursuing other potential target companies that will bring jobs to the state, and I will keep the House informed of these activities. 1660 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Crime Reduction Targets Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.57 a.m.): A few weeks ago I held meetings with the Police Commissioner, his deputies and a number of other senior bureaucrats where the issue of crime reduction targets was discussed. I notice since that time the coalition has announced that it will introduce crime reduction targets should it ever win government. Crime reduction targets were first launched by the newly elected Blair government in the United Kingdom in 1999. The idea was for individual local authorities to establish targets with respect to key crime issues in their area. While crime reduction targets are not without some popular appeal, the jury is still very much out on their overall effectiveness as a crime reduction tool. The influences on crime rates are extremely complex, and it is generally not possible to be definitive about cause and effect. Within this context, the emphasis in the United Kingdom appears to have recently shifted away from target setting to performance monitoring based on comparisons between police forces. In Queensland we already set targets on a range of performance indicators annually in the Ministerial Portfolio Statement. These targets are set after analysis of existing crime trends. The Queensland Police Service also closely examines crime trends and sets goals for individual districts through operational performance reviews, which began as a trial in late 2001. This review process is based on the innovative processes introduced by the New York Police Department, which the Police Commissioner and I viewed first hand during a visit to the NYPD during 2001. The operational performance review in Queensland focuses closely on each district's performance on a range of crime and other indicators against the district's own earlier performance as well as against state trends. During 2001-02 Queensland experienced some significant decreases in key crime categories, including over 7,000 fewer break and enter offences, 200 fewer armed robberies and about 3,000 fewer unlawful use of motor vehicle offences. This was the largest reduction in break and enters in any single year since 1994-95. I welcome healthy debate on crime reduction strategies in this state, but there is no quick fix when it comes to crime. Furthermore, strategies such as crime reduction targets will only ever be as effective as the government which implements them. The last coalition government, for example, set police staffing targets but it failed to achieve them. While it promised Queenslanders 695 extra police, it delivered only 437. Police are making good progress in Queensland in relation to reducing crime. This is being achieved through record increases to police numbers, the implementation of new performance management practices such as those used in New York and the introduction of policies on the part of this government to attack the causes of crime and particularly drug related crime.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr N. Blunt Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.01 a.m.): I would like to pay tribute to the inaugural chairman of QR, Nev Blunt, who passed away recently after losing his battle with cancer. Nev Blunt was QR's first chairperson after it was established as a government owned corporation. He served from 1991 until 1999. His role as chief executive officer of the Bank of Queensland between 1983 and 1990 and more than four decades of experience in the investment and banking industries served him well in his role with QR. Under Nev's leadership, QR strengthened its financial performance during the 1990s, undertaking the massive task of switching from cash to accrual accounting. Corporatisation in 1995 brought further challenges as QR was placed on a more commercial and socially accountable footing. Nev's time as chair of QR represented a period of rapid expansion— especially in the haulage of export coal—with QR consolidating its reputation as one of the world's leading heavy haul railways. Passenger services expanded for both south-east Queensland commuters and regional and rural centres. The Brisbane-Gold Coast high speed rail line commenced services in 1996. A further major success was the Brisbane to Rockhampton electric tilt train introduced in 1998. Such was the popularity of Queensland's first tilt train that patronage increased by 90 per cent between these two cities. Nev Blunt was involved in sports administration in Queensland and 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1661 was a director of the Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club. He was also a past director of the Queensland Industry Development Corporation. On behalf of the Queensland government and, indeed, all members of the parliament, I pay tribute to Nev's substantial contribution to QR as well as to the business, investment and sporting communities in Queensland. I express our deepest sympathy to his wife, Marlene, and family and assure them that Nev's contribution to public life in Queensland will be long remembered.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sir Sydney Williams Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.04 a.m.): I would like to join the Premier and place on record my sadness at the passing of far-north Queensland businessman Sir Sydney Williams. Sir Sydney was well known for his contributions to tourism, aviation, business and racing. He was the founder of one of the best loved events on Queensland's racing calendar, the Cairns Amateurs. Sir Sydney held positions in organisations including the Cairns Port Authority, Air Queensland, Lizard Island Lodge, Cape York Wilderness Lodge, the Albatross Hotel and Captain Cook Cruises. Incidentally, many of these are based in the Cook electorate. He was knighted for community services in 1983. I pass on my sincere condolences to Sir Sydney's wife, Joyce, and his family. The community will miss him.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Suncorp Stadium Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.05 a.m): Suncorp Stadium has been a hive of activity since I reported to the House at our last sitting. As I stated at that time, it is the largest construction project ever undertaken by the Department of Public Works in Queensland and has been a significant investment for this state, generating more than 3,400 jobs during construction. Currently, there are almost 1,000 workers on site or on associated external infrastructure projects. The pedestrian walkways along Milton Road are well advanced, with the walkway bridge across Cribb Street now in place. The Milton Road pedestrian bridge and the elevated walkways to Milton Railway Station are progressing well, as are the pedestrian bridges and platform extensions to the station itself. Landscaping and reconstituting the roads and footpaths around the stadium continues to proceed at the pace one would expect with only three weeks to kick-off. Ground preparation work inside the stadium is complete. The full turf has now been laid and continues to be prepared and top dressed for 1 June. Seat installation continues to advance. Over 80 per cent of the seat frames have been installed, as have 55 per cent of the seats. As the Deputy Premier has already reported, there are some minor cosmetic things that will not be there for the first game—for example, on all the plazas the bitumen covering is still curing and the mosaic colouring will not be finished for the Broncos-Knights clash. All catering outlets on level 3 have been approved by health authorities, catering outlets on level 5 are almost complete and level 7 outlets are at an advanced stage. Spotless, the appointed caterer, has now commenced its staff training program on site. Three of the major restaurants are complete with furniture and fitout, and 320 televisions are now being installed. In fact, 16,000 items of fitout, ranging from video screens to knives and forks, are being transported on site. The project is reaching fever pitch, with such activity around the stadium that the builder has workers acting as traffic wardens on the ring-road under the stadium to help all suppliers deliver goods. As a construction minister and a former worker in the building industry, I can tell the House that one sure way you know the job is nearing completion is the removal of the workers' huts. During the next week the majority of the huts will be moved from the stadium site. I will be visiting the stadium today, as I did yesterday. I can once again assure the members of this House that Queenslanders will have a new world-class sporting and entertainment facility on 1 June. Again let me praise the efforts of the workers and their unions. This has been a very complex project which overall has been well managed by the builder, Multiplex Watpac. At the end of the day, it is workers using their hands who have created this marvellous structure. Also, I want to praise the efforts of the Department of Public Works project team which has coordinated this 1662 Ministerial Statement 13 May 2003 development. As I said earlier, this is the largest and most complex project in Queensland ever completed by this department.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.08 a.m.): Last week a second detection of the wheat streak mosaic virus occurred in Queensland. This detection at the Wellcamp Research Station followed the discovery of the virus at the Leslie Research Centre in Toowoomba the previous week. The wheat streak mosaic virus has been detected in research facilities in the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and now Queensland. This virus is exotic to Australia. It infects wheat as well as barley, maize, oats and rye, and some pasture and weed grasses. The virus can cause plant stunting, tissue breakdown and death of infected leaves, resulting in reduced seed set and lower seed weight. To spread the virus from plant to plant there must be a significant population of the leaf curl mite, which is found widely in the Australian cereal belt. Symptoms of WSMV include light green to yellow streaking in the leaves of infected plants. Green and yellow patches in the streaks appear as a pattern called a mosaic. As the disease worsens, the affected tissues may die. The affected plants found in Queensland were from a single wheat breeding line. They are not planted commercially and have been destroyed. Samples from the Hermitage Research Station near Warwick and research plots in Kingsthorpe and Gatton are being tested as part of the national delimiting survey. At this stage there have been no further positive detections. As a government we are committed to ensuring that there is minimal disruption to our cereal breeding programs, including research into drought, pest and disease resistance. These programs have been temporarily put on hold until investigations conclude. Our department was actively participating with other states, the Commonwealth and industry in the national management group overseeing the eradication. The survey of all national wheat breeding centres for wheat streak mosaic virus is being completed as soon as possible to determine the extent of the virus. Under the national agreement, we also need to undertake surveys across Queensland's grains production industry. The DPI will work with industry to minimise the impact on it during this surveillance program. I would like to thank the industry for its support. We need to establish the extent of the virus and its carrier, the leaf curl mite. If there is a positive to this outbreak it is in the timing. There is little crop in the ground at this time of the year, so this surveillance program should be completed quite quickly. This will also mean that there should be very little impact on producers and other businesses. On-property surveillance across the Queensland grain belt will commence today following contact with producers and other sections of the grains industry.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Salinity Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.09 a.m.): The Beattie government continues to show strong leadership in the fight against salinity in Queensland. We recognised the early warning signs and the government is taking swift, decisive action to combat existing salinity problems and minimise the risk of further salination. We are well aware that if we do not act now we face the prospect of losing significant productive capacity, sustaining damage to buildings, roads and bridges, damaging the environment and undermining the economies of our towns. We also recognise that communities must have funding now to ensure early intervention to stop salinity getting worse than it already is. That is why the government is ensuring that funding is being made available as quickly as possible to finance community projects that tackle salinity head on. Regional communities have responsibility under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality to identify their key natural resource management issues, develop plans and implement actions to address salinity and water quality problems. 13 May 2003 Ministerial Statement 1663

Because these plans take some time to be finalised and accredited, the Commonwealth and state governments have approved a round of priority actions necessary in the four priority regions under the national action plan. Priority action plans are time-critical, vital steps towards achieving salinity and water quality targeted outcomes during the 12 months prior to accreditation of regional natural resource management plans. In Toowoomba on Friday I jointly presented a further $8 million to regional bodies in south-west Queensland to undertake priority actions to combat local salinity. The state and Commonwealth governments have so far allocated $25 million in NAP funding to regional community groups who are Queensland's frontline troops in the battle against salinity. Earlier this year I presented priority action funding of $1.43 million and $2.89 million respectively to similar regional groups in the Fitzroy Basin and the Burdekin. In the latest round, $1.3 million of funding was allocated to the Condamine Alliance for four priority action plans which include a resource information system for target based natural resource management, improved monitoring programs, repair of unacceptable local degradation, and measures to change landscape management to best practice. Some $6.7 million was also allocated to the Queensland Murray-Darling Committee for three priority action plans—that is, community based vegetation management and biodiversity conservation, identifying and implementing landscape best management practices, and community water quality, riverine and flood plain management. This funding recognises that regional bodies need the resources to act now because early intervention is the best form of attack against rising salinity. At this time government, land-holders, local community and industry are addressing the issues of potential salinity problems through cooperative projects, salinity hazard mapping and other planning processes. Salinity should be a clear and present concern for all Queenslanders, and that is why the Beattie government is committed to all necessary actions to tackle this emerging threat head on.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.12 a.m.): I must bring to the attention of this parliament a very serious problem facing local governments in Queensland. More than 30 Queensland councils are currently facing a 10 per cent or more reduction in revenue for their coming budgets because the federal minister, Wilson Tuckey, is refusing to phase in the new Commonwealth government's financial assistance grants over five years. These councils face the dilemma of having to raise their rates or slash their services. As a result of the reviewed methodology for these grants in Queensland, some councils will gain and others will lose. However, the independent Queensland Grants Commission recommended that the new methodology be phased in over five years. That recommendation has the support of this government and the LGAQ but is being opposed by Canberra. Under Mr Tuckey's appalling proposal, 32 councils will face the full reduction of their grants in the first year, 13 councils will face it in the second year and only two will be given a five-year phase-in period. This will cause enormous financial problems for Queensland's councils. The five-year phase-in plan as proposed by Queensland would allow all of our councils sufficient time to adjust rates and expenditure to achieve a smooth transition to the new methodology without creating significant budget deficits for some. However, the Commonwealth minister, Wilson Tuckey, has written to me and to all mayors in Queensland rejecting Queensland's proposal in favour of his complex and more rapid phase-in proposal. I believe that the Queensland commission did a good job on the methodology review within the shortened time frame set by Mr Tuckey but now, after ignoring my requests for meetings and four and a half months after he got our final figures and recommendation and at a time when most Queensland councils are midway through their budget preparations, Mr Tuckey finally comes back to us at the eleventh hour with a totally unfair proposal. Consequently, I wrote jointly with the Acting President of the LGAQ, Councillor Paul Bell to advise Minister Tuckey that his proposal is unacceptable and that we are seeking his reconsideration of a five-year phase-in period. Mr Tuckey's correspondence shows that the federal minister is clearly unaware of the facts. Rather than Queensland not working to national principles, as he continues to say, there is in fact a current agreement which was signed in 1995 between the federal and state ministers for local government agreeing to the principles being used. There was also an understanding that those principles would be used until the federal government did its next review, which is not yet completed. 1664 Scrutiny of Legislation Committee 13 May 2003

To suddenly take this funding away from councils cannot be sustained and will threaten the financial viability of some councils. This is currently the most serious issue facing local government in Queensland. I urge all councils to seek the support of their federal members as quickly as possible to reverse Mr Tuckey's complex and unworkable decision. I call on the opposition in this House to contact its federal counterparts and stand up for its councils throughout Queensland. Further, in accordance with section 154 of the Local Government Act 1993, I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Local Government Electoral and Boundaries Review Commission's report on the reviewable local government matter which I referred to the Electoral Commission of Queensland on 15 February 2002 in relation to changes to the external boundaries of the area of the shire of Maroochy and the area of the shire of Noosa and referred to by the commission at the South Peregian Beach reference. Also, in accordance with section 78 of the Local Government Act 1993, I lay upon the table of the House a copy of my reference of a reviewable local government matter to the Electoral Commission of Queensland in relation to the division of the area of the shire of Noosa for the 2004 local government elections.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Firefighters Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.16 a.m.): I inform the House of another Smart State success for Queensland. Recently, the latest group of new firefighters joined the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service at a graduation ceremony at the QFRS Academy at the port of Brisbane. I am pleased to advise members that the graduating recruits were the first to receive the nationally accredited Certificate in Firefighting and Emergency Operations. The 11- week training course is the first of its kind in Australia to be accredited under the new public safety competencies package, which is nationally endorsed by state and territory fire services. On this course, the recruits also have the advantage of eight days training on our live fire training pad, where they learn about fire behaviour and firefighting techniques under realistic but safe conditions. They are also trained in a range of other fire and rescue practices, including chemical safety, road accident rescue skills and fire theory. All of this leads to greater safety for all of our firefighters on the job and increased safety for the Queensland community. Of the 11 recruits, three will be based in Brisbane, two each in Ipswich and Mareeba and one each in Atherton, Mount Isa, Mackay and Maryborough. Included in the course are two new female firefighters, two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as well as three former part-time auxiliary firefighters. I am further pleased to advise that the next 20 potential firefighters have begun training at the academy. I also inform the House that the position of commissioner within the Queensland Ambulance Service has been filled. Jim Higgins, a paramedic with more than 20 years experience, was appointed to the position after approval from the Governor in Council. Jim is well known throughout the ranks of the QAS after his appointment last year to the role of deputy commissioner. As the member for Kawana would be aware, Jim is well known on the Sunshine Coast for the excellent work that he has done on the Sunshine Coast as assistant commissioner. Jim's appointment follows the departure of former commissioner Gerry FitzGerald to Queensland Health in November. Since then, Jim has done a superb job acting in the position and has been instrumental in leading the QAS through some very challenging but important times. I wish Jim all the best in his new role.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.19 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the House will continue to meet past 7.30 p.m. this day. The House can break for dinner at 7 p.m. and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Report Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (10.19 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert Digest No. 5 of 2003. 13 May 2003 Private Members' Statements 1665

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Country Racing Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.20 a.m.): Under this government we have seen a continuation of the gutting of the Queensland racing industry. The government has virtually gotten rid of Queensland country racing and it is now getting rid of regional administration. The firing of Steve Railton, Chief Steward, who was a man of integrity recognised across Australia, has heads shaking not only in Queensland but throughout the racing industry in Australia. He is a man of great integrity, a person who is recognised for his contribution to racing throughout this state and Australia. He was the perfect man to be the new integrity manager, if one was desired by Queensland Racing. Why did it not merely restructure his position? How can we now trust in the integrity of Queensland Racing? That is a question many people in racing circles around Brisbane and Queensland are asking today. All of this was done by Bob Bentley, Minister Rose's man put in by her despite the protests of the industry. This is another example of the government's interference in the racing industry. In today's Australian Bentley admits that he has been in dispute with Railton at board meetings. This move is a fundamental attack on the integrity of stewards. If anyone disagrees with Bentley as chair or stands up to him, they will be fired. With moves to the privatisation of the Queensland racing industry following the privatisation of the TAB, are we heading back to the bad old days of John Wren and race fixing? The smell in the upper reaches of Queensland Racing is getting stronger all the time. Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Honourable members opposite can laugh all they want, but the situation in racing in Queensland, whether it be in Brisbane or in country racing, is diabolical. Any member who attended the last Burrandowan race meeting on the weekend would know that to be true. Time expired.

Community Service Organisations, Kawana Electorate Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (10.22 a.m.): Community service organisations such as Lions, Apex, Rotary and others are valuable to our society, building vital links within our communities. Late last year I again was privileged to host the well respected Rotary Club of Kawana Waters when it visited the people's parliament. Kawana Waters Rotary is a great club with a very positive outlook. I am very proud to class its members as good friends. They visit me in parliament annually, and I would encourage them to visit every six months. Earlier this year, the Rotary Club of Kawana Waters Incorporated held the Longest Lunch on the Sunshine Coast. All funds raised will be donated to the Sunshine Coast Health Services Foundation for the Sunshine Coast Cancer Centre—a truly worthwhile cause. On Friday, 21 March at Alexandra Parade near the Alexandra surf club, we had an opportunity to donate to a worthwhile cause and put something back into the Sunshine Coast community. I applaud all Sunshine Coast businesses who are actively involved. This marvellous event was sponsored by Sunshine Coast press, including Mix FM, the local 7 News and the Sunshine Coast Daily. The Sunshine Coast has a very active community and continues to attract thousands of retirees who choose to enjoy a sea change. I strongly encourage all residents to consider putting back into our community and becoming actively involved in one of our numerous community service organisations on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. I commend the over two dozen charter members of the Queensland Parliament Lions Club, which has held its first few meetings. I commend you, Mr Speaker, and all other honourable members involved.

Overcrowding, Gold Coast Rail Service Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (10.24 a.m.): A few years ago Gold Coast residents and the tourism industry were delighted at the opening of the Gold Coast rail service. It has been a success beyond all expectations, even though the government of the day was not persuaded by the local community and the Gold Coast City Council to construct spur lines into Southport, Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach, where so many of the travellers wanted to go. However, overcrowding at certain hours of the day on that service has become chronic, to such an extent that it is now a limiting factor and many people are shying away from using that service. 1666 Private Members' Statements 13 May 2003

It is very sad to see elderly people standing for the long trip from the Gold Coast to Brisbane or the return, hanging onto rails or straps. On one day when I was standing on the service I had an opportunity to speak to an employee of the minister's office on that subject. I know that efforts have been made to massage the problem. I give Queensland Transport credit for that. I know also that there is a limited amount of rolling stock appropriate to this line and that a lot of the line is just single track. It would cost a lot of money to ensure that the route is used to capacity. However, I urge the minister and the government to start making plans now. If plans are not made for duplication of the track where there is one line and for the acquisition of additional rolling stock, this matter will never be on a list of priorities. It is essential for the Gold Coast that this line be used to its maximum efficiency, that it be effective and that even more train travellers are attracted to the service. It is a feather in the cap of the department. We do not want a second-rate service. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Barron River, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of the Coopers Plains State School in the electorate of Yeronga.

Ms T. Jones, International Worldskills Competition Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (10.26 a.m.): Education and training for young Queenslanders is a priority for the Beattie government. Today I congratulate Tamara Jones from Trinity Beach, who will represent Australia at the International Worldskills Competition in the beauty care category. The competition is to be held at St Gallan, Switzerland. I thank Employment and Training Minister Matt Foley for providing a contribution of $15,000 to Tamara to assist with her expenses involved in travelling to attend the training olympics. That amount is $5,000 more than other state governments are providing for their contestants. Tamara is a talented, highly motivated young woman who has proved her beautician skills in the gruelling regional and national Worldskills competitions. I am sure honourable members will join me in wishing Tamara well when she competes on the world stage in Switzerland in June. I am sure we also hope that she comes home with the gold medal she is hoping for. Tamara will be accompanied by another exceptional resident from my electorate, Sue Collins, the director and owner of the Cairns Beauty Academy, where Tamara has received her training, which is clearly equal to that of any in the world. Sue has a long history of involvement with the Worldskills Competition, helping to organise the regional, state and national competitions and working on the design of the tasks required of contestants. She is also writing the international project for the St Gallan competition and has been invited to apply for the position of deputy chief expert for beauty care for Worldskills International and will be a judge in June. I am very proud of these two talented women from my electorate and look forward to reporting back on their experiences and, we hope, their success in Switzerland.

Burrandowan Picnic Race Club Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (10.28 a.m.): The Burrandowan races are a symbol of country racing in Queensland. This callous and broke Beattie Labor government has closed them down. Last Saturday Burrandowan held its last race meeting. I had the pleasure to be there and witness true country hospitality. Some 2,500 people attended, camping in tents and caravans and enjoying the traditional clay pigeon shooting. People of the city and the country were able to enjoy this wonderful race meeting, which is an important part of Queensland country racing. It is like closing down the State of Origin; this race meeting means so much to country people. This government's closure of that meeting means as much to those people as would the closure of the State of Origin to many of us in this state. Many people pay for the financial mismanagement of this Labor government. It is country people who are paying through the closure of their race meetings. It is not just Burrandowan; almost 200 race meetings are being axed, both country TAB and country non-TAB meetings, at places such as Flinton, Theodore, Warra, Bell, Goondiwindi, Mount Perry, Home Hill, Charters Towers, Stonehenge and Tallwood. All over the state people have had their lifestyle, enjoyment and financial support axed. The sad part is that this is a stunt from the Beattie Labor government. With its usual spin, it has said that these clubs can apply for a grant of up to $5,000 to run their race meetings. They are taking away $24,000 in prize money for each race meeting. No longer should the media and 13 May 2003 Questions Without Notice 1667 the public fall for these stunts of the Beattie government. It is broke. The people from the city and the country who go to Burrandowan and the other 200 race meetings around the state that have been cancelled are the ones who suffer. This is the hurt from a government that does not care about racing and is broke. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Company Liquidations; Workers' Entitlements Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): I direct a question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I ask: should parent companies be responsible for paying workers' entitlements when subsidiary companies go into liquidation? Mr NUTTALL: In relation to the honourable member's question, there are succession arrangements. If someone buys a business, they have to understand that there are workers compensation issues and liabilities surrounding that. When the premium for the new company is determined, it can be based on the past performance of that company. If the member has any specifics in relation to any company that he is inquiring about, I am only too pleased to have a look at them and come back to him with those answers.

Energex; Australian Gas Technology Services Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and minister responsible for energy to Energex's 25 per cent stake in failed gas technology company Australian Gas Technology Services and the almost $2 million in employee entitlements owed to its employees. I ask the minister: has Energex contributed its share of the workers' entitlements, as at least two other partners have? If not, why not? How much did this government owned corporation lose in this failed venture? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am delighted to talk about this issue with respect to the gas technology company, which is based in Victoria. Do members know why it existed in the first place? Because the Kennett government privatised the gas industry in that state and privatised the electricity industry! No doubt, ideologically, the member has no problem whatsoever with doing that. Energex is a shareholder in that company. My recollection is that its investment was fairly modest—in fact, it was under $100,000, if I recall correctly. I will report back to the member on that. An opposition member interjected. Mr LUCAS: It is a shareholder in that company that became insolvent. The insolvency administration of that company has just begun. Energex has requested information as what it expects the shortfall will be. Can I say that Energex does not accept direction from the government in this regard; it is run by a board of directors who are appointed to manage its affairs. The administration of this company has just begun. In the course of the administration, any shortfall in relation to employee entitlements will become clear. That is when I imagine Energex will make an assessment as to its legal and moral position.

Federal Budget Mr PURCELL: I direct my question to the Premier. I ask: when the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, delivers his eighth budget tonight, does the Premier hope that he will, like the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, discover that he really does have a heart and deliver for the homeless, the sick and the jobless? Or will the new poor find themselves in the land of nought? Mr BEATTIE: Tragically, I think that they will find themselves in the land of nought. The worry I have is that this federal government is not delivering essential services. I refer to education. We have a Smart State strategy to get the knowledge industry jobs of tomorrow—to give our kids a chance, to give young Queenslanders an opportunity to get the new-age jobs. We do not see any vision from the federal government at all. No vision means no future. That is the problem confronting Australia. 1668 Questions Without Notice 13 May 2003

I refer to university places. We have 7,000 Queenslanders missing out on university places. That means that 7,000 young Queenslanders cannot go to university. That is the federal government's impact on the tertiary sector. We need 800 places each year for the next five years just to deal with participation rates—just to deal with population growth. Mr Terry Sullivan: Just to catch up. Mr BEATTIE: I will take that interjection from the member for Chermside, because that is what it means. Every parent in this state and every parent in Australia who has children who want to go to university needs to know that, by and large, this federal government is denying them the opportunities that they should be given. That is what this is about: denying the very future of Australia. What we are doing to our young people is un-Australian. That is why we have fought so hard for education. That is why the reforms that the Education Minister and Minister for Employment have brought in are about giving our kids a go—giving them the opportunity, the training and the skills. What do we find? We find the federal government is cutting the ground from underneath them. What is happening to the tertiary sector is an absolute disgrace. Now we find that the only reforms that the federal government is interested in are ideological ones to advance the Liberal Party. There is no commitment to young Australians. I refer to health care. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member would be embarrassed. He will come in here and defend the lack of numbers. The opposition will scream—every one of them will come in here and argue that the kids of Queensland should not be given a place. I refer to health. We are creating a new poor in this country. That new poor is working families. Anyone on just over $33,000 a year will now not be able to access bulkbilling. Members can imagine the mum going to the doctor with her young kids with the flu in winter. They have to put their hand in their pockets and pay. The federal government is ripping up Medicare. Not only is the federal government ripping up Medicare; the average working family will also have to pay more for health and more for education. Let me tell members that whenever that next election comes around, my government will go out and stand up for working families. The opposition can go out there and undermine every working family in this state. I know how many of them will come back: about the same number that they have now.

Country Racing Mr QUINN: I refer the Minister for Tourism and Racing to her recent announcement of $200,000 funding allocated to the Community Racing Scheme, and I ask: can the minister confirm that the $200,000 for this scheme has been taken out of the Queensland Tourism budget? If so, how can the minister justify this action given the recent catastrophic events to hit tourism, such as September 11 and SARS? Is this just further proof that the government is so broke that it cannot find an additional $200,000 to fund country racing without having to dip into the Queensland Tourism budget? Ms ROSE: I thank the honourable member for the question, because this morning some statements were made that contained a number of inaccuracies and I welcome the opportunity to be able to set the record straight. The Community Racing Scheme is being handled by the Queensland Events Corporation. Certainly, we have an interest through the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing. Of course, any club, including Burrandowan—and there is absolutely no reason why Burrandowan cannot race again next year; all it has to do is apply— Opposition members interjected. Ms ROSE: Burrandowan is a picnic race club. It can apply to Queensland Racing. It can race next year. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition made a statement and in that implied that I had interfered in the process for the selection of the chairman of the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board, Bob Bentley. Those allegations were made by the member for Toowoomba South and the member for Warrego. They were referred to the CMC. The CMC handed down a report to say that there was absolutely no interference by me in that process. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. Every member of this House knows that. I would have expected better from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not expect more from the member for Toowoomba South or the 13 May 2003 Questions Without Notice 1669 member for Warrego because they do not know any better, but the Leader of the Opposition did surprise me. I turn to some comments made by the member for Toowoomba South this morning. The member for Toowoomba South said this morning that the Queensland government had taken away $24,000 in prize money from the Burrandowan races. He has absolutely no understanding of how the racing industry is funded. He is an absolute fool. The Sunday Mail and the Courier-Mail have been reporting stories on these racing industry decisions and very accurately reporting these as decisions of Queensland Racing, not of the Queensland government. The member for Toowoomba South is an absolute dill. He does not understand that the Queensland government does not fund racing. The Queensland government does not provide prize money for the racing industry in Queensland. That comes from Queensland Racing.

Polocrosse World Cup Mr SHINE: My question is directed to the Premier. The inaugural world polocrosse championships in Warwick were a stunning success. Can the Premier detail to the House what the government did to make this happen and what actions the government might be undertaking to have such an overwhelming success repeated? Mr BEATTIE: You bet I can. I thank the member for Toowoomba North for the question. I know that he has a very keen interest not just in this event but also in any regional event in Queensland, particularly in his electorate. Warwick deserves a huge pat on the back for the way it staged the inaugural Polocrosse World Cup. Well done. More than 25,000 people converged on Warwick's Morgan Park in late April and early May to witness the inaugural Polocrosse World Cup. This was effectively more than double Warwick shire's population. That number meant that the stimulation to the rose city's economy far exceeded any expectation. That is exactly what my government was hoping to achieve when we set up the regional events development program. Australia might have claimed the inaugural title of world champion, but Warwick was the big winner. Due to the unexpected demands on my time, I was unable to attend. However, I have since spoken with the chief organiser, Les Fraser. He tells me that they are now considering another bid for the next World Cup in 2007. I rang Les to congratulate him on the success of the event. I then immediately liaised with Des Power and Queensland Events and asked what they could do to assist Warwick with the paperwork and the like to ensure that Warwick's bid is as well placed as possible. We have got right behind them. There is no reason we cannot be back-to- back hosts. What a great thing for Queensland—not just Warwick and the downs. Warwick has a proven facility and now the experience to build on to make the 2007 event even better. As I said, Les and the team all deserve a huge pat on the back. The event rightly drew praise from visiting international players and administrators, the public and, of course, the media. The generosity of those who loaned horses for use by the international competitors also needs to be recognised, and I do that today. Some of these valuable animals had been transported from as far afield as Perth and Darwin. The University of Southern Queensland is undertaking an economic impact study on the cup's benefits to the shire. The results of this are due in early July. I simply say well done to Les and his team and wish him all the best for 2007. Henry Palaszczuk was going to represent me there but tragically, as many members would know, his father passed away at that time. Our condolences go to Henry and his family. The Regional Events Program has been a great success. The member for Toowoomba North has raised this issue in the House on a number of occasions because of funding that has gone to the gospel festival, the Carnival of Flowers and other activities in his region. A government member: The Woodford festival. Mr BEATTIE: And Woodford. It has been across the whole state. A number of members have seen the benefits. I have to say that it is some of the best money the government has ever spent. It was an election commitment I gave at the last election which we have delivered on. We have an officer operating out of Townsville now. When we were in north Queensland I announced the latest successful applicants for funding under the regional program. This has put money into the regional economy. We all know that events mean jobs and opportunities. They stimulate the tourism industry and local economies. 1670 Questions Without Notice 13 May 2003

Ambulance Levy Mr SEENEY: My question is directed to the minister for energy. I refer to the announced changes to the collection of the government's new ambulance tax, which will still require a large number of Queenslanders to unfairly pay that tax a number of times because the government is obviously broke. The minister was able to calculate the number of consumers who will be exempted under the new exemptions announced yesterday. Can the minister tell the parliament today how many consumers will still be required to pay the ambulance tax a number of times? Has he made provision to disconnect electricity supplies to those consumers who refuse to pay this unfair tax? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. One thing I have gauged from speaking with people in my electorate is that by and large people have little difficulty with paying 24c a day for what is important ambulance coverage, for what is peace of mind for them. They also realise that they may have cause to use ambulances whether they are in their home, at their workplace, at the local supermarket or at the local sporting ground. In that respect I commend my parliamentary and ministerial colleague the Minister for Emergency Services. For the purposes of calculating the levy, it is not necessary for my portfolio to provide me with that information because the charge is not being collected for the purposes of the energy sector. It is being collected for the purposes of funding the Ambulance Service. The electricity bill mechanism is being used for collection. Therefore I suggest that the member direct the question to the Minister for Emergency Services or indeed to the honourable the Treasurer, whose Office of State Revenue is responsible for collecting it.

Federal Budget, Education Sector Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. What do Queenslanders need from the federal budget in the education sector? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Education needs many things that the federal government could assist with. Tonight when Queenslanders listen to the federal budget I urge them to listen for one thing. They should listen to the federal Treasurer say that there will be more university places for young Queenslanders. What we need in Queensland is an opportunity for young Queenslanders to participate in education at the same rate as every other young person in this country. The opposition may not care about the chances children across Queensland are getting, but this government does care. We need 800 extra places starting in 2004. If we get anything less than that tonight then Brendan Nelson has failed as federal Education Minister. Anything less than 800 new funded university places, starting from the beginning of next year, will see Queensland go backward in the opportunities that young people have. Unfortunately, there is an ominous silence from the federal Education Minister on the question of university places. I do hear him talking about some other numbers, though. What he wants to talk about—people will see it in today's Courier-Mail—is university governance. He wants us to believe in a very simple idea, that is, that smaller boards of universities will mean more efficient use of university resources. As Education Minister at a state level I am always happy to discuss sensible reforms with the Commonwealth. What we will resist at a state level is any attempt to substitute a debate about the need for education places with a debate about the size of university councils. The federal minister has complained that the University of Queensland, for example, has the largest council in the country. It has 35 members. I draw to the attention of the federal minister that the University of Queensland, to the best of my knowledge, has never experienced bankruptcy. It has never left any of its students in the lurch and it has never had to retrench its entire work force. The federal minister should talk to the people who used to work for Ansett about the virtue of small boards. Nineteen people ran Ansett when it went belly up. How many people were running HIH? Four. There were four directors of HIH. He should tell the thousands of Australians who have suffered as a result of the collapse of HIH that small boards are efficient boards. I wonder who it is that the federal minister would like to see us cut from our university boards and councils. I look forward to the discussion. But I can say that the University of Queensland board could be cut from 35 to five and it will not create a single additional place for young 13 May 2003 Questions Without Notice 1671

Queenslanders at university. We could cut the board of James Cook University from 26 to six and not a single extra young Queenslander from north Queensland will get a place.

Country Racing Mr HORAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing. I refer to the devastation visited upon Queensland racing since the government walked away from the industry—the axing of almost 200 country race meetings, the axing of 11 staff and now the axing of the highly respected chief steward, Mr Steve Railton—and I ask: is it true that there will be further cuts to the number of racing stewards in Queensland? Is it true that prize money payouts and handicapping will be done from Victoria? Why should Queensland racing have to pay the price because the government is broke? Ms ROSE: All of those matters that have been raised by the member for Toowoomba South are internal matters for Queensland Racing.

State Flying Squad Mr ENGLISH: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Can the minister inform the House whether his pledge to provide an additional seven officers for the State Flying Squad in this financial year has been achieved? Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for the question. As members of the House know, the member for Redlands, as a former police officer, takes a great interest in the operations of the Queensland Police Service. Members will recall that the State Flying Squad was an election commitment of the Beattie government. Indeed, it has achieved some excellent successes since it was established in late 2001. The squad has been ramped up by an extra seven officers. There are now 14 officers serving in this squad who are in place for rapid deployment to scenes of serious crime or wherever there are surges in crime right across the state. The State Flying Squad will again be expanded this year, and at full strength it will consist of 20 officers. Since January this year the squad has had a busy time indeed. It has responded to 40 requests for assistance from police regions. It has laid 226 charges and assisted local police to lay 778 charges against offenders. The squad has recovered almost $160,000 worth of stolen or tainted property, and its travels have covered 44,000 kilometres right across the state. The squad has been involved with policing operations surrounding murders; drug related offences, including producing, possession and the supply of drugs; property offences; firearm offences; offences against the person, including assaults; and street offences. It has travelled to 24 different locations, including far-north Queensland, southern and central Queensland, and indeed the Wide Bay area. The State Flying Squad has firmly established its worth and its place as a crime fighting machine which is available to assist officers right across the state. Should local police ever need assistance, such as in the case of a serious crime like murder, the Flying Squad can be on the spot in a flash to complement the work of local police. I congratulate the State Flying Squad on its work so far, and I look forward to hearing of even more impressive results as this year progresses.

Junk Mail Mr WELLINGTON: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. The receipt of unsolicited, junk mail continues to be a real issue of complaint by many of my constituents. As a result of the recent passage through this House of amendments to the land legislation which provide people with the opportunity to have their names removed from the bulk mailing list, I ask: will the minister now amend the Queensland Local Government Act so that ratepayers will also have the opportunity to have their particulars removed from council's bulk mailing data, which is regularly sold to real estate agents and others? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: I thank the honourable member for Nicklin for the question. I am aware of the changes that my colleague the Minister for Natural Resources has made in relation to protecting the privacy of landowners, and I will certainly be looking at that in relation to local government to see if there are any changes needed and also how we can go about that. Of course, before that could happen we would have to consult with councils and with the LGAQ 1672 Questions Without Notice 13 May 2003 because it may have other reasons that it wants that legislation to remain the same. But we will certainly be looking at protecting the privacy of ratepayers. Before I sit down, could I once more bring to the attention of all members in this House a very serious problem for local governments in Queensland with regard to their financial assistance grants. As their budgets are almost complete, it is a very serious issue. Whilst I take on board what the member for Nicklin has requested and I will be seriously looking at that, I also call on all members of this House to contact their federal members and seek their support so that we can support our councils, which are facing possible big drops in their revenue before the coming budget. Mr Robertson interjected. Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: The Commonwealth minister, Wilson Tuckey, seems to be totally unaware of the concerns of councils in Queensland. Either he is unaware or he does not have any concern for them. I believe we all need to stand up and support our councils, and I am calling on everyone in this House to do that very thing.

Volunteers Mr CHOI: My question is directed to the Minister for Families. Can the minister please inform the House of what the Beattie government is doing to support and promote the work of Queensland volunteers? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Capalaba for the question. I am not surprised that he would ask this question this week; he is undoubtedly aware that it is National Volunteers Week. Two years ago we all had the opportunity of acknowledging and recognising those wonderful people who every day contribute their time, their energy and their commitment to improving our quality of life. It is important that we do not reduce our commitment to these individuals, and I can tell the House that this government will not. We are determined to assist volunteers in their activities and acknowledge their contribution to our society. We are determined to develop whole-of-government mechanisms for ongoing liaison, development and annual reporting on volunteer issues, and that is why I am pleased today to release Engage in Queensland: the Queensland Government Policy on Volunteering. It is the first time in this state's history that the Queensland government has ever had a formal policy on volunteering. So I look forward to launching that today and seeking feedback from volunteer groups throughout Queensland. During this week the launch of this policy is not the only thing that is going to happen. A number of organisations across the state will be holding a range of volunteer recognition activities, such as dinners, lunches, certificate ceremonies and awards. This is the week for all members to promote and recognise the efforts of volunteers. In fact, I understand that Volunteering Queensland will be joining with Centrelink to host a volunteer expo in King George Square today, and my colleague the Minister for Employment, Training and the Arts, Matt Foley, will be launching the prudential youth leadership institute. Mr Beattie: With a poem? Ms SPENCE: I do not know about poems. But it is not just about rewards and recognition. This is a week where it is important to think about the changing nature of volunteering, and I know that a lot of our organisations will be doing that. Obviously we acknowledge that our volunteer organisations have insurance concerns. The demands put on them by workplace health and safety issues have made the nature of volunteering change. The need for training in many organisations has changed volunteering, and the ageing of our volunteers is certainly an issue that society needs to put some thought and effort into. I think we do have to spend more time working with our volunteers in order to understand the issues that face them on a daily basis and, as a government, provide as much support as we can to enable them to do their wonderful work. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Lockyer, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Lockyer High School in the electorate of Lockyer.

Free Trade Agreement Mr FLYNN: My question is directed to the Premier. In recent days I believe the Premier was reported as having grave concerns about the proposed free trade agreement with the United States. Without having the paper in front of me, I believe his words included an opinion that the 13 May 2003 Questions Without Notice 1673 agreement would 'tear the heart out of our beef and sugar industries'. That is the opinion of the members of One Nation. I ask: given the Premier's recent statement against this agreement, why following a meeting with 'Globalist of the Year', Mark Vaile, is he now of the view and quite encouraged that this agreement could be in place by the end of the year? Is this not a very significant reversal of position? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. Let me go through this in some detail. As the Minister the Trade, I have spent some time on this. This is a very sensible question. My view is very simply this: thousands of Queenslanders depend on exports for their jobs and quality of life. That is why a free trade agreement with the United States would result in a significant boost to Queensland industry and to job creation. I have said that consistently. I had some concerns about the negotiations, which is what I raised. I discussed the proposal with Mark Vaile during the national launch of the 2003 Australian Export Awards last week at the Marriott Hotel in Brisbane, which Tom Barton and I attended. A free trade agreement with the United States has my support because it has the potential to offer Queensland exporters unfettered access to a market of 280 million people. I was particularly interested in access for Queensland beef and sugar to the American market. As a result of my discussions with Mr Vaile, I am satisfied that the Queensland beef and sugar industries would benefit significantly from access to the American market. My concern relates to the negotiations. That is what I raised and that is what we will be keeping an eye on. The extent of benefit will depend on the detail of the final negotiated position. The United States currently imposes a very restrictive regime on Australian sugar imports which is to the detriment to this key Queensland industry. Any agreement will, of course, still need to safeguard key public policy objectives, including effective quarantine arrangements for agricultural products. We need to bear in mind that a free trade agreement could jeopardise jobs in the film and television industry unless strong safeguards are built in to ensure Australian content in broadcasts on Australian television stations. That is one of the downsides that has not been fixed. Free trade should not mean that Australia becomes a dumping ground for American sitcoms, at the expense of local Australian television production—a view put to me strongly by the Minister for the Arts. A well-crafted free trade agreement will provide a significant boost to the Queensland economy. I am urging Mr Vaile to try to secure an agreement by the end of this year—the honourable member is quite right. One in five Queensland jobs depends on exports—a figure which rises to one in four in the regions where the honourable member comes from. With fewer than 20 million Australians, governments need to do everything they can to open doors to larger markets overseas so our companies can increase their sales and create new jobs. That is why as Minister for Trade I spend so much time on trying to increase Queensland exports. That is why I will do anything I can to lead trade delegations overseas and to work with Mark Vaile to achieve this agreement. In a nutshell it means that our sugar will have access to the American market, which it does not now have to the extent we want, and our beef will have access to the American market. I had concerns about NAFTA in terms of Mexican sugar. I am satisfied with the explanation given to me by Mark Vaile. I had concerns about the subsidies in the United States for its beef and for it being competitive. He assured me that the negotiations with the WTO and the negotiations on this agreement will safeguard Australian beef against American subsidised beef. They were the two issues I was concerned about. That is why I raised them. I am satisfied with his explanation, but I will keeping an eye on it, and no doubt so will the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Ipswich West, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Jimboomba State School in the electorate of Beaudesert.

Prepaid Funeral Contracts Mr LIVINGSTONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading. Can the minister advise the House of new measures being proposed to further boost protection for consumers signing up for prepaid funeral contracts? Ms ROSE: The Office of Fair Trading has completed the review of the range of legislation as required under national competition policy. One of the pieces of legislation reviewed is the Funeral Benefits Business Act 1982. We propose to make several changes so the legislation is more relevant to the needs of consumers and the industry today. Cabinet recently authorised 1674 Questions Without Notice 13 May 2003 preparation of a bill amending the Funeral Benefits Business Act 1982 and the Funeral Benefit Business Regulation 2000 to benefit consumers and industry. An important change will be the introduction of a 30-day cooling off period for new prepaid funeral contracts. Other amendments include: a requirement for businesses to include disclosure statements detailing parties' rights and responsibilities in all new contracts; substantial penalties for businesses that do not comply; extension of the act to apply to any person selling funeral benefits to Queensland consumers; and an update to legislation so it is more relevant to today by removing the existing $5,000 cap on the value of funeral benefits currently able to be contributed. The reforms will ensure that funds are better protected. The cooling-off period gives consumers 30 days to ensure they understand what they have committed to under a prepaid funeral contract. This means they have a chance to change their minds and notify that change in writing before any money changes hands. We will retain the relevant parts of the act to ensure rights and obligations of parties under existing contracts should not be changed. The act protects Queensland consumers' contribution to prepaid funeral funds deposited with registered funeral benefit businesses and safeguards people against high pressure selling or marketing tactics and increasing prices and charges. In a prepaid funeral fund contract, the consumer pays for the services at today's price by periodic instalments or in a lump sum. The amount paid by the consumer is invested on his or her behalf and benefits are paid only on death and must be used to pay for the funeral or burial expense. However, the old legislation limited the amount able to be prepaid to $5,000. This aspect, while relevant when the act was introduced, is inadequate today when you consider the costs of funerals, particularly burials. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the honourable member for Gladstone, I welcome to public gallery students and teachers from Gin Gin State School in the electorate of Callide.

Country Racing Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question is addressed to the Premier. The Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading has earlier answered a question regarding the restructure that was announced by the QRB as a responsibility of the QRB. However, yesterday a dozen full- time staff were retrenched at that moment. The manner of advising staff was devastating. I actually spoke to one who was in tears. It is reported that a Victorian call centre will take nominations, acceptances and stable returns for racing in Queensland as part of the QRB reorganisation. Does the Premier know of this proposal, and what is his attitude to the loss of jobs in Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: As the minister has indicated, racing is run independently; it is not run by government. The reason is that under the national rules of racing the boards must be appointed independently and must be run independently. If they do not do that, they cannot participate in national racing. That is the way it works. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member for Toowoomba South has been incredibly rude all morning. I would like the courtesy of being able to answer this question. One of the difficulties we have is that there is a lot of disinformation by the other side of politics in this regard. I am not talking about the member for Gladstone here. I will come back to her point in a minute. Yesterday I saw some comments by the member for Toowoomba South about the Burrandowan Picnic Race Club. There is no reason that that race club cannot hold a meeting next year. The minister and Queensland Racing have both held meetings with representatives of the Burrandowan Picnic Race Club to discuss its issues. I am pleased that the weekend meeting was a success. We recognise the social importance of such events and meetings across Queensland. There is no reason whatsoever that any club attracting community support for racing cannot continue to race. Mr HOBBS interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! That is my final warning. Mr BEATTIE: Gee, you guys are being rude. If this is new politics, I am not sure that we want to move away from the old way. Mr Speaker, you would be aware that recently I announced with the Queensland Events Corporation funding for these annual events. I would urge the club to participate in this and to make an application, because there are funds available for picnic races. That is very important. I have announced that program and urge the club to make an application. 13 May 2003 Questions Without Notice 1675

To deal with the member's question, I was not aware of the announcement to be made by Queensland Racing. As I indicated in the early part of my answer, Queensland Racing is run independently and non-politically. I would urge those who have concerns to talk to Bob Bentley about the changes being made by the board and to raise those issues specifically with him. I do not like seeing the loss of jobs anywhere, whether it is in racing or any other industry. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of money possible goes into prize money. That is the central focus—that is, to ensure that Queensland racing and prize money are appropriately placed so that we will develop the industry. We cannot go back to the corrupt old days we had under Russell Hinze. We need a racing industry with a good future. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just been informed, whilst the Gin Gin school is in the gallery, that the Minister for Health was a pupil at that school some short time ago.

Clean Beach Challenge Mr FENLON: Can the Minister for Environment advise the House of the timetable for the Clean Beach Challenge this year? Mr WELLS: Friday, 11 July is the closing date for nominations. Last year we had 150 nominations for the Clean Beach Challenge and we expect even more this year. The final winner will be announced in December. I do not know which beach in Queensland is going to join the annals of history along with recent successful entrants such as Mooloolaba and Palm Cove. I would urge members who have beachside electorates to encourage their local organisations to get involved in the Clean Beach Challenge. It is a terrific way of giving pride of place to one of our most magnificent assets. Last Friday Olympic gold medallist Natalie Cook and her new volleyball partner Nicole Sanderson gave up some of their time to promote the Clean Beach Challenge, and this is particularly impressive. It is great that our fine young athletes are prepared to put their names to worthwhile causes, but what particularly impressed me was that only two days before I had seen Natalie Cook at the launch of a green smart home on the south side of Brisbane. I think that that kind of commitment is very worth while. Her commitment went even further, because honourable members who saw the honourable member for Greenslopes rise in this House a few moments ago in his best parliamentary suit, adjusting his spectacles and speaking with all the mana of a member of this House, would not have recognised him if they had seen him last Friday, because he and I were playing volleyball with Natalie and Nicole. A government member interjected. Mr WELLS: I have to tell the honourable member that we went very well. We went very well because we rigged it, you see. I had Natalie on my side and he had Nicole on his side. Does the member want to ask another question? A government member: Who won? Mr WELLS: Natalie and I won. It is terrific that our athletes are prepared to promote worthwhile causes like this. Queensland is the only state that has a state coastal plan. This is the only state where we have a guarantee that our beaches are never going to be locked up. They will forever be the playground for our children and our children's children. They will forever be a place of recreation for our community. They will always be a place where people can go and think and consider the world and enjoy the beauties of nature. That is what the Clean Beach Challenge is about. It is not a beauty contest for beaches but rather a challenge to the people who use our beaches to keep them clean and to keep them the great asset they are for Queensland.

Cairns Base Hospital, Psychiatric Facilities Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I table a series of letters and memos from the director of the Cairns Base Hospital Integrated Mental Health Program in which he details two separate attacks on him by mental health patients. One of these occurred in the emergency department; the other took place in his office this year and involved a known violent forensic patient. Cairns is not equipped to house any forensic patients and obviously does not have any safe psychiatric evaluation facilities for mental health patients who come through the emergency department. The director of the Mental Health Unit has now quit because of the ongoing danger he was placed in and Queensland Health's refusal to address the problems. I ask: when does the minister plan to provide adequate psychiatric facilities at Cairns Base Hospital 1676 Questions Without Notice 13 May 2003 to meet the real demands of the city and surrounding areas? How does the minister justify putting violent forensic mental patients into unsecured facilities? Mrs EDMOND: Queensland Health has a zero tolerance policy in relation to violence to its staff. We do not believe that it is an acceptable practice for patients to be violent to our staff wherever they may be working, whether it be in Cairns, Brisbane or on the Gold Coast. In fact, a number of the hospitals around the state have introduced zero tolerance policies and they are training staff in how to deal with this. But it is certainly a sad fact of life that we are seeing more violence perpetrated as a result of people coming into emergency departments often under the influence of alcohol or other drugs which make them violent. We have indicated that we will not accept this. In terms of mental health patients, Queensland has been leading the world in putting facilities in place right across the state to keep patients as close as possible to their families and loved ones while dealing with mental health issues. However, Cairns does not have a secure forensic unit. I believe that there is short-term accommodation—I would have to check it—but in most of our facilities at acute hospitals there is one room, known as a withdrawal room, for patients who are behaving inappropriately. As a result of this government going ahead, Townsville does have a forensic unit with all the appropriate security. I would urge Cairns to discuss their referrals to the Townsville forensic unit if they have problems. This has not been raised with me and I have to say that it was not raised as an issue on my recent trip to Cairns. If there is a problem I would be happy to review the procedures. But I have to say that, as a result of improving mental health facilities, we now have a range of facilities with various security levels right across the state whereas previously everybody had to be brought to Brisbane. I think that is a large step forward in terms of treating those people humanely but within secure arrangements. As I said, if there is an issue in Cairns I would urge them to discuss their referral patterns with the appropriate mental health staff.

Sõk Potato Chip Mrs ATTWOOD: Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities update the House on the market response to a Queensland developed and manufactured potato chip that he launched last year? Mr PALASZCZUK: Certainly I can. Could I say at the outset that I was very pleased to officially launch this new potato chip right smack bang in the middle of my electorate. It was a great sign of confidence from a company that invested $4 million in the operation in my electorate which employs 50 people. And the good news is this: this chip, the Sõk chip, is noted for its health qualities. It is low fat and no cholesterol. Sõk—low fat and no cholesterol. The honourable member for Mount Ommaney is health conscious. Her sleek appearance is probably attributable to the fact that she enjoys the Sõk chip. Currently, two honourable members are engaged in a blubber burn-off—the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and the honourable member for Cunningham. I offer a word of advice to both of those honourable members: when they are feeling a bit peckish, they should have an Sõk chip. It does not just relieve hunger pains; it is also healthy and assists with dieting. There is more good news. It is not only Australians who are partaking of this chip; it is also being exported to New Zealand and the Philippines. There is even better news. The number of varieties has increased. There is now a salt and vinegar chip and also a bacon and pepper chip. More importantly, the good news for our primary producers is this: the yearly intake of potatoes for this chip will grow from 8,000 tonnes to 13,000 tonnes. That is good news for our primary producers, the people in my electorate and, more importantly, all of the health conscious people in Queensland who are looking for an alternative. The alternative is Sõk.

Sugar Industry Mr ROWELL: I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industries. Given that those involved in the sugar industry, in particular canefarmers, are distraught as a result of the government's legislation to deregulate the sugar industry, I ask: will the minister now withdraw the legislation? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rule that question out of order. The bill is before the House. 13 May 2003 Questions Without Notice 1677

Samford First Responder Mr WILSON: I refer the Minister for Emergency Services to the fact that I was pleased to take part in the launch of the Samford First Responders group on the weekend, and I ask: can he inform the House how the First Responders program works and what benefits it will have for my electorate? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the member for Ferny Grove for his question and also for his assistance during the launch of this fantastic group last Saturday morning. The Samford First Responders is a group of volunteers who attend the scene of a medical emergency and provide life support and scene stabilisation in preparation for the responding Queensland Ambulance Service paramedic crew. These people have been trained in senior first aid, advanced resuscitation, oxygen therapy and semiautomatic defibrillation, and have undertaken many hours of practical exercises. The group is equipped with trauma kits, defibrillators, communications and other resources that allow them to keep in communication with the QAS Communications Centre and the responding paramedics. There are a number of First Responder programs around the state, and each is treasured by the communities they serve. Since the group at Samford began responding to medical emergencies on 20 February, many people have received assistance from members of the Samford First Responders group. There have been about 47 incidents over the past three months. There are now 13 people in that group who have the skills to add to their professionalism and dedication to ensure that residents and visitors to the area have immediate medical attention in an emergency. Many of the First Responders are people who work and have other commitments in the area. Therefore, we appreciate their commitment even more. It is not always easy to drop everything and rush to someone else's aid. However, the people of Samford have done an amazing job in that regard. They are committed, professional and dedicated. As minister, I am continually applauding the efforts of our department's 85,000 volunteers, such as the Samford First Responders. And what better week to do so than this one, National Volunteers Week. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr REYNOLDS: I know the member for Hinchinbrook has no interest in this matter, but he could at least be a bit quiet for a while. About one in 40 Queenslanders is a volunteer in emergency services—the Rural Fire Brigade, the State Emergency Service, the Volunteer Marine Rescue, local ambulance committees, honorary ambulance officers, the First Responders, the CPR 2002 volunteers, Response Advice to Chemical Emergencies, the Australian Volunteer Coastguard, Surf Life Saving Queensland and the Royal Lifesaving Society of Queensland. They all do a tremendous job. As minister, I acknowledge the commitment and dedication of all of those men and women to the safety and welfare of Queenslanders. Our volunteers will be taking part in the National Volunteers Week expo today at King George Square. This is another great occasion to showcase our volunteers. Today we can proudly applaud our volunteers for the wonderful work that they do in all of our communities.

TAFE, Enterprise Bargaining Agreement Mr BELL: I refer the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth to the fact that Education staff in Queensland TAFE institutes have complained to members, me included, that they were denied the opportunity to negotiate a log of claims in the government department certified agreement in the year 2000, and I ask: will educational staff in Queensland TAFE institutes be involved in current enterprise bargaining to negotiate for a TAFE certified agreement? Mr MATT FOLEY: TAFE staff are part of the core Public Service and their enterprise bargaining agreement takes place within the context of those negotiations. Any specific matters relating to TAFE staff generally or educational staff specifically can be addressed in the context of those discussions and negotiations. There has been, in the course of the current negotiations, a request by unions representing TAFE educational staff for a separate enterprise bargaining agreement simply for educational staff. The government has not been keen on that approach for several reasons: firstly, the provision of training is a core part of government and, accordingly, there is good logic in it being in the core; but, secondly, it would be contrary to the interests of TAFE as a whole organisation if there were a separate enterprise bargaining agreement for educational staff as opposed to other administrative staff. 1678 Matters of Public Interest 13 May 2003

Take for example the situation where arrangements are made for the training of students after hours. It is necessary not just for the teachers but also for the security staff, the staff who operate the stores and so on to be there. It would be quite anomalous if there were to be different industrial outcomes within the one organisation for various staff members involved in the business of providing training for TAFE. As with all enterprise bargaining negotiations, it is important that we listen, and that is what the negotiators on behalf of TAFE are seeking to do—to engage in dialogue with the staff, and in particular their union representatives, to try to address the concerns that have been raised. The bottom line is that we want to get good training outcomes for this state. We also want to ensure that the position of TAFE is respected. We certainly do not want to go back to the bad old days under the coalition, when 900 jobs were lost and $125 million was ripped out of the TAFE budget.

Information and Communications Industry Mrs CROFT: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to the fact that I still read almost daily in the newspapers about the global slump in the information and communications industry, and I ask: how is Queensland faring and is the government doing anything extra to promote the industry during this time? Mr LUCAS: Incidentally, for the information of the Leader of the Opposition, I point out that $36,000 was the amount of the Energex investment. It has not had a member on the board of the company since August 2002. Last week I was in Sydney at the global IT fair CeBIT. I had the opportunity also of launching a breakfast for our e-learning cluster, which has a number of firms on the Gold Coast, which is a real powerhouse. The Gold Coast City Council, the Brisbane City Council and the state government have a very strong commitment. In a decentralised state such as Queensland we have always had strengths in distance education. We have had to. That is why in our modern world, with electronic learning coming to the fore, we have enormous advantages in Queensland. Essentially, it is both the content and its manner of delivery that is important to people. There are 120 e-learning companies in Queensland. At the breakfast there were a number of important identities from throughout the world and Australia listening to the pitches of about 12 of the Queensland e-learning companies. They had the opportunity of taking a couple of minutes to say quickly what they were on about. This is another great story for Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Anglican Church Diocese of Brisbane Report; Heiner Inquiry Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): On 1 May 2003, the Premier came into parliament and tabled a report of an inquiry that had been conducted on behalf of the Anglican Church into allegations of child sexual abuse in its schools. As one of the reasons for tabling the report into Archbishop Hollingworth's alleged failure to act on child abuse allegations, the Premier stated— But let me make it clear: what is inappropriate here is child abuse. It would also be inappropriate if this report was kept in the dark. It would also be inappropriate if this report was not available in full to the victims and their families. That is the basis of my decision and why it has been tabled in this parliament today. Also on 1 May the Premier stated— His— that is Archbishop Aspinall— grounds for taking this course of action were that this would facilitate reasonable analysis in the public arena without any shadow of its having initially been released in circumstances which could arguably give rise to a liability in defamation. The government has not always been so solicitous to ensure that parliamentary privilege be used to avoid problems of defamation when dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse. I ask members to keep in mind that the Premier was a member of a government that, within cabinet, destroyed documents in relation to the abuse of children— Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The members opposite can laugh—at the John Oxley Centre, which were uncovered— 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1679

Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Exactly. I am coming to that point—by the Heiner inquiry. On 12 February 1990, by decision No. 00101, the Goss Labor cabinet acknowledged that during the course of his investigation Mr Heiner gathered information of a potentially defamatory nature. It went ahead and destroyed the documents. There is a very important principle involved here and that is that certain documents had been gathered as part of evidence during that inquiry into— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: No, during that inquiry in the late 1980s. Much of that information was sensitive and, as I said, carried serious allegations. Those allegations deserved to be properly considered and properly investigated, even if it were found at some future time that there was not the depth of evidence that may have sustained prosecution or further action. My issue is not so much about all of the conspiracy theory nonsense that has come since that time; my issue is about the consistency and the inconsistency that has gone on. Some very significant parallels can be made. We had a report that was prepared by the Anglican Church. I believe that the church did the right thing in preparing that report. In gathering evidence and information to prepare that report, there was potentially defamatory material obtained. Without some form of legal privilege, it would have been impossible for that report to have seen the light of day. The reason it did not have legal privilege in the broad community was that it was not constituted as an action of this parliament or an action of the executive. So it required that legal privilege. I supported the Premier's action, but I want to speak in a little while about the precedent than it sets and how we need to deal with that. I refer to the foundation of that Heiner inquiry in the late 1980s. Some very serious allegations were made in relation to the abuse of children who were in the care of the state in the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre. The Goss government came to power and it considered— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: We set up the inquiry. When the incoming Goss government had a chance to look at that inquiry, it argued that the inquiry was not legally constituted, so the evidence gathered may have been potentially defamatory. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am not going to doubt that, because I do not have legal advice that contradicts the advice that was given to the government of the day. But that does not take away from the fact that evidence was collected that contained very sensitive issues of alleged abuse and sexual abuse against those children who were in a state institution. We have always argued that there should have been retrospective validation by an act of this parliament so that that inquiry could have continued or that evidence could have been potentially used. Mr Terry Sullivan: The Crown Law advice was to the contrary. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Stafford seems incapable of seeing the capacity of this parliament to have acted to give legal privilege to the evidence that was gathered. I believe that, because there was some deficiency in the establishment of that inquiry, there was potential defamation if its findings were put out in the public arena. That is true. But I argue that statutory tools existed for the government to be able to give retrospective privilege to that material or, as was proven the other day by the Premier, for that information to be have been tabled in parliament. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories have taken away from the fact that serious allegations of abuse and sexual abuse of children in the John Oxley Centre were made and they have never been resolved properly in any way whatsoever. That evidence was pulped. Notwithstanding any of the legal advice which was given to the government of the day, there were ways of acting. Unfortunately, that action has given rise to all the nonsense and conspiracy theories that have gone on. All I am saying is that there should have been a right to have that evidence heard at the time and properly adjudicated and that could have been done if the government had done exactly what the Premier did the other day. That happened because some of the allegations related to trade unionists with links to the Labor Party. Government members interjected. 1680 Matters of Public Interest 13 May 2003

Mr SPRINGBORG: At the time there was a fair bit of evidence about that as well. So that is why there is an inconsistency in the approach. Government members can laugh all they want, but on the one hand we had the Premier tabling the Anglican Church report, which I supported, and on the other hand a report relating to the alleged sexual abuse of children in a state institution was shredded. That is an inconsistency. I agree with what happened the other day. The public has a right to know the contents of that report, which was initiated by the Anglican Church. But in relation to the tabling of reports, we need to put in place procedures to ensure that the privilege of this parliament is going to be used judiciously and in a very cautious way when tabling reports. The Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, or another committee or the Speaker, should sit down and give some due consideration to this matter, because there may be other scenarios that will come about in the future where such parliamentary privilege is sought and needs to be applied. They could be in all sorts of inquiries. There are disciplinary inquiries of an internal nature in sporting organisations, the trade union movement and other areas which may uncover material which could potentially be defamatory. Nevertheless, there may be a public interest in that being disclosed. In order to ensure we do not have a precedent established that could go unchecked, there is a need for the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee to look at this issue and decide whether a set of procedures that are benchmarked needs to be put in place. Those procedures can then be looked at and compared, if this needs to be brought about in future in the Queensland parliament. It may need to be. I am not aware of any other instance of this around Australia. There was a public desire for this to happen here and it happened, but we need to make sure it happens in a judicious way in the future. Time expired.

National-Liberal Coalition Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (11.40 a.m.): The recent signing of a new coalition agreement between the National Party and the Liberal Party reminds me of two tried and tested adages: one, where you sit determines where you stand; and, two, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. Over the last two years the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Robina, Bob Quinn, has carved out a separate identity for the Liberal Party. Mr Horan interjected. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: He took a stand on a number of issues which clearly distinguished his party from the National Party, which in a political sense—the speech of the honourable member who is interjecting proves this—still has many of its policies and approaches to politics deeply entrenched in a bygone era. The past two years have been heady times for the newly independent Liberals. In some respects they were akin to those memorable days of 1983 when the then Liberal Leader, Terry White, dramatically tore up the coalition agreement. But how things have changed. Last month the Liberals took the bit out of the mouth, put the tail between the legs and slinked back into bed with the National Party. They signed a new coalition agreement which commits both parties to develop joint policies in all the major areas of importance to Queensland. Clause 2.9 of their agreement says it all. It states— Each member of the Parties, their State candidates and Office Bearers will support and advocate Coalition policy both inside the Parliament and elsewhere. No Member of either Party shall advocate in the name of his or her Party, policies that differ in substance from coalition policy. Whereas the agreement does allow each party to promote individual party policies where no coalition policy exists, the reality is that for all of the major issues that affect Queenslanders coalition policy will prevail to the exclusion of individual party policies, which of course it should. But given the opposing views that have been actively promoted on a number of major policy issues, it will be an interesting area to examine in the period leading up to the next election. Which party will compromise on the hitherto hard-held views and by how much? Let us look at a few of the issues on which both parties have taken strong stands over the past two years, firstly gun control. In the Australian newspaper of 25 October, Liberal Leader Bob Quinn is quoted as saying that tough gun controls are a threshold issue for his party and if it were a choice between that and coalition 'we will take gun control'. The reported response of the then 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1681

Leader of the National Party, Mike Horan, was that he would not stand for such ultimatums from the Liberal Party. On 24 February of this year, both parties released a joint statement which outlined the principles to be adopted when formulating new policies on some key issues. With respect to gun laws the document states that there would be no relaxation of the laws governing the types of people eligible to apply for a weapons licence, but it leaves a whole lot of key questions unanswered. For instance, there is no mention of what types of guns might be allowed or who would be allowed to have them. The document goes on to state that tougher gun laws should be aimed at those who actually perpetrate crimes and not at law-abiding citizens. Does this mean that we have to wait until someone actually commits a crime before we can get tough on them with respect to gun laws? And what does the statement mean that the coalition will make 'practical amendments' to ensure the gun laws are fully workable? Despite what the Liberals and Nationals will say, we all know what all of this means. It is all about watering down the gun laws. Anyone who has doubts about this need only read the vitriolic opposition, criticism and scorn the National Party has poured on gun laws over the past few years. And this is what the Liberal Party has signed up to. What about the important environmental issue of tree clearing? In November of last year the Leader of the Liberal Party, Bob Quinn, said that tree clearing was a good example of a policy difference, given that the Nationals opposed legislative limits on tree clearing. As with gun laws, tree clearing is a heartland issue for the National Party and one it will not back away from without a fight. We all know from its public statements that the National Party is opposed to dealing harshly with the issue of illegal tree clearing. Its position is to control this serious environmental problem with a 'softly-softly', incentive based approach rather than with the punitive measures supported and introduced by the Labor government. The Liberals now support this approach and once again have capitulated to the Nationals on a significant environmental issue. These policy turnarounds are contrary to the strong position the Liberals were espousing just a few short weeks ago, and they are not isolated instances if the new agreement is to be implemented to the letter. Let us look at some of the other areas where both parties have taken strong and opposing positions over the past two years. When the Coastal Protection and Management Bill was put to the parliament, the Nationals opposed it. The Liberals supported it. The Liberal Party supported extended shopping hours under the Trading (Allowable Hours) Amendment Bill. The National Party opposed it. The Liberals supported the notice of motion on four-year parliamentary terms. The Nationals opposed it. Just a few short months ago, the Liberals supported progressive amendments to the Anti-discrimination Act but the Nationals opposed them. Last year Bob Quinn was reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin as saying— We are not going to move backwards on those issues or any other issues we have put into the public arena. If that is true—only the member for Robina can clarify this—then the recently signed coalition agreement is a sham. Time expired.

Sir Sydney Williams Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (11.45 a.m.): On Thursday I will be representing the Premier at the funeral of a great Queenslander, Sir Sydney Williams OBE, in Cairns. Dr Lesley Clark, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier and Minister for Trade in Far North Queensland, the Governor of Queensland, Major General Peter Arnison, and Archbishop John Bathersby will also be in attendance. Sir Sydney was a visionary with a passion for building the state's tourism and aviation sectors. This distinguished Queenslander was most well known for his good work in the development of aviation and tourism and in particular for his passion for the racing industry in north Queensland. Born on 10 January 1920, Sir Sydney was raised in Yungaburra on the Atherton Tableland. Today the Williams family property, Williams Lodge, operates as a boutique accommodation facility, sharing the wonder and beauty of the far north with visitors from all around the world. In 1977 Sir Syd was awarded an Order of the British Empire and in 1983 was knighted in the Queen's Birthday Honours List for community service. He was also the recipient of numerous 1682 Governor-General 13 May 2003 industry related awards, including the Premier of Queensland's one-off Millennium Awards for Excellence. After serving with the 7th Australian Division Cavalry Regiment in the Middle East and New Guinea, Sir Sydney returned to his beloved north, turning his hand to aviation. A former postwar commander of the 51st Infantry Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, Sir Sydney remained honorary colonel of the Far North Queensland Regiment. Sir Sydney's tourism career began in 1950s when he recognised a need for the airline industry to expand beyond the existing coastal network into key regional areas to serve isolated towns and remote centres. In 1953 he cofounded Bush Pilots Airways, or 'Bushies' as it was affectionately known, which was based in Cairns. This later became Air Queensland. Sir Syd was involved in the establishment of a range of tourism services and held distinguished roles such as chairman of Lizard Island, chairman of Cape York Wilderness Lodge, board member and deputy chairman of the Cairns Port Authority, patron of the SKAL Club, director of the Reef Trust Casino and chairman of Captain Cook Cruises, North Queensland. He also held positions with Carlton and United Breweries North Queensland Limited, Air Queensland, Albatross Hotel Weipa, Radio 4AM, Far North Queensland Theatres, Willtrac Corporation Limited, the Australian Tourism Commission and the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. One of his more well-known business ventures involved the development of Lizard Island. For two years Sir Syd, with his entrepreneurial spirit, used to fly over Lizard Island in a twin-engine plane. He saw the potential of the island and began pestering the then Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen, to call a tender for air services. Finally the Premier listened and the world-famous Lizard Island resort was developed. In 2001 Sir Syd was recognised by his peers when he was awarded the Outstanding Contribution by an Individual Award at the annual Excellence in Australian Tourism Awards. But many Cairns locals will fondly remember him as the founder of the Far North Queensland Amateur Turf Club, which annually hosts the Cairns Amateur Race Day, far-north Queensland's equivalent of the Melbourne Cup. Way back in 1958 Sir Syd founded this north Queensland institution, which many of us have attended and enjoyed. His express intent was to bring people from the bush into town to see Cairns and mingle in the big smoke. This venture turned out to be very successful, and the club's continuing prosperity is a testament to Sydney's spirit and ability to make things happen. This man has helped to shape Queensland's tourism and aviation industries, particularly in the tropical far north, playing an influential role for many, many years. Sir Sydney Williams and his unique airline will remain forever in the memories of those who knew him and those who had the pleasure of working with him. I have known Syd Williams on a personal basis for many years. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word. He had a love for Cairns and far-north Queensland, but above all else was his love for his family. I know that a lasting memory for his wife, Joyce, and David, his youngest son, will be the two weeks that he recently spent on the north coast with David, Tracey and their two children, Stratten and Harriet. David also advises me that his father was able to see all his 11 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren over the two weeks that he spent with them and the two weeks prior to that that he spent on the Gold Coast. I am sure all members of this House will join me in paying tribute to this great Queenslander and send condolences to Lady Joyce, his sons, John, Brian, Peter and David, and all their families. Interruption.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Ruling by Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: It is a rule of House of Commons practice that, unless debate is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family, the Governor-General of an independent territory, the Speaker, members of either house of parliament, or judges of superior courts. The rule includes reflections that convey reproach or are abusive (Erskine May 22nd edition, 384-85). Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have specific standing orders dealing with this matter. Senate standing order 193(2) provides that 'a Senator shall not refer to the Queen, the Governor-General or the Governor of a State disrespectfully in debate, or for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations' (Senate Practice, 471). 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1683

The House of Representatives standing order 74 provides that no member may use the name of the Queen, the Governor-General or state governor disrespectfully or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations. The practice of the House of Representatives is that, unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House, reflections—opprobrious references—must not be cast in debate concerning the conduct of the sovereign or the Governor-General (House of Representatives Practice, 12). The Macquarie Dictionary defines 'opprobrium' as the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered shameful. The New Zealand House of Representatives practice is that members must not use the name of the sovereign or of the Governor-General disrespectfully in debate or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations. The rule does not, however, extend to governors-general in other jurisdictions, such as Australia (New Zealand House of Representatives Practice, 154). There is no specific standing order in Queensland dealing with the matter. However, standing order 333 states that in all cases not specifically provided for by these standing rules and orders resort is to be had to the rules of the House of Commons, which shall be followed and observed so far as the same can apply to the proceedings of the House. This morning during a ministerial statement, which was incorporated by leave of the House, the Premier made certain comments about elements of the current controversy involving the Governor-General, who has recently stood aside. I understand that in another place, the Australian Senate, a substantive motion about the Governor-General is being or is about to be debated. The most dominant public issue in this nation at the moment is the controversy surrounding the Governor-General. Much of that debate is sourced from a report tabled by leave of this House and published by virtue of a substantive order of this House. The crux of the dilemma that I am currently faced with is whether to permit members to comment on this controversy in the absence of a substantive motion. Essentially this issue involves the privileges of the House, in particular the freedom of speech in the House and the need to maintain respect for and independence of certain offices and persons. After considering this matter carefully, I have decided that the rule as expressed in the House of Commons must be modified in its application to a state parliament and in a more modern context. An absolute rule is inappropriate. This rule is clearly in need of modification and clarification, as was the case recently with the sub judice rule. In short, it would be absurd to prevent members from commenting in this House—the ultimate forum for public grievance and debate in this state—on a matter of such public interest and debate. Therefore, members will be able to refer to the current controversy as long as: one, reference is not made to any pending litigation in accordance with the sub judice rule—these matters must be left for determination by the appropriate courts; two, comments are temperate and free from personal reflections and vilification; and, three, comments are strictly relevant to the matter under consideration. In due course and after more detailed consideration, and perhaps consultation, I will clarify how the rule discussed above will be applied in the House in the future.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Racing Industry Resumption. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (11.55 a.m.): The racing industry is the third biggest industry in this state. It is a very important industry in providing for jobs, providing for social and community opportunity and providing for sporting events, big and small, and some great sporting events at that. The Beattie Labor government has simply walked away from the racing industry. This morning we heard the disgraceful answer to a question I asked the Racing Minister, who simply said that it is not her responsibility and sat down. What do we have a Racing Minister for? Aren't this government and this Racing Minister interested in the racing industry at all? Don't they take any interest in it? Don't they want to provide some support? Aren't they appalled when Queensland Racing cuts out almost 200 race meetings throughout the state—country non-TAB race meetings and country TAB meetings? Aren't they appalled at the job losses? Aren't they appalled that places like Burrandowan will not be able to race again because it has had its prize money taken away? 1684 Matters of Public Interest 13 May 2003

I think we have heard enough of this community racing scheme and the untruthful spin that is put on it by the Premier. The truth of the matter is that these clubs, which have lost 193 race meetings throughout the state, have lost $24,000 in prize money. That is the amount of money that will be provided to clubs for racing in country areas—some $4,000 per race. So for six races that is $24,000. The Premier and the Racing Minister have the hide to stand up and say, 'But they can still race because they are going to access up to $5,000 through the community racing scheme.' How can we run a race meeting with $5,000 when there are alternative race meetings offering $24,000? Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr HORAN: I hear the call about sponsors from the honourable member for Southport. All these clubs are already getting sponsorship. But take Burrandowan, which is in the bush—a country race meeting right amongst the gum trees. It has sponsorship to boost the prize money because it cannot always race on $4,000 per meeting. So it went out and secured sponsorship to provide an extra incentive, because racing is an expensive sport for those who are participating in it. Now, on top of the sponsorship that Burrandowan has secured from its volunteers and community committees, it is now going to have to find some $19,000 extra if it takes $5,000 off the $24,000. It really is a callous act. For the minister to simply say 'it is not my responsibility; it is Queensland Racing' just shows the neglect and the disinterest that this government has in racing. It has walked away from racing. Some of the actions that have occurred, like the axing of Chief Steward Steve Railton yesterday, are an absolute disgrace. This man is held in the highest regard by all sections of the industry, and surely if there is a restructure in the racing industry there is a better way to deal with people like this who have led that section of the industry for so many years. The government says that this is going to save $11 million. It is cutting 11 positions. That will probably save around $700,000. It has to replace a couple of staff. It is going to have an integrity manager and a chief Brisbane steward. That probably pulls it back to about $500,000. Where is the other $1.5 million going to come from? We received no reply from the Minister for Tourism and Racing to my question about the tasks and jobs that are going to Victoria. That will probably handicap such administrative tasks as the nominations and acceptances, the stable returns and the payment of prize money. They will all be done in Victoria. Where are the jobs for Queensland? These are the sorts of jobs that should have been given to those in regional or country Queensland to put jobs back into our great decentralised state. This government has lost the confidence of the racing industry. This government walks away; it is cowardly when it comes to racing. It simply says, 'That is not for us; that is for Queensland Racing.' The government has a Minister for Tourism and Racing. The government has a treasury that can provide some support to this great industry. This government gives $64 million in grants to interstate and international companies to expand or grow their business. We have a great business in racing. Why not provide something to racing so that the 200 country race meetings can continue? We have seen the sacking of CEOs in regional racing areas in Queensland. Once confidence in Queensland Racing has gone, then the punters and participants will lose confidence and racing will decline.

Mrs L. Link Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (12.03 p.m.): It is with great sadness that I report to the House the passing of Mrs Linda Link—Aunty Linda to many and simply Mum to the many thousands of students she helped over 20 years while she was firstly a teacher aide and then a community education counsellor. I wish to acknowledge members of Linda's family in the gallery this morning: husband, Roy; daughter Dinah; granddaughter Jasmin; and colleagues and friends Peggy Tidyman, Sarah Ger and Albert and Nancy Bowie. I am indebted to Roy, Peggy and Mabel Park High Principal Ms Roslyn Parkes for much of the background on Linda's life. I recently enjoyed some time with Linda at Kingston College for International Women's Day. We had both been invited to speak to senior students. Linda was a very proud Aboriginal woman who was greatly loved by her family, her community, the many staff members she worked with and the students she cared for during her 20 years of service at Woodridge High School, Mabel Park High School and Kingston College. She provided additional support to indigenous students in other schools such as Shailer Park, Loganlea and Beenleigh high schools. 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1685

Linda was a very special and unique person. In the words of Principal Ros Parkes— Linda had a huge capacity to love and an ability to give to people. She showed kids that even when life has its ups and downs, it's still important to show care and concern for others. This she did right throughout her life. I recently spent some time with Roy and learned of their earlier years—their courtship, their family life and the love they shared for their community and especially the young people. Linda was born in Brisbane on 21 March 1942 and spent her early years at Victoria Point before moving with her family to Holland Park. She was a student at Holland Park State School. However, because of family circumstances she had to leave after year 4 to care for her younger brothers and sisters. When Linda was just 11 she met Roy, then aged 13, and they dated until they married seven years later, when Linda was 18. They moved to a Housing Commission home in Slacks Creek in 1971, where they remained and raised their large and happy family of seven children. There are now 18 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Roy recalls happy days at Wynnum where they went worming together and received 20c a dozen for their catch. Linda worked for a trailer firm fitting lights until 1984 when she joined the Education Department as a teacher aide. Peggy tells me that it was in the mid-1970s at Cherbourg that the concept of a teacher aide was first born. Indigenous parents were concerned about their children and wanted a greater link between home and school. Linda's position remained temporary from 1984 until 1996, when she finally gained a permanent position as a community education counsellor. Her position was hard won. She undertook studies through James Cook University and was one of just nine students of an original 40 to graduate with her degree, a Bachelor of Community Welfare, which was a tribute to her determination. Linda was indeed a wonderful inspiration to her students by example as well as by her encouragement. Her students now occupy positions such as teachers, lawyers, social workers, accountants, physiotherapists, chefs, sporting achievers, secretaries, tradesmen and myriad others. What they all have in common is this: they will be better men and women for having known Linda and having been guided by her along the way. Whether it was NAIDOC celebrations, sporting events or school camps, Linda was there. The safety, welfare and future of her students was very important to her. Linda passed away on 22 March. Colleagues and students, family members and community members joined together on Friday, 28 March to celebrate a wonderful life devoted to others. We grieve for Roy and his family, who will miss such a rare individual—one who was wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, educator, wise counsellor, mentor or friend and one who showed a great deal of pride in her Aboriginal heritage. We are saddened that Linda's voice of encouragement to students is now quiet. On Friday, 2 May it was my privilege to attend a special ceremony at Mabel Park High School where personal tributes were paid to Linda, and her favourite flower, a rose, was planted in the school's memorial garden. Special friend, Aboriginal elder and renowned artist Reg Knox prepared a beautiful memorial in stone which will always remind the school family of their loving, caring friend Linda.

Burrandowan Race Day Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.08 p.m.): It is ironic that the Burrandowan area situated in the Kingaroy shire has, through no fault of its own, been stripped of an 81-year-old tradition while at the same time the Kingaroy shire begins to celebrate its 100-year heritage. This is a major shire associated with Queensland's history. Last year the Premier spent a lot of money on helping to promote the outback and its heritage in Queensland. Yet here we have the future of the Burrandowan race day, its only race day, threatened with extinction—the major community event within three hours drive of Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast. I mention Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast because of the large number of people from those areas who travel to enjoy the event. It is unique. I spoke to people from right across Queensland, from New South Wales and even from Stockholm. There were at least 12 tourist coach companies ferrying people to the track and there were reportedly more than 3,000 visitors. None understood why this cultural experience was to be sacrificed. I have a few postcards with me for the Premier. They are the first of many to show their concern. 1686 Matters of Public Interest 13 May 2003

Although the government, through the minister, passes the buck to the Queensland Racing Board, the truth is that it could intervene to ensure that this vast community is not deprived of this once-a-year event. The $24,000 in prize money and this community's race day have been denied to them. Major urban race tracks will benefit. It is ironic that the Minister for Racing is also the Minister for Tourism. Rural areas continue to suffer not only from natural disasters but also from government policy. These areas are constantly being told by government to embrace the tourism dollar to supplement their ever decreasing rural income. When they do, the same government not only fails to support them but also backs those prepared to decimate them. It is no good just blaming the Racing Board. This minister and the government must accept responsibility for destroying the jobs that this event generated and the economic benefit to the district when more than 3,000 people arrive. On the one hand we have a government urging Queenslanders to holiday in their own state and on the other hand we have a government that is pulling the rug out from under an event like the Burrandowan races, which equates to the Birdsville Races. Their insurance rose from $3,000 to $8,000 but they survived this. They will not survive without the $24,000 in prize money and the allocation of a race day. Burrandowan needs a commitment from the government that it will back it and review the situation. I acknowledge the minister's remarks earlier today when she stated that the Burrandowan races need only apply for a racing day and to the community benefit fund for financial assistance. There is no guarantee, and that is what we are asking for. It is pity that no-one from either the Premier's office or the minister's office has attended the Burrandowan races in the past. If they had, I am sure that they would have changed their minds. Too many decisions are made without proper knowledge. I fear for many other cultural events. I urge the government to think about what is being lost for the sake of such a paltry amount. It would take the reduction of a couple of races—not even a race day—on the city circuit to secure Burrandowan's future. The minister has indicated her willingness to work with the committee and the Racing Board has indicated the same, so why haven't both of those parties worked together to secure this longstanding race? The second issue I want to raise in the House relates to overtaking lanes and the associated speeding fines. On my way to parliament last night I checked out the lengths of the very few overtaking lanes between Kingaroy and the motorway at Caboolture. I have to confess that I and every other person who overtook a vehicle in the overtaking lanes would be fined under the planned targeting by speed cameras, or at the worst we would have been involved in a collision if we had adhered to the rule of not exceeding 100 kilometres an hour. There was not one overtaking lane long enough to overtake a vehicle travelling at 90 kilometres an hour, and I would assume that this same ruling applies to current road markings. During the entire trip from Kingaroy to the Caboolture motorway there were road markings indicating that we were free to overtake a slower vehicle legally, but that was not possible without exceeding the speed limit. In fact, some of the designated passing lanes were so short that the vehicle in front would have to have been travelling at an incredibly low speed or stopped. The overtaking markings indicated by my odometer ranged from the shortest—it did not even tick over the odometer—of less than 0.1 of a kilometre to the longest of just over 1.7 kilometres. I cannot believe that the minister or the Treasurer would back this dangerous and irresponsible revenue raising concept. It begs the question: just how far in the red will the budget really be this year and is this the reason that the concept of targeting overtaking lanes is even being considered? We hear of road rage every day, but this outrageous concept will only inflame people to engage in this antisocial behaviour and drive even faster. Overtaking lanes are built to encourage the smooth flow of traffic and are predominantly in very good condition. If we are realistic, they are capable of allowing traffic to travel at 110 kilometres an hour. Instead of the minister increasing driver frustration by this action, where applicable the speed limit on overtaking lanes should be raised to 110 kilometres an hour. The Nanango electorate has overtaking lanes being constructed at the moment. These overtaking lanes are not long enough to allow people to adhere to 100 kilometres an hour. The University of Queensland's analysis published in the Courier-Mail found that overtaking a vehicle travelling at 95 kilometres an hour without breaking the law would take a total distance of 2.1 kilometres. Only on major multilane highways does that type of overtaking lane length really exist. Surely commonsense must prevail. Time expired. 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1687

State Development Initiatives Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (12.13 p.m.): Over the past two weeks on behalf of the Minister for State Development, the Hon. Tom Barton, I have had the privilege and honour of launching three new exciting business initiatives in our region. On Friday, 2 May I launched the manufacturing strategy Making Queensland's Future for the Sunshine Coast region, which includes Pine Rivers, Caboolture and Redcliffe as well as the Sunshine Coast. This is part of a $26 million four-year Queensland strategy to improve manufacturing competitiveness. The manufacturing industry sector is a major pillar of Queensland's economy, contributing $10 billion per year and employing 182,000 people, making it Queensland's second largest full-time employer after the retail sector, yet it is often overlooked especially in areas like the Sunshine Coast where tourism and agriculture are seen as the main industries. We need to strengthen regional manufacturing if we are to provide employment in growing areas like the northern corridor and the Sunshine Coast. Maintaining a globally competitive, sustainable and profitable manufacturing base is a top priority. The Making Queensland's Future manufacturing strategy sets out to make this vision a reality and includes as a key objective the necessity to work with local schools, trainers and higher education institutions to ensure employees, both existing and potential, have the appropriate skills and training for the needs of local manufacturers. By all accounts, the strategy has been well received by industry, and many business owners have commented to me that this will give manufacturing industries more recognition in the community and prestige as a job choice for school leavers. On Wednesday, 7 May I had the pleasure of launching two more exciting and significant business initiatives at Redcliffe. These initiatives are the second tier of the Smart Licence online initiative and another key small business initiative in Smart Skills online. As Deputy Chair of the Queensland Small Business Advisory Council, I join with Minister Barton in his mission to ensure the continued growth and vitality of Queensland's small business sector. These two initiatives are another proactive step towards achieving this mission. Both Smart Skills online and Smart Licence online are examples of State Development adopting new technologies which will improve access to government services. Smart Skills online is an exiting new addition to the range of products offered by State Development to improve business skills. Small business owners are often too busy to spend time improving their business management skills at mainstream educational institutions, yet when one looks at the contributing factors for small business failure one sees that one of the most common themes is a lack of business skills—lack of skills like not understanding or knowing how to read financial statements, not knowing how to manage staff or not knowing or understanding what their market is and where their market share is. Smart Skills online offers a number of State Development's business and management skills programs in an interactive online format, making them easy to access and giving small business owners the flexibility to complete the subjects in their own time and at their own pace. Courses available on line include subjects in business planning, goal setting and market research as well as an introduction to exporting. What is even better is that many of the topics can be accessed free of charge. I urge all members to bring this service to the attention of small business owners in their area and urge all business owners to take full advantage of this unique service. Smart Licence online is also a unique service and is the first fully integrated service of its kind in Australia. It has been designed as a one-stop shop for all business licensing and registration requirements. Smart Licence online asks clients to answer a series of questions and then identifies the licences that they will need to start their business. It is as simple as that. To date, Smart Licence online has had 50,000 visitors to the site and it can surely be said that this initiative is at the heart of reducing red tape for businesses both during their start-up and in their day-to- day operations. For Smart Licence online to be truly effective, it requires the cooperation of all three levels of government. Currently, the project includes key state government licences and a number of key Commonwealth licences. As at the launch last Wednesday we saw the introduction of local government licences, with Redcliffe City Council being the first council to come on line as part of a pilot project to include council licences on the Smart Licence site. I understand that since Redcliffe City Council has set the scene numerous other councils are knocking on the door of State Development asking to become involved. This is great news for business. Each of these three initiatives demonstrates that the Beattie government is well and truly committed to creating a Smart State economy. 1688 Matters of Public Interest 13 May 2003

Land Clearing Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.16 p.m.): This afternoon I want to deal with some of the myths about land clearing in Queensland. Some of the myths and misinformation about this subject have already been well debated in this parliament. I want to refer to the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study, which is the government's own figures. This is a report produced by the Department of Natural Resources and some of the figures contained in it destroy some of the myths that the government likes to promote about land clearing. This report is certainly written from the government's perspective in that it tries to sensationalise the issue and tries to give the impression that somehow land clearing in Queensland is rampant and out of control. I want to look at some figures in this report that are not often quoted to destroy some of the myths. The figure that is most often quoted by the Premier and the minister in front of the television cameras is the 378,000 hectare figure for total land clearing in Queensland. That sounds like a heck of a lot to anybody who does not understand the size and the scale of Queensland. This document also—and one has to look fairly hard to find it—gives a figure that puts that in some perspective, and that is the figure for the total woody vegetation cover for Queensland. What is the total area of woody vegetation cover for Queensland? In this document it is listed at 81 million hectares. Some 81 million hectares of Queensland is covered with woody vegetation of which that 378,000 hectares was cleared last year. That means that 0.46 per cent of the woody vegetation in Queensland was cleared last year. At that rate, to put it in some perspective, it would take 217 years to clear the rest of the woody vegetation in Queensland. Of course no-one wants that to happen and of course I am not suggesting that that should happen. But that puts it in some perspective in terms of the size and the scale of Queensland. It is also interesting to note in this report that that 81 million hectares identified has actually increased from the 76 million hectares identified a few years ago—that is, there has actually been a five million hectare increase in the woody vegetation identified by the SLATS report. The report indicates that that is due in some measure to improvement in technology. To some extent, I accept that. But I suggest it is also due to forest thickening and the encroachment that all of us involved in natural resource management know is taking place. Let us look at that figure of 378,000 hectares in more detail. Page 8 of the report sets out how that figure was arrived at. The report states— We have mapped vegetation change for all perennial woody plants of all sizes that can be distinguished with Landsat imagery. The statistics for vegetation change in woody vegetation cover quoted in this report include all woody vegetation. This includes remaining areas of native vegetation, disturbed areas of native vegetation and— here is the important bit— regrowth, plantations of native and exotic species and domestic woody vegetation. That 378,000 hectares includes clearing of lantana and rubber vine and even the harvesting of native pine plantations, yet nobody says that when they wave around a figure of 378,000 hectares as though it is a great cause of concern to everybody in Queensland. The figure that is more accurate can be found in figure 2 on page 19, namely, a figure of 225,000 hectares, because that relates to remnant vegetation. But no-one ever cites that. The figure that is most important in any consideration of land clearing in Queensland is that figure—225,000 hectares of remnant vegetation. But what percentage does that represent of the remaining remnant vegetation in Queensland? Unfortunately, the report does not tell us that. For the past two weeks, members of my staff have been trying to find out what percentage that represents. The minister's own department cannot tell us that. There has been no effort to try to understand what proportion of Queensland's remnant native forest has actually been cleared. This government is more interested in sensationalism, media hype, headlines and opportunities that vegetation management and tree clearing present than in any sort of legitimate consideration of the issue. We all support a regulated tree clearing regime that protects Queensland's environment. The current Labor government has not been able to manage that. Time expired.

Events, Toowoomba North Electorate Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.22 p.m.): I wish to speak about a number of important events in my electorate held over the past few weeks. Last weekend the Australian 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1689

National Road Accident Rescue Challenge was held in Toowoomba, contested by 15 teams from throughout Australia, with four from Queensland and one from New Zealand. It was a tremendous success, witnessed by the Minister for Emergency Services and his counterparts from South Australia and Victoria. I congratulate Assistant Commissioner Steve Rothwell and all involved in the organisation of the event in Toowoomba, including Murray Excell and Glen Maule of the Toowoomba ambulance and Rhys Fraser of the Toowoomba SES. The event provided an ideal training opportunity for Australia's team in the world Extrication Challenge to take place in Ottawa this September. That team comes from Toowoomba and consists of David Woods, Peter Bradow, Paul Clark, Peter Griffey, Matthew Randall and Stuart Dundas. Secondly, the Australian Gospel Music Festival, as the Premier indicated, was held over the Easter weekend this year once again in Toowoomba. This was the fifth occasion on which the festival has been held in Toowoomba. I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that this year's festival was the most successful yet. It is estimated that over 35,000 people attended one or more of the events. At the outset, I extend my thanks to all of those associated with the event, in particular Isaac Moody, Linda Moes, Mark Freeman, Ian and Cheryl Anderson, Ian Shelton and Gary Wells, the committee members involved. Special mention should be made of the Toowoomba City Church, which as I understand it was the host church of the event. I was very pleased once again to represent the Premier, Peter Beattie, and to be able to speak briefly to the crowd, estimated at 10,000 people, who attended the Bible Society combined church service on the Sunday evening. The government, via the Queensland Events Corporation, supported the festival to the tune of $25,000 on this occasion, as it was able to do in the previous year. The Premier indicated that this was an all-of-community reward in that not only were those directly associated with the festival benefiting; the whole of the Toowoomba community was benefiting, particularly in terms of economic benefits. The Premier indicated that the amount advanced helped to spread the word in terms of the promotion of the event interstate. I am informed that presold tickets were up 52 per cent on the previous year, 21 per cent of which were sold interstate or overseas. The amount advanced by Queensland Events was well and truly worth while from the point of view of bringing economic activity from outside the state to a major regional centre. Quite apart from the religious but important significance of the occasion, particularly as it relates to young people, the festival raised the profile of Toowoomba both interstate and internationally whilst at the same time reinforcing Toowoomba's reputation for containing a high proportion of people who have a reputation for religious observance. The festival is the largest of its type held in Australia, and the economic impact to Toowoomba itself from that weekend is estimated at $2.2 million, which was up 22 per cent on the $1.8 million of last year. The special attraction was titled the Main Event, which was held on the Saturday night and included US artist David Meece, who joined legendary trumpeter James Morrison and his entire band, which was by far the biggest and most impressive Main Event ever. I congratulate all concerned on their superb efforts and thank the Premier and the government for their significant support. Finally, I wish to speak on the launch of the Southern Queensland Exporting to the World Awards, which I attended at Jimbour House, near Dalby, recently. The Exporting to the World Awards is Queensland's highest recognition of exporting achievement. I pay tribute to the host, Mr David Russell, and his brother, Alec, for their hospitality on that occasion. The awards reward individual and corporate excellence. They publicly recognise the talent and innovative spirit of the state's and region's top exporters. The number of exporters across Queensland has increased. In our area, an extra 12 local firms have entered the exporting arena. The Beattie state government is committed to increasing the level of exports from Queensland. The Department of State Development in Toowoomba is committed to assisting eight businesses to become new exporters each year for the next two years, and it is working hard to achieve this figure. I commend Royce Brown and his staff at the Department of State Development in Toowoomba in that regard. We will not stop there, though. We are determined to do more, because exports mean jobs. One in five jobs in this state is export related, a proportion that rises to one in four in regional Queensland. Time expired.

Mining Leases, Shelburne Bay Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.27 p.m.): During the last parliamentary sitting, we debated the Land Legislation Amendment Bill and I spoke specifically about the cancellation of 1690 Matters of Public Interest 13 May 2003 two current mining leases with no payment of compensation at all to the owners of those leases. As the only voice raised against the destruction of the legitimately held mining leases covering part of a single dune at Shelburne, it was inevitable that my comments would draw a response from members opposite. That was to be expected, but I was surprised at the childish level of some of those responses. I believe very serious issues on several levels should have been the subject of considered debate. That is the way I approached the matter. My comments about the state of the dunes, their activity and their effect on the surrounding environment were 100 per cent correct and were drawn from a scientific and environmental impact statement. My comments were not taken from a television documentary, nor were they based on consultation that never actually took place. They were based on fact—something sadly lacking from both the government and the National Party- led opposition during the debate. Well might the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines refer to my contribution as unique. It was certainly the only one based on the facts. Looking at the issues through green-tinted glasses does not change the truth, and the truth is that the dune concerned is blowing into the ocean. It is all in the report. If we were talking about something that had a chance of being around in 100, 200 or more years, I might have thought differently about the issue. However, we were not. In the foreseeable future this dune will be gone and in the process it will have destroyed seagrass beds so vital to our dugong, as I outlined during the debate. Since the debate during the previous sitting, I have been provided with more information about the potential of Shelburne Bay as a mining operation. I am advised by highly experienced and informed people that the value of the silica sands in the area covered by the leases is conservatively estimated at between $1 billion and $5 billion at today's prices. Members opposite seemed to take great delight in saying they were ready to put the environment before revenue, that is, before royalties from mining activity. Mr Lawlor: We were supported by the opposition as well. Ms LEE LONG: That was a position supported by the Nationals and the Liberals; I agree. When our hospitals are stressed, when the Health Minister says an extra $500 million in her budget would go a long way towards solving problems, it is clear that it is not simply revenue that this government is prepared to ditch in favour of a disappearing sand dune; it is the lives of Queenslanders also. It is the lives of Queenslanders. How many Queensland lives will be lost because a potentially massive revenue stream from Shelburne royalties has been passed over in favour of a sand dune that is blowing away in the wind? We have all heard about the plague of waiting periods now facing Queensland hospital users. Revenue from a project such as silica sandmining at Shelburne, providing it was not spent on yet more bridges across the Brisbane River, could bring benefits right across Queensland. Our primary industries are under great pressure. Our hospitals, schools—all of those state services that are under stress or vanishing altogether especially in rural Queensland—could have instead received better resources. But as this government and this opposition have both indicated, windblown sand is more important to them than providing proper services to Queenslanders. It cannot be argued that the cape will benefit from the tourist attractions provided by the Shelburne dunes because, as I have said, the stable dunes are too fragile to withstand the impact of tourist visitations. It is all in this impact study. It was disappointing that the National Party, the supposed party of the bush, stood up in this place and supported legislation that stripped away legitimately held leases and supported the specific provision that no compensation be paid. I believe that was all the evidence and more that anyone could want to prove that, under the new coalition, they are nothing more than Liberals in Akubras. For the information of the House, or at least those members who are interested in fact and not the kind of fiction that we saw peddled at the last sittings, I seek leave to table the environmental impact statement to which I have referred. Leave granted. Ms LEE LONG: I urge all members of this House to read it and inform themselves of the true facts in relation to the two mining leases at Shelburne Bay. 13 May 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1691

Hendra Secondary College Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (12.31 p.m.): A fantastic initiative has been developed and implemented by the multipathways school, Hendra Secondary College, which is in the electorate of Clayfield, under the great leadership of the principal, Mr Shane Baker. Hendra Secondary College is one of three such institutions within the Queensland state education system that combines adolescent and adult students attending over a flexible and extended day as either full- or part-time students. Underpinning every aspect of this college's development plan is the aim to create a flexible school where a quality years 8 to 12 secondary education is provided for adolescents and mature-age persons. Another milestone that the college has achieved is the collaboration with its staff and Griffith University School of Education, in particular Brendan Bartlett, to create an integrated literacy unit for year 8 students in 2003 with a primary focus on paragraph writing and public speaking. Driven by Susan Smith, Brenda Milinovich and Anita Drew, the aim of this program is the rejuvenation of literacy in all classrooms across all departments and the provision of professional development opportunities for staff. This includes supporting staff in the implementation of outcomes based methodology of pedagogy and assessment and integrating across departmental lines. In order to achieve this, teachers must be holding meaningful professional conversations using a common language of pedagogy and assessment. The representatives of all departments who currently form Hendra Secondary College's literacy committee are provided professional development opportunities to become teacher mentors for the advancement of the school's vision. This will enable staff members to provide leadership within their teaching teams and the wider school community. The program enables staff to participate in a full-day conference with a tertiary educator mentor. This is followed up by an ongoing process of professional development to ensure the sustainability of learning innovation, with the tertiary educator taking the role of critical friend. This critical friend will be involved in leading workshops with the school's staff as well as inviting staff from neighbouring schools who are involved in the project to share these workshops. The initial planning for the integrated literacy unit involved teachers from the English, social sciences, science, mathematics, art, music, support, drama, physical education, manual arts, business, technology, home economics and resource centre departments. Each department shared their year 8 program for term 1 in order to identify a common thread between all of the programs. This process resulted in the development of a murder crime mystery for the school. I even had an opportunity to be a part of the story line. The murder mystery involved the discovery of a body found— Mr Lucas: I hope you didn't get killed off. Ms LIDDY CLARK: I ask the member to wait; there is more. The murder mystery involved the discovery of a body found in the school grounds whereby the students would be taken to the scene to observe the initial investigation and complete subsequent work in participating subject areas to use information pertaining to this event. A list of necessary forensic evidence was devised by each department. The principal, Shane Baker, was nominated for the role of the victim, Harry Hendra. The planning of the actual scenario was left to a small group to organise, which was keen to involve the participation of people from the wider community. These included the principal as the victim, the groundsman, the principal's secretary, a deputy principal, the police, staff members, qualified solicitors and one head of department as the keeper of the secret. I was called into the school during the murder mystery as my business card was found at the scene of the crime. Therefore, I had to speak with the school solicitor about my rights before speaking with the police to discuss my role as a state politician. This pilot unit is a fantastic model to develop a whole-of-school approach to lifelong learning. This model provides great opportunities of dialogue, critical discussion and an exchange of ideas between staff, students and the community. Most importantly, it provides a wonderful opening to form new relationships in and outside the school and the surrounding community. I congratulate the following students who won various awards: Sara Law, for solving the mystery; Natalie Hyde, for her overall written presentation; Madison Dubar, for art; Tanya Herne, for mathematics; Jake Taylor, for social studies; Samantha Smith, for computer education; Nick Knight, for drama; Rosemary Dennis for the best profile; and Lukas Weiser, for science. I also want to congratulate the key stakeholders who initiated and participated in this fabulous initiative. The result: Harry Hendra died of a heart attack. 1692 Gaming Machine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! The time for matters of public interest has expired.

GAMING MACHINE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (12.36 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Gaming Machine Act 1991 and the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003. Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER read a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending the necessary appropriation.

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

Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (12.37 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The bill I present to the House today amends the Gaming Machine Act 1991 to implement the scheme for the reallocation of gaming machines within the statewide cap on hotels. In 8 May 2001, I announced a statewide cap on the total number of gaming machines in hotels. Since that date, other than for a few sites to which very restricted transitional arrangements applied, it has not been possible for a hotel to obtain more gaming machines. My announcement was a clear statement of the government's view that firm measures needed to be taken to stop the proliferation of gaming machines in Queensland. At the same time, the government recognised the need for hoteliers to respond to the changes in demographic patterns in Queensland through permitting the movement of machines to areas of demand, albeit within a social policy context. Consequently, in announcing the statewide cap, I also announced that a scheme for reallocating gaming machines within the cap would be developed in consultation with the hotel industry. The bill that I present today provides for that reallocation scheme. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. This scheme will pave the way for hotels to acquire gaming machines when other hotels in their region close or reduce their number of machines. The re-allocation scheme will achieve this by establishing the concept of what will be termed operating authorities. Authorities will be associated with each currently approved gaming machine and may be traded within each of three designated regions across the state. I wish to make it clear that the state-wide cap on the number of gaming machines in hotels still stands and the scheme will continue to give effect to the existing cap of 18,843 machines in hotels. These legislative changes will simply enable hotels seeking to install machines or to install an increased number of machines to purchase the necessary authorities to do so, but only where other hotels have decided to reduce their approved number of gaming machines and hence authorities. This will ensure that machine numbers can not exceed the state-wide cap. Prior to examining the bill in detail, I will provide an overview of the principal elements of the re-allocation scheme. As background, the scheme recognises that the holder of a gaming machine licence—the licensee—is the person responsible for the conduct of machine gaming and is therefore the person responsible for decisions regarding the number of machines at the site. The scheme is also designed to be an addition to, rather than an alteration of the existing act. That is, it does not change the underlying requirement for licensees or applicants for licences to first obtain approval from the Queensland gaming commission. The scheme only applies to category 1 licensees. Category 1 licensees are defined in the act and relate primarily to hotels. The scheme itself involves the creation of authorities. 13 May 2003 Gaming Machine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1693

Gaming machine licensees will be required to possess sufficient authorities in order to install and operate gaming machines. Initially, there will be one authority allocated by the Queensland office of gaming regulation for each approved gaming machine attached to each existing gaming machine licence and authorities will be shown on the gaming machine licence. The scheme establishes three geographic regions. The south-east region covers from the New South Wales border north to Noosa and west to just outside Gatton. The coastal region includes Torres Strait to just north of Noosa to around the dividing ranges. The western area is, not surprisingly, the area generally west of the divide. The regions each comprise a number of statistical divisions, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Authorities will be tradeable but trading will only be permitted within each region. This is intended to prevent the drift of machines (and the facilities which they support) from country areas to the city. There will be government oversight of the sale process and sales will occur via a tender. The scheme requires a commission to be paid to the government as part of the sale of each authority through the tender process. There will be restrictions on the number of authorities sites may trade each year and sites will only be able to make one sale in every 12 month period. This is essential to prevent speculative trading in authorities. Finally and importantly, transitional arrangements will ensure that landlords and lessees under the scheme can speedily resolve disagreements over the initial allocation of authorities through a relatively low cost, non- confrontational dispute resolution process. I will now discuss the principal elements of the bill in more detail. Preliminary/pre-requisites Clause 7 restores the ability to apply for a gaming machine licence for a category 1 licensed premises, which are primarily hotels. Similarly, clause 12 will restore the ability of category 1 licensees to apply for an increase in approved gaming machines. Whilst these restorations will take place, I must stress that the role of the Queensland Gaming Commission in the current licensing approval process remains unchanged. That is, all applications for gaming machine licences or applications for an increase in machine numbers will still have to be approved by the commission. Importantly, the act will continue to require that applications for new licences or for significant increases in gaming machine numbers, must be accompanied by a community impact statement and a statement of responsible gambling initiatives. Also, the commission will continue to turn its mind to ensuring that the public benefit from machine gaming is maintained. This may involve rejecting or reducing applications in areas which the commission considers have too high a density of machines for the social situation of the area. Clause 6 inserts a new section which gives the chief executive the ability to issue guidelines, just as the commission can now do. This will give hoteliers a clear and consistent indication of how the chief executive will deal with matters affecting them. The new section 109a provides that the number of the state-wide cap, which is 18,843, will be set by regulation. I need to advise members that the Queensland Gaming Commission will be able to approve any number of machines for new or existing sites, but only 18,843 authorities will exist to be used by hotels. Consequently, at any time the number of approved machines may exceed the cap number, however, only the number of machines equal to the cap number can be installed and operated. Initial allocation The new sections 408-413 will provide for the initial allocation of authorities to existing hotels with gaming machines. Under the scheme, gaming machine licensees will need to register in relation to an allocation of authorities in order to initiate the scheme and the initial allocation of authorities will be free of charge. As soon as the bill commences, the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation will write to each category 1 licensee enclosing a registration form. Among other matters, the form will require licensees to disclose information about whether they operate the site under an agreement with a landlord. In such cases, the completed form must include a statement about whether or not the parties have reached agreement regarding dealing with authorities. This information will be essential to determine if parties will progress into the dispute resolution process created by the bill. 1694 Gaming Machine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

Consequently, a range of penalties will be able to be imposed for licensees who fail to return the registration form within 28 days of receipt of the form. The Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation will allocate authorities on the day the amendments commence. As provided in the new section 413, the allocated number of authorities will be shown on gaming machine licences. The re-issued licences will then state the number of authorities and the region in which the premises are located. The region is important for sale purposes and I will discuss this later. Dispute resolution process During the 28 days given to return the registration form, licensees who have arrangements with landlords should also be attempting to reach agreement with the hotel owners. I strongly urge licensees to commence these discussions as soon as possible and I am aware that some such negotiations are already under way. Licensees who fail to reach agreement will progress into the dispute resolution process created by the bill. Any mechanism for allocating authorities will be considered by some parties to be unfair. In this regard, I have already publicly stated that no-one will be worse off than they are currently. Conversely the scheme is not designed to be a get-rich-quick scheme. Notwithstanding the view that parties in dispute should resolve the matter through normal commercial negotiations, I have recognised that a small number of people may not be able to achieve this. Consequently, for a transitional period the bill creates a simple, speedy and relatively low cost process for resolving disputes thereby saving parties from having to pursue unresolved issues through the courts. The new section 416 provides that where parties remain in dispute, either party can apply to the, to be newly created, Commercial and Consumer Tribunal to have the matter resolved. The new section 417 then imposes a requirement that all disputes are first forwarded for resolution via mediation. Parties will also be required to pay an upfront fee for the use of the mediation service. Compulsory mediation in other jurisdictions has been shown to have a very high level of success in finalising disputes as it is a non-confrontational opportunity for parties to reach agreement between themselves with the advantage of an independent facilitator. If the parties are unable to reach a mediated agreement and the dispute remains unresolved, the matter will then be referred to the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal and they will be required to pay most of the costs of the tribunal. The tribunal will have the power to make enforceable orders about disputes arising from the initial allocation of authorities. After completion of the transitional dispute resolution phase, future arrangements between the lessors and lessees of hotels approved for gaming machines will need to be resolved through negotiations prior to entering into a lease, as is appropriate for arrangements which are fundamentally commercial rather than regulatory in nature. Also, any disputes will then be progressed through the usual court system. Changes in ownership As the purpose of the scheme is to enable authorities (and hence machines) to be re-allocated, the bill provides a number of circumstances where authorities can change hands. Firstly, the bill compels the forfeiture of authorities to the government without compensation, in situations of non- compliance with the general requirements of the act. Some examples of where this may occur include where the gaming machine licence expires, the licence lapses because the licensee has not started to conduct gaming on the licensed premises, the licence is cancelled, and so on. Secondly, clause 10 of the bill enables authorities to effectively transfer from an existing licensee to the next licensee at the same premises. This will provide certainty for potential new lessees and for purchasers of hotels. I must stress that this "transfer" will only occur for a change of licensees at the same premises. It will not permit authorities to move between sites held by the same licensee. The third way authorities can be re-allocated is where licensees obtain an approval from the chief executive to decrease the approved number of gaming machines or where licensees decide to surrender their licences. In this third case, authorities must be sold. The bill also enables decreases and surrenders to be made subject to the sale of authorities. Sale process The sale process will be overseen by the government and will occur via a tender. A number of restrictions have been placed on the sale of authorities in order to prevent unintended negative consequences arising from implementation of the scheme. The restrictions include providing that the authorities for a site may only be sold once per year, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Also, no more than 50% of authorities for a site will be able to be sold in a single sale. This means that, in general, a site will be required to sell over a two to seven year period in order to fully exit the gaming machine industry. 13 May 2003 Gaming Machine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1695

If licensees want to sell more than 50%, they will be required to surrender their licence and thereby sell all of their authorities. Limiting the number of authorities that can be sold will provide a very strong disincentive for speculative trading in authorities. It is intended to ensure that authorities are sold only where a licensee decides that a site no longer needs the number of gaming machines that it has. It will prevent licensees selling when prices are high on the basis that they could buy authorities again in a low price market. In addition, limits on sales will help prevent rapid reductions in gaming machines in areas where gaming machines provide a much appreciated form of entertainment, such as in rural and regional Queensland. Sales will be held by tender rather than by direct sales between licensees. This will continue to ensure the integrity and probity of machine gaming and will prevent the entry of unlicensed persons obtaining any advantage from machine gaming. Separate tenders will be held in each region. The regions, which I outlined earlier, will be defined in the regulation and are based on groupings of the 11 statistical divisions for Queensland. Only licensees located within the relevant region will be able to sell in that region. This geographic restriction shows commitment to the government's priority of 'building and maintaining Queensland's regions'. Confining sales to the regions will prevent a drift of machines from rural and regional areas to the south-east. This will also prevent the denuding of rural areas of not just gaming machines, but also the social interaction that is available as part of the whole entertainment package provided by gaming machines. The bill provides for a commission on the sale of authorities. This will discourage speculative behaviour. It will also discourage rapid sales of all authorities held by a licensee and thereby help to maintain a relatively stable gaming machine industry in Queensland. A commission rate of 33% will be charged for reductions of authorities where the licensee continues to operate gaming machines. A commission of 50% will be charged where a hotel wishes to exit the industry and must therefore sell all of its authorities. The commission will be paid into the existing community investment fund and will therefore be available to fund social and community programs of state-wide significance. The price of all authorities sold will be averaged and licensees disposing of authorities will receive the amount proportionate to the number of authorities being sold on their behalf, less the commission payable to the government. Since 8 may 2001, licensees have made decisions that have reduced their number of approved machines. Consequently, there will be a gap between the cap and the number of authorities that will be issued to licensees. The government will use those government-held authorities to start the sale process in the first part of 2004. I am aware that a number of hoteliers have been eagerly awaiting the start of the scheme so they may seek new licences or increases in machine numbers. Thus, for the start of the scheme, the government will provide everyone across the state with the same opportunity to purchase the government's authorities by conducting a one-off state-wide sale of those authorities. Purchase The new section 109C created by the bill places some limits on buying authorities. Firstly, it confines purchasers to those people who are category 1 licensees. Secondly, only licensees who hold approval for gaming machines in excess of the number of authorities endorsed on the gaming machine licence will be able to purchase authorities. Thirdly, licensees will only be able to buy, via the tender process, from sellers located in the same region that their hotel is located in. In addition, bidders will only be permitted to lodge one bid at one price for the total number of authorities that they wish to purchase. Finally, licensees will continue to be required to install their gaming machines within 6 to 12 months of approval by the Queensland gaming commission for an increase in gaming machines or a new site, respectively. Thus, it will be important for licensees to accurately project the number of machines they really require, given the number of authorities they will need to purchase before buying the physical gaming machines. Ongoing The bill provides for forfeiture to the government of authorities if, at any time, the number of authorities exceeds the number of approved machines for a site. Similarly, penalties apply if operating machines exceed the number of authorities for a site. The bill also incorporates a provision for the government to review the operation of the scheme after it has been operating for a 2 year period. 1696 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

The bill also provides for a prescribed amount per authority to be appropriated from the monthly gaming machine taxes from hotels in order to offset the extra costs which will be incurred by the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation in administering the scheme. Conclusion In conclusion, the scheme has been developed via a process of extensive consultation with the hotel industry. Importantly, no hotelier will be worse off under this scheme, although some may be better off. The scheme allows for an orderly re-allocation of gaming machines in hotels. It is not a get-rich-quick scheme for hoteliers. I believe we have achieved a balance which will enable the industry to reallocate gaming machines and continue to provide this service to the community within the government's objective of slowing the growth of gaming machines in Queensland. In looking to the future, it may also be possible that the cap may need to be increased in line with population growth and the bill provides for this. Without such a possibility the cost of authorities may be artificially inflated because the number of authorities available would effectively be reduced over time. Mr Speaker, Queensland has already set the benchmark for other states by introducing responsible gambling initiatives such as the responsible gambling code of practice for every gambling venue in Queensland and expanding the provision of services for problem gamblers. The scheme implemented by this bill continues the government's calm measured approach to gambling responsibly. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

EVIDENCE (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.39 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the criminal law, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.39 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. We all agree the sexual abuse of a child is the most abhorrent of crimes. Last year, our government responded to the growing community concerns about these horrific crimes when we began a major overhaul of Queensland's laws against child sex offenders. The first stage of those reforms was the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act. Today, I introduce the second stage—the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. This bill deals with the way the criminal justice system treats child witnesses. It is a significant initiative that delivers on this government's priorities of building safer and more supportive communities and delivering a better quality of life to all Queenslanders. It implements recommendations made by the Queensland Law Reform Commission's report on the evidence of children and the Australian Law Reform Commission and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Report No. 84, Seen and heard: Priority for children in the legal process. The bill has benefited from a long process of consultation with key stakeholders including the judiciary, the legal profession and advocates for children and young people. I want to publicly thank all those who have contributed to its development. These reforms represent a sea change in the way the criminal justice system deals with child sex abuse. They will completely change the environment for children in the Queensland criminal justice system. There are some very practical changes to the ways in which a child gives evidence, combined with significant amendments to the laws of evidence and the trial process. This will make our courts more sensitive when dealing with children who are victims or witnesses and will ensure the legal process does not add to their stress or suffering. At the same time, by 13 May 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 1697 limiting the trauma and distress for a child appearing in court, we will improve the reliability of evidence. The reforms aim to ensure: ¥ that a child should not have to give evidence more than once; ¥ that measures to reduce stress when evidence is required should be used where possible; and, ¥ that trials should be resolved as quickly as possible. These reforms do not compromise the right of an accused to a fair trial, nor do they lessen the high standard of proof required to gain a conviction. However, they recognise that a witness giving evidence in court—particularly a child witness—is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, I will now outline the bill in more detail. There is a new division 4A inserted into the Evidence Act 1977 to introduce a number of special measures for the giving of evidence by an 'affected child'. This is a child under 16 who is a witness in criminal or civil proceedings that deals with a sexual or violent offence. A young person aged 16 or 17 who satisfies the definition of a 'special witness' under the existing section 21A of the Evidence Act 1977, is also an 'affected child'. Mr Speaker, subdivision 2 limits the circumstances under which an affected child may be required to attend to give evidence at a committal proceeding. With the exception of Western Australia, which has abolished committals altogether, all other Australian jurisdictions retain the committal process. However, in nearly all jurisdictions, the calling of oral evidence at committals is restricted, either in relation to calling any oral evidence from any witness, or just in relation to particular witnesses (for example, children). Queensland remains the only state where the committal process is unrestricted in relation to children. The amendments contemplate that the child's evidence in chief will be given by a written or recorded statement (taken before the committal). The child can only be cross-examined at the committal if the magistrate is satisfied that the defendant has: ¥ identified an issue to which the proposed questioning relates; ¥ provided a reason why the evidence of the witness is relevant to the issue; ¥ explained why the evidence disclosed by the prosecution or before the court does not address the issue; and ¥ identified the purpose and general nature of the questions to be put to the witness to address the issue. The magistrate must also be satisfied that the 'interests of justice' cannot adequately be served by leaving cross- examination of the affected child about the issue to the trial. In considering the 'interests of justice' and whether cross-examination at committal is justified, the court must consider whether the case for the prosecution is adequately disclosed and whether the charge is adequately particularised. The magistrate must also have regard to the vulnerability of children and the undesirability of requiring a child to be cross-examined at the committal. Once at the committal, cross-examination does not then become a 'free for all'. The witness cannot be cross-examined in respect of matters that were not the subject of leave, unless further leave is sought. Also, the magistrate must not permit cross-examination to continue to the extent that it appears irrelevant to the issue, or consists of a 'fishing expedition'. The magistrate must also disallow questions that offend against existing sections 20 (cross-examination as to credit) or 21 (improper questions). This will ensure that cross-examination about credit at the committal can only be directed at issues that materially impair the reliability of the witness. Magistrates are also required to expressly prohibit repetitive and intimidating cross-examination. There is no limitation on the right to cross-examine an affected child at the trial. Research has found that delays in the court processes increase the stress experienced by child witnesses. New subdivision 3 creates a scheme for the pre-recording of a child's evidence at a preliminary or pre-trial hearing. There is a presumption in favour of pre-recording the affected child's evidence. This forms part of our government's strategy to reduce delays for matters involving children. The amendments provide that once a committal has occurred, and an indictment presented, the child's evidence for trial can actually be taken and recorded well prior to the trial, in a pre-trial hearing. The pre-recorded tape of the evidence from the preliminary hearing is used at the trial before the jury so that, ordinarily, the child need not appear. 1698 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

The preliminary hearing will be under the control of the judge, with prosecution and defence counsel present. The jury will be the only group absent. As for closed circuit television (or CCTV), the child will generally give evidence from a remote room with the judge, counsel and the accused in the court. The pre-recording can take place at another location if the court of trial does not have the facilities to pre-record. A court may order that pre-recording need not occur, for example, in cases where there is no delay in the matter coming before the court. Pre-recording is also available for committal proceedings, if an affected child is required to give evidence. This scheme is modelled on the scheme operating successfully in Western Australia since 1992. Subdivision 4 provides for the mandatory use of audiovisual links (such as CCTV), where available, or screens, when a child gives evidence, unless the child chooses to give evidence in the traditional manner. Where CCTV has been used, the proceeding will also be recorded, and the tape is admissible as the child's evidence in the event of any retrial or rehearing. The provision recognises that CCTV facilities will not always be available, in which case a screen, must be used, unless the child chooses give evidence without it. The advantage of using these facilities is that trauma to vulnerable witnesses is minimised. New subdivision 5 contains a number of general provisions relating to the evidence of affected child witnesses. Section 21AZ requires a court to exclude non-essential persons from the court room in which a child is giving evidence about a sexual offence. For an offence of violence, the court must exclude non-essential persons, unless satisfied that the interests of justice require the evidence to be heard in open court. 'Essential persons' include the parties and their representatives, court staff, and a support person for the witness. Under section 21AV an affected child is entitled to have a support person within reasonable physical proximity and within the child's sight while the child is giving evidence. The new division also contains a number of procedural matters, such as controlling access to tapes, editing of tapes, admissibility of tapes on a retrial, and other related matters. The amendments to the Evidence Act 1977 also include amendments of more general application. The new division 1B sets out the principles to be applied when a court is dealing with a child witness. The bill also makes a number of amendments to existing sections of the Evidence Act 1977, including: ¥ extending the application of section 93A (use of out-of-court statements) to all children under 16, as well as to 16 or 17 years olds who are also special witnesses under section 21A; ¥ removing the requirement in section 93A that a statement made to someone other than a person investigating must be made soon after the occurrence of the fact; ¥ amending the definition of special witness in section 21A to include a child under 16 (at present the age limit is 12); and ¥ giving the court a power to limit the questioning of a special witness by time or the number of questions asked on a given issue. The tests for competency to give sworn and unsworn evidence have been revised in line with the recommendations of the Queensland Law Reform Commission. The bill also amends a number of other criminal statutes with respect to sexual offences. The new section 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 abolishes the recent complaint rule, a rule applying to trials of sexual offences. The recent complaint rule says that evidence of complaint (how, when and to whom the person first complained) is only admissible where the complaint is recent, that is, when it is made at the first reasonable opportunity. The rule requires judges to direct juries to question the credibility of a complainant who does not immediately report sexual abuse. The rule is based on the law's assumption that a victim of a sexual offence will complain at the first opportunity. However studies have consistently shown that an early complaint is not usual and many victims will make no formal complaint at all. The Project Axis inquiry found about half of the victims of child sexual abuse never report the abuse; less than a fifth of those who report to police at all do so within a month of the incident; and many will not disclose information about the incident until they reach adulthood. Children who are the victims of abuse from family members or other trusted adults are even less likely than adults to complain at the first reasonable opportunity. The assumption behind the recent complaint rule has been criticised by many eminent judges including members of the Queensland Court of Appeal. As well, courts recognise that it is of assistance to juries to know how and when any complaint about the conduct of the accused first emerged, regardless of when the complaint was made. The changes in section 4A of the bill are as follows. Firstly, evidence of complaint may be admitted regardless of when the complaint was made. 13 May 2003 Valuation of Land Amendment Bill 1699

Secondly, a judge is not to warn or suggest to the jury that the law regards the evidence of a complainant to be more or less reliable based only on the length of time between the alleged commission of the offence and the making of the complaint. Section 4A clarifies that nothing in the provision derogates from the court's powers to exclude evidence if it would be unfair to admit the evidence; nor does it preclude the making of any other comment that is required by law or that it is appropriate to make in the interests of justice. It is not intended to prevent judges from identifying to juries any prejudicial effect on a defendant because of a delay in complaint (such as an inability to call alibi evidence), or in pointing to any deficiencies in a complainant's evidence occasioned by delay. Such directions are required by the High Court's decision in Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, and similar cases, and are not being overturned by this amendment. In simple terms, what the court cannot do is suggest that the law regards a complainant to be more or less reliable based solely on the timing of the complaint without consideration of the facts of the particular case. An amendment to section 349 of the Criminal Code creates an irrebuttable presumption that a child under the age of 12 years of age cannot consent to sexual intercourse and penetration. This amendment will ensure that conduct that is charged as rape for adult victims, such as non-penile penetration, will be also charged as rape for children under the age of 12 years, instead of under the lesser offence of indecent dealing with a child. As well as these significant reforms relating to the evidence of children and to sexual offences, the bill also sets out a comprehensive codified regime for prosecution disclosure. Until now there has been no easily referenced code setting out these rules. The disclosure regime in the proposed bill ensures a balance between the need to fully inform the defence as to the Crown case (including possible exculpatory evidence); and the need to ensure that the safety of particular individuals, the integrity of exhibits, and the security of the state are not compromised. Other miscellaneous amendments in the bill also strengthen child protection mechanisms, give greater rights to victims of crime, and improve the processes of the criminal justice system. The bill removes the marital communications privilege and ensuring married spouses can be compelled by the court to give evidence about each other through amendments to sections 8 & 11 of the Evidence Act. Defacto partners do not currently have this privilege. There is real concern that this privilege has allowed abusive husbands to pressure their wives into withholding evidence about their abuse of children. The bill also gives greater rights to victims of crime. The bill allows a judge in a criminal proceeding conducted in the Children's Court, to have the power to permit persons with a proper interest in the matter (that is, victims of crime) to be present—provided that the child's interest is not prejudiced (section 20(2)(d) Children's Court Act 1992). The bill ensures that applicants for admission as a barrister, solicitor or judge's associate must disclose all contraventions of the law in Queensland or elsewhere (section 9A of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986). Finally, the bill makes a range of procedural changes to criminal justice processes to ensure the efficient operation of trials and appeals. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

VALUATION OF LAND AMENDMENT BILL Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (12.43 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Valuation of Land Act 1944. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (12.43 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The legislation before the House proposes to amend the Valuation of Land Act 1944. This legislation is about making a small but significant change to the way property can be valued, and it is particularly relevant to the way shopping centres are valued. 1700 Valuation of Land Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

Under current legislation, the tangible improvements—things like buildings, car parks, and transport infrastructure; the bricks and mortar of a property—have been allowable deductions from improved value when using the proviso method of valuation. The legislation before the House will extend that provision to allow intangible improvements to be deducted—that is, things like goodwill, brand recognition, tenant mix and added value gained from marketing and promotions. Statutory valuations provide the base for collecting local government rates, land tax and land rental. It is a system operating on a presumption of equity and fairness for public revenue collection. It is with this aim in mind that I bring these amendments before the House. This legislation addresses the complex issue of 'intangible improvements', such as goodwill, brand recognition, and architecture on properties and the best way to include these improvements in valuations. This is an interesting issue, and one that has been the subject of some public debate. Concerns were raised by stakeholders about significant increases in the valuations of shopping centres across the state. The shopping centres we are talking about are the major developments we are so familiar with here in south-east Queensland; big centres like Carindale, Indooroopilly and Garden City in Brisbane, Pacific Fair on the Gold Coast, and Clifford Gardens in Toowoomba. These huge developments of stores operating under a single management approach are a recent phenomenon—not even thought of when this original act was made law. Alongside tangible improvements to the land in these centres, there is an intangible element—that is, all tenants benefit from things like the name recognition, the broad design, the integrated mix of tenants and the general services of the complex. These non-physical improvements are addressed by this amendment. When we talk about valuing these properties, we need to ensure balance between what is fair to the owner, based on the property value, and what is fair to other property owners, based on a general concept of equity. This legislation, like my department, plays no role in taxing or rating. Its sole responsibility lies in assessing the value of property on which these measures rely. When we are talking about unimproved valuations, it is important to remember that unimproved value does not even include the value of excavation or fill on a property, let alone other major improvements. The definition of unimproved value in our legislation was developed with some foresight, recognising that then, and into the future, valuers would need to rely on sales information not only from unimproved land but also from improved land. This definition recognises that while we are looking at unimproved value there will not always be enough land sales—usually vacant land—for comparison. This allows valuers to determine unimproved value from market evidence of either improved or unimproved land. In determining which consideration should be used, the legislation provides the proviso method, which states that 'the unimproved value shall in no case be less than the sum that would be obtained by deducting the value of improvements from the improved value of the land'. So, while valuations might be conducted using information from improved and unimproved land, the final, prevailing valuation will always be equal to or greater than one obtained by deducting improvements from improved value. Do my department's valuers consider two valuations of every property and reject the lesser valuation? In reality my valuers, who are responsible for the valuations of over 1.3 million properties across Queensland, have developed efficient practices recognising situations when the proviso method of valuation might be used—recognising that appeal processes through the Land Court will test such presumptions with more thorough review. An assessment of the proviso method has shown that it is only likely to prevail where there are no comparable sales of unimproved land, or where the value of the land is very different to surrounding land under different use. While this approach is regularly applied on rural land, a second major situation where these conditions apply has been recently identified—major shopping centres. Those centres involved are mainly major centres in prime locations, where an extensive vacant site would be seen by the market as a top investment, or in the words of recent Land Court decisions 'ripe for development'. A recent move to apply the proviso method to these properties led to sharp valuation increases. The legislation before the House reflects a refinement to ensure that the application of this method is appropriate, providing a balance between fairness to the property owner and the public as a whole. These amendments combine good policy and process, and cover the improved value, the improvements, the implementation process, and transitional arrangements. 13 May 2003 Community Ambulance Cover Bill 1701

The first change clarifies the definition of improved value. The Land Court in Queensland questioned the application of this definition, and has suggested possible wording for such changes. I am taking this opportunity to deliver a change that will ensure that this bill operates within a more practical legislative framework. Another part of this legislation addresses the vexing issue of getting adequate information for accurate valuations. I trust that agreed information sharing arrangements will see a greater level of cooperation between government valuers and commercial enterprises. A broader potential application relates to rural land. For rural land valued using the proviso method, there is the long-term potential for incentives for good land management. This means that, if a property can demonstrate a market advantage through its reputation for good land management, its unimproved valuation may be reduced accordingly. Intangible improvements are, by definition, difficult to define and quantify. They involve non- physical improvements made by an owner that make a business more profitable—benefits like the name of a centre or goodwill or increased value from having a good variety and combination of tenants—something that separates the top performing centres from the pack. It is easy to see the benefit of these improvements but assessing them is more difficult. Such an assessment cannot solely focus on how much a developer has spent; the issue is more about the added value delivered by the spending. To ensure smooth and effective implementation, this legislation specifies that owners will be responsible for providing details of improvements prior to valuation. We are proposing to regulate to set a cap of 20 per cent of improved value on the intangible component. We see this cap as being an 'industry benchmark'. However, specific industry data on this issue has not yet been made available by the landowners, so a range of factors have been taken into account to set the initial cap. Consideration has been given to expert evidence and advice on this issue, as well as approaches in other jurisdictions and information on just how the value in a property is spread—all of which support the conclusion that a 20 per cent cap is the best and fairest option available to us right now. It is important to remember that this is a first step. As more information becomes available, information that is not currently provided by the industry, we will be able to calculate and refine a more rigorous industry benchmark through regulation. Let us put into context what this cap will look like. For example, a centre with an improved value of around $450 million could claim up to $90 million in intangible improvements to reduce a valuation conducted under the proviso method. This highlights the fact that governments have a responsibility not to introduce perverse incentives—in this case an incentive to encourage overcapitalisation of investment properties. Finally, this legislation ensures that these changes will be retrospective and apply to currently issued valuations. This will allow affected properties to be reassessed under the new system, ensuring fair application of this provision to all. Similarly, the time frames for land-holders to provide necessary information will be relaxed for valuations issued in 2004. Our approach here is supported by national developments in the field of valuations, including the oft-cited High Court decision on Maurici last February. This decision related to a valuation in Sydney's prestigious Hunter's Hill. The court found that the property had been overvalued through a method that used data from a very limited number of vacant sites. The scarcity value of these properties, where vacant land is valued upwards of $2 million, created artificially high valuations. The court recommended that, in making valuations, information from both unimproved and improved land should be used, and this legislation allows Queensland to do this more effectively in appropriate cases. This might appear to be a simple amendment. However, it represents a significant and progressive change to our current legislation and has the potential to offer broad benefits to a wide range of Queenslanders in the future. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER BILL Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (12.53 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to provide for a community ambulance cover levy, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to. 1702 Community Ambulance Cover Bill 13 May 2003

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

Second Reading Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (12.53 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) has a long and proud history in this state and delivers a world-class ambulance service to the people of Queensland. Independent national and state reports on government services recognise these standards. QAS response times are amongst the best in the nation, despite Queensland experiencing the highest rate of demand per head of population. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates are high, and more than 98 per cent of all Queensland patients identify they are satisfied or very satisfied with their ambulance service. Since coming to office, the Beattie Labor government has demonstrated its commitment to the Ambulance Service by providing $297.7 million in additional funds to the QAS. This bill continues that commitment to the QAS and the people of Queensland. It ensures all Queenslanders will continue to receive a world-class service well into the future. The bill heralds a new era in ambulance funding with the introduction of community ambulance cover, which will replace the voluntary subscription scheme. All Queensland residents will now be entitled to ambulance services anywhere, anytime across Australia, and no Queenslander, regardless of their economic circumstances, will be presented with a $755 account for ambulance services. Generations of Queenslanders have relied on their Ambulance Service to provide essential, life-saving medical treatment and the QAS has always delivered on this commitment. In turn, the Ambulance Service has had to rely on the generosity and commitment of Queenslanders through the voluntary subscription scheme and other fundraising initiatives for financial support. This approach is no longer sustainable. The subscription scheme is not providing the level of revenue required to support a modern, viable Ambulance Service. Queensland's growing and ageing population, the reduction of bulkbilling and access to affordable after-hours doctors, and the federal government's 30 per cent health insurance rebate are making the subscription scheme unsustainable. The Beattie Labor government will not compromise on service standards and will not compromise on the support provided to the QAS. Since June 2002 this government formally recognised the need to identify an alternative means of raising sufficient funds to maintain QAS service standards. The introduction of community ambulance cover addresses this critical issue. For the first time in its 109-year history the QAS will be provided with a reliable, adequate and predictable funding base. We recognise the contribution and support provided by many Queenslanders and recognise their role in the funding and development of ambulance services within their local communities. They have undoubtedly played a crucial role, and on behalf of the QAS I thank all Queenslanders who have been faithful subscribers and contributors to the QAS over many years. The government, our ambulance officers and our local ambulance committees genuinely appreciate their support and loyalty. The Beattie government has listened and carefully considered the views submitted by more than 600 individuals, businesses and organisations since community ambulance cover was first mooted in December 2002. As a result, the legislation now before the House has been changed. A single premise used for a single business or other non-residential activity will pay only one account, even when it receives more than one electricity bill. Caravan park residents will not pay on sub-metered sites, as parks will only pay on accounts held with electricity retailers. The farm shed and pump exemption has been widened to cover more primary producers—for example, silos and boat sheds used by commercial fishers will be exempt. Church buildings and other places of worship will be exempt, unless the electricity contract includes a commercial activity. And domestic water and sewerage pumps are exempt. Also, as a result of consultation, we have modified and simplified administrative arrangements for on-suppliers, such as home unit managers. The government rejects the insular approach put forward by some business leaders who are saying that the full burden should be paid by domestic consumers. I believe that a huge majority 13 May 2003 Community Ambulance Cover Bill 1703 of businesses in Queensland are willing to pay their share in a similar way to how they pay for local government rates and in a similar way to how businesses contribute to levies or taxes raised at state or federal levels. There is absolutely no equity or justice in the business leaders' approach, and it would lead to an increase in the CAC of up to $15 to $20 per domestic consumer. The government absolutely rejects this. The Community Ambulance Cover Bill 2003 contains a comprehensive levy system collected through the electricity industry and spreads the cost throughout the community. The new cover will be collected through electricity accounts at a rate of $88 per annum or 24c a day. The electricity industry contains a number of different arrangements for the supply of electricity, and the bill contains different approaches to deal with these different scenarios. In cases involving normal domestic or retail supply, the levy becomes payable by the electricity customer for each day there is a contract for supply of electricity in place, excluding the first day. The electricity must be consumed in Queensland and must be measured by a meter. Similar arrangements apply to contestable customers. Different rules apply to on-suppliers and people who purchase electricity through card operated meters. An on-supply arrangement occurs where a person is supplied electricity by an electricity retailer and on-supplies it to individual premises within a building, as commonly occurs in larger shopping centres, residential apartment blocks or office buildings. In this circumstance the on-supplier must pay the levy in relation to each premise for which electricity supply is available, except to the extent that an exemption applies to an occupant of the premises. Consistent with existing billing arrangements for electricity supply in these situations, the on- supplier can recover the levy from either the owner of the premises or a tenant occupying the premises. The owner is able to recover the levy amount from their tenant in relation to the period of the tenancy. An electricity retailer does not send electricity accounts when people consume electricity through a card operated meter, as occurs in some remote locations. Electricity is pre- paid by the purchase of a card which, when inserted in the meter, credits the meter with the value of the card. In this circumstance, the owner of the premises which is supplied electricity through the meter will have to pay the levy provided that the actual consumer is not entitled to an exemption. The owner may recover the levy from the occupant of the premises. As well as those that I have already listed, under the community ambulance cover arrangements a number of exemptions will be available. Pensioner concession card holders and Seniors Card holders who qualify for the electricity concession will be exempt from paying for community ambulance cover on their principal place of residence. Similar arrangements will also be available for Department of Veterans' Affairs Gold Card holders. These account holders will have the option of making a voluntary contribution of $5 per quarter to the QAS, and many have already expressed support for this proposal. To reduce multiple billing in country Queensland, exemptions will apply to accounts that relate only to farming sheds, farming pumps and silos. An exempt farming shed is a building or structure located on land used only for primary production, such as tractor storage, wool and milking sheds. An exempt farming pump is used for irrigation, stock, water, sewerage and domestic purposes. Exemptions will also apply to certain non-profit organisations when conducting activities of a public benevolent nature. Exempt organisations in this category include churches, crisis accommodation and hostels for the homeless, respite centres, meals on wheels and emergency rescue services. If an account holder pays community ambulance cover on an exempt account, an adjustment will appear on the next bill after an exemption form has been processed. Under community ambulance cover, as many as 412,000 Queensland families will save under the new arrangements, which represents a 10 per cent reduction on the current family subscription rate of $98. This is also more than $40 less than the projected cost of a family subscription if the subscription scheme had been retained. For single subscribers, their subscription rate would have cost about the same as community ambulance cover if the voluntary subscriber scheme had been retained. Current subscribers who have paid beyond 1 July 2003 will receive a refund for the unexpired portion of their subscription. In conclusion, the community ambulance cover levy is not a user pays fee for ambulance services but is a broad based means of raising essential funds for a vital community service. The bill recognises the government's long-term commitment to the QAS, the standards achieved by the service and our need to ensure the QAS is provided with an adequate and reliable funding 1704 Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 base. For the first time in this state it ensures all Queenslanders are covered anywhere, any time throughout Australia. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Malone, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.03 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

WEAPONS (HANDGUNS AND TRAFFICKING) AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (2.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Weapons Act 1990, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (2.31 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I introduce a bill today that places controls on the calibre of hand guns that may be possessed by members of the community. This bill results from the concerns echoed within the community about deaths caused by high calibre firearms. It was unfortunate that we, as a community, had to experience the pain caused by Martin Bryant in Tasmania and the pain suffered by so many as a result of his actions. As a result of that horrific incident, a new approach to firearm regulation was introduced into Australia. The Prime Minister has conceded that, as a nation, we did not progress gun control far enough at that time. On 21 October 2002, two people were tragically murdered and five others seriously injured as a result of a gunman discharging a concealable firearm at Monash University. This incident highlighted the need to put in place sufficient controls on concealable firearms to ensure no Australian was left exposed to these sorts of callous attacks. As a result of that incident, the Prime Minister initiated a discussion with premiers and chief ministers about options for tightening hand gun control. On 24 October last year, the Prime Minister, together with other state and territory leaders, agreed to progress a number of new measures put forward by the Commonwealth to significantly tighten hand gun controls. The agreement, signed at the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, meeting, resolved that the Australasian Police Ministers Council, APMC, should develop detailed proposals for a national approach to hand gun control. In order to facilitate APMC consideration, the Commonwealth provided a list of key measures to promote hand gun law reform. The APMC then made specific recommendations which were referred back to COAG for final approval. On 6 December 2002, the Premier, in conjunction with other COAG leaders, signed an agreement to give effect to the Prime Minster's proposals. Generally, COAG endorsed the 28 resolutions made by the APMC meeting in November 2002 and agreed that legislative and administrative measures be in place by 30 June 2003. By introducing this bill today, the Beattie government has honoured this commitment. Queensland is the second government to introduce this legislation and that is an endorsement of this government's commitment to a national approach to firearm law reform. Notwithstanding the tight time frames involved in the preparation of this legislation, we have not sought to impose the Prime Minister's proposals without due regard for the rights and interests of relevant shooting organisations. Indeed, this bill results from extensive consultation with representatives of many interest groups and, I must say, the support they have shown for these sensible reforms is a credit to them. We have been very sensitive to the rights of our sporting shooters, and I thank the representatives of relevant stakeholders for the sensible and constructive approach they have taken to this difficult issue. 13 May 2003 Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Bill 1705

I would now like to address the specifics of this bill. The object of the COAG agreement is to facilitate a major reduction in the number of hand guns in the community and to significantly strengthen controls over access to hand guns. Also, COAG agreed that an amnesty be in place from 1 July 2003 until 1 January 2004 and that a compensation scheme for previously legally held hand guns operate during the amnesty. Compensation payments will be funded firstly from $15 million remaining from the 1996 firearms buyback, and then shared on a two-thirds/one-third basis between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Commonwealth has indicated that it may not contribute its share of the compensation costs if particular states or territories do not fully implement the COAG agreement. Therefore we have been somewhat mindful of the need to adhere very closely to COAG's recommendations. There are approximately 11,500 licensed sporting shooters in Queensland, who hold approximately 27,000 hand guns. Of particular interest to Queensland hand gun owners, the COAG agreement requires: ¥ further restrictions and requirements be imposed on historical collectors of temporarily inoperable hand guns; ¥ the introduction of a system of graduated access to hand guns for legitimate sporting shooters based on training, experience and event participation; ¥ mandatory minimum participation rates in club organised hand gun shoots for sporting shooters; ¥ banning hand guns held by sporting shooters that are under a prescribed barrel length; ¥ generally banning hand guns held by sporting shooters over 0.38 calibre or 9mm; ¥ increased reporting requirements for shooting clubs; and ¥ increased responsibilities for clubs before accepting new members and when members make application for licences and permits to acquire firearms. The COAG agreement also requires: ¥ broader licence revocation powers, including revoking or refusing a licence on the basis of criminal intelligence and negligent storage; ¥ indemnities for regulated and unregulated health practitioners who provide information that may affect a person's licence; ¥ a review of the legislative requirements for safe storage of firearms; and ¥ substantial penalties be established for the illegal possession of a firearm. In addition, the APMC meeting held in December 2000, resolved that there should be a national approach to firearms trafficking legislation, incorporating indictable offences and penalties for illicit manufacture, sale or supply of firearms. The July 2002 APMC meeting resolved that under the National Firearm Trafficking Policy Agreement, the firearms trafficking agreement, all states and territories would make further provision for the control of the illegal trade in firearms in Australia through: ¥ ensuring substantial penalties for the illegal possession of a firearm; ¥ introducing nationally consistent regulation of the manufacture of firearms; ¥ introducing offences relating to defacing firearm serial numbers; ¥ introducing an offence of illegal manufacture which attracts substantial penalties; ¥ extending the definition of possession of a firearm; ¥ introducing 'close associate' provisions for firearm dealers; ¥ proscribing certain persons from employment in firearm dealerships; ¥ providing for increased recording, reporting and inspection of firearm part transactions; ¥ introducing laws designed to restrict the illegal supply of firearms; ¥ making it an offence to conspire to commit an interstate firearm offence; and ¥ introducing tough penalties for firearm record falsification. Some matters addressed by the firearms trafficking agreement have already been implemented under the Weapons Act 1990. However, giving effect to the objectives of the agreement will result in a substantial strengthening of weapons policy in most Australian jurisdictions. Also, it has been identified that an amendment to the Police Powers and 1706 Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

Responsibilities Act 2000, the PPRA, should also be made to give effect to some of these resolutions. The proposed amendments will give effect to the objectives of the COAG agreement and the firearms trafficking agreement. The proposed bill will amend the act, the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997, the PPRA and the Judicial Review Act. Further amendments to the weapons regulations will be necessary following passage of this bill. The bill amends the act in relation to the possession and use of concealable hand guns by sporting shooters. The proposed amendments limit hand guns for this purpose to a maximum calibre of .38 of an inch. The minimum barrel length for semiautomatic hand guns will be 120 millimetres and 100 millimetres for revolvers and single shot hand guns unless the overall size of the hand gun means it is not so concealable. Hand guns that fail to meet the specified minimum barrel length will be prohibited. Consequently, owners of higher calibre hand guns or hand guns with short barrels for use in sports or target shooting will be compelled to surrender their firearm. However, the bill will allow a sporting shooter to retain a hand gun with a calibre above .38 but not over .45 for specially accredited events that specifically require higher calibre firearms. The Prime Minister has suggested accrediting two events—namely, single action shooting and metallic silhouette. Accreditation would allow the retention of higher calibre hand guns for these events. However, Queensland shooters compete successfully in other internationally recognised hand gun shooting competitions. A uniform national approach will be important in this regard. The events to be accredited will be prescribed by regulation. The bill will impose a 10-shot magazine limitation on concealable firearms held by sporting hand gun shooters. The COAG proposal for participation in competitive or club organised shoots was found, on close examination, to be somewhat ambiguous with compliance and enforcement problems and, most importantly, it could cause an increased risk of firearms theft as clubs would be required to keep information about the number and type of hand guns owned by club members. The existence of such a list creates a virtual shopping list for firearms theft. The bill proposes an improvement on the COAG participation regime with hand guns to be divided into four classes with participation rates for sporting shooters linked to the class of pistol owned. In addition, the bill will also require that only one club organised shoot per day may be counted toward satisfying a licensee's participation requirements. Consequently, a participation condition of eight competition shoots would be required to occur over eight days. Under this proposal, clubs would be required to keep information relating to class of firearms and not specific information about firearm calibres or types or the number of firearms owned by a licensee. It is expected that licensees who do not have a genuine interest in competition shooting will not participate in the minimum competitive or club organised shoots as required and will seek to surrender their hand gun. As indicated earlier, the bill will provide a compensation scheme for legally held hand guns to operate from 1 July this year until 1 January next year. Compensation payments will be funded firstly from the $15 million remaining from the 1996 firearms buyback and then shared on a two- thirds/one-third basis between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The administrative costs incurred by Queensland as a direct result of the compensation scheme will be included in the cost of the compensation scheme. The Commonwealth will reimburse states and territories for payments properly made under the buyback. However, the Commonwealth has indicated that the states and territories may not receive reimbursement payments if the COAG agreement is not fully implemented. The bill and further amendments proposed to the regulation will result in substantial compliance with the COAG agreement. For sound policy reasons, some aspects of the COAG agreement have been replaced by alternative proposals that are regarded as equally effective. Hand guns prohibited under the COAG agreement because of calibre or barrel length may be surrendered for compensation with compensation amounts for each type of hand gun presently being determined. The Prime Minister proposes that compensation be paid to dealers and sporting shooters for accessories directly related to the registered hand gun and for the major component parts of a registered hand gun. Only dealers will be paid compensation for ammunition or minor parts unless the parts are interchangeable with non-prohibited hand guns. No compensation will be paid for accessories such as safety glasses. The Prime Minister suggests that dealers should be paid cost price plus 10 per cent for items surrendered during the buyback. Importers will be paid customs value plus 15 per cent to 20 per cent in recognition of additional freight and insurance costs. The Commonwealth proposes that, unlike the previous firearms buyback, no loss of business compensation be paid to dealers or importers. 13 May 2003 Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Bill 1707

The bill will impose a statutory obligation for hand gun clubs to notify police of concerns where a club member may pose a danger if in possession of a firearm or when a member is expelled from a club and the reasons for expulsion. Clubs are required to ensure that a person whose license is suspended or revoked does not use a hand gun at a club range. To achieve this, the bill will allow a regulation to be made so that information about a person's club membership, suitability and licensing status may be provided to the clubs by the Police Service. New applicants seeking to acquire firearms will also be required to disclose the place the firearm will be generally kept and declare that safe storage arrangements are available at the place. The bill will require licensees to notify police of any change of circumstance relating to the place where the firearm is generally kept and will provide an offence for contravening this provision. Clubs will be required to report annually with respect to each member's compliance with the requirements. The bill will require clubs and licensees to keep records about participation in shooting competitions or club shoots. The bill introduces a 12-month graduated process for a person seeking to become a sporting hand gun shooter. The process imposes a requirement on a person to display a genuine interest in sporting hand gun shooting by requiring minimum participation shoots, mandatory membership of a club and the completion of a firearms safety course. Additionally, the applicant will only be permitted to acquire two firearms during the first 12 months, one of which may be an air pistol and the other which may be either a rim fire or centre fire hand gun or a black powder pistol. The current safe storage offence under the act has been the subject of judicial comment. Difficulties associated with interpreting the scope of this and other provisions stem from the structural difficulties within the act, and in particular the use of the term 'physical possession'. The bill corrects the contextual use of the term in the act to ensure a consistent meaning, and amends the safe storage offence provisions to require a weapon to be held in safe storage facilities when the weapon is not in a person's physical possession. The bill also imposes a new offence for failing to have safe storage facilities at the place registered as being where the licensee's firearms are generally kept. This bill will afford the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police authority to refuse or revoke a licence on the basis of criminal intelligence or other relevant information. This authority is currently conferred on the New South Wales Police Commissioner under section 11 of the Firearms Act 1996. It will also amend the Judicial Review Act, where a person may require a decision maker to provide a 'statement of reasons'. The bill amends the Judicial Review Act so that the requirement for a statement of reasons does not apply to a decision made by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to refuse or revoke a licence on the basis of criminal intelligence or other information. The act currently indemnifies doctors and psychologists who provide information about a person's suitability to possess a firearm. This bill will expand the indemnity to nurses. Social workers and professional counsellors may also be prescribed under the regulation as being indemnified. It is anticipated this amendment may encourage individuals employed in crisis intervention roles to provide valuable information about the suitability of a person to be licensed to possess a firearm. Part of the COAG agreement addresses collectors holding temporarily inoperable 'modern' hand guns. The proposed act will require a collector wishing to possess hand guns manufactured after 1946 to demonstrate a prolonged and genuine interest in the study, preservation and collection of firearms. The agreement also requires registration of historical hand guns—antique percussion hand guns—other than prepercussion hand guns, such as muzzle-loading firearms. Current penalties for unlawful firearm possession are inadequate. The proposed bill prescribes a range of increased penalties for unlawful possession, supply and manufacturing of weapons and identifies offences as crimes and misdemeanours. Weapons are currently grouped into types, with penalties reflecting the type of weapon, with military style fully automatic firearms attracting the highest penalties. The unlawful trafficking, supply and manufacture of firearms is considered very serious conduct. However, current Queensland legislation does not allow covert evidence gathering powers to be used. The bill amends the definition of 'serious indictable offence' under the PPRA to include particular serious weapons offences to give effect to the proposal. Government and non-government entities that are potentially affected by the proposed changes were consulted, with a consultation draft of the bill released to key stakeholders. As a 1708 Residential Tenancies and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 result of consultation additional amendments to the legislation were identified during the development of the bill. There are many aspects to the bill and I do not intend to address each and every part to the bill as the explanation of them is provided in the explanatory notes. However, all members of this House will agree this is well-needed legislation that is drafted in an equitable manner for all members of the Australian public. The Howard government has signalled its intention to take the lead on the issue of firearm regulation. This is a sensible approach, because this is a national issue. The Beattie government has supported, and will continue to support, laws that seek to promote the safety of all Queenslanders. In this sense we support the Commonwealth proposals and I am pleased to give them effect through the introduction of this bill. Let me make it clear that the agenda has been driven by the Commonwealth and the states, but there are some aspects of this bill that we would have liked to have seen amended somewhat. However, in order to secure uniformity and to secure Queensland's just financial compensation, we have gone along with the main parts of this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (2.54 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 and other acts. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (2.55 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing the Residential Tenancies and Other Legislation Bill 2003. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 in a number of areas. This bill will clarify a number of policy ambiguities and correct some technical inconsistencies. It also introduces provisions to deal with unclaimed bond moneys over seven years old and, most significantly, new safeguards for the listing of information on tenancy databases and about related disputes. The bill will also make minor amendments to other legislation within my ministerial portfolio. The provisions being introduced regulating the listing of information on tenancy databases and providing a related dispute handling mechanism are a national first for any state government. A research project undertaken by the Residential Tenancies Authority in 2001 recommended that this regulation was necessary because of concerns about the use of databases, such as unfair and inaccurate listings, the lack of any controls about what information is listed and the lack of any dispute resolution procedures. Now Queensland is leading the way in addressing these genuine concerns through legislation that will mean unfair listing practices in the residential tenancies industry in Queensland must change. While tenancy databases are legitimate tools to help lessors protect their property investments, safeguards are needed to ensure inaccurate information is not recorded and tenants are not unfairly listed. These listings significantly affect a person's access to rental housing. With more than 30 per cent of all Queenslanders renting their houses, it is vital that a fair balance is struck between the rights of lessors and tenants. The provisions in the bill set down in law who can be listed, when they can be listed and for what reasons they can be listed. The bill also provides for the Small Claims Tribunal to hear disputes about prospective, as well as actual, listings. The bill will provide that an application can be made to the tribunal if a person believes information listed breaches the criteria for a lawful listing set out in the amendments. 13 May 2003 Residential Tenancies and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1709

One of the major concerns has been ensuring tenants who have been unfairly listed on a tenancy database, in some cases for years, will be able to dispute the listing to clear their name. Usually applications to the tribunal must be made within six months of becoming aware of the listing. However, tenants will be able to apply to the tribunal about existing listings that do not meet the criteria established in the bill for up to 12 months after the act commences, regardless of when a person became aware of the listing. The bill also allows a person to apply to the tribunal if they believe the listed information is inaccurate or unjust. For example, a victim of domestic violence might apply to the tribunal to order a listing removed if they can prove the reason for listing was the responsibility of a violent partner. The bill allows such applications to be made no matter when the listing was made. The bill also requires the person who proposes to list information about another party to advise them of the prospective listing by written notice or by taking other reasonable steps to inform them. They must also give the other party a reasonable opportunity to review the information to be listed. The Small Claims Tribunal will have the power to make a range of orders about listings, including ordering a person to take steps to amend or remove information or any other action the tribunal considers appropriate. If a person cannot remove or amend the information directly they can be required to advise the operator of the database of the need to do so, because of the tribunal's order. Failure to comply with a tribunal's order about a tenancy database listing is considered a serious offence under this bill, and the failure of a person to comply could result in those found guilty of such an offence facing a fine of up to 50 penalty units, or $3,750. The RTA will investigate complaints of non-compliance with a tribunal order lodged by the listed person with the RTA. The RTA will be able to prosecute such complaints in the Magistrate's Court and will present evidence on the person's behalf. If a conviction is made against the person who made the listing, in addition to the maximum penalty of up to 50 penalty units they will face a further penalty of up to five units, or $375 for each day they continue to be in breach of the tribunal order. This will send a strong message to the industry that unlawful listing practices will not be tolerated in Queensland. In addition, in cases where a listing person is convicted of non-compliance with a tribunal order, the magistrate will be able, during the penalty phase of the hearing, to consider evidence about the injury or damage suffered by a person as a result of their being listed on the database. As a result, the magistrate will also be able, where appropriate, to order compensation to be paid by the convicted person to the persons listed for the damages and injuries sustained as a result of the listing. The groundbreaking measures that will be put in place through this amendment bill have received national recognition. In particular, the federal Privacy Commissioner has made comments in the national media recognising the importance of the Queensland work to address fundamental rights such as people's ability to access housing—a basic human right—and their right to protect their personal information. The Queensland legislation will complement the federal privacy legislation to determine what is lawful collection and storage of personal information, particularly by database operators themselves, and Queensland will work with the federal Privacy Commissioner on other important matters affecting tenants such as in providing a definite time period for a listing to remain on a database. Turning now to other amendments, the bill makes provisions for dealing with unclaimed bond money over seven years old. The RTA holds unclaimed rental bond money, which is the value of the bond refund cheques that have not been cashed within 15 months of being issued by the RTA after the end of a tenancy. These funds accumulate in the rental bond account as non- current liabilities. At the end of March 2003, there were over 2,100 bonds of this type worth over $255,200. The act provides that these funds can only be invested or paid to the relevant party. The act will be amended to make provision that, at the minister's direction, unclaimed bond money over seven years old after the end of the tenancy can be used for the specific purposes. The bill will also clarify a number of ambiguous provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure the policy intent of the legislation is achieved. Among these clarifications are provisions relating to the supply of keys and clarifying the references to the terms 'lessor' or 'lessor's agent'. The act currently provides that a tenant must be given a copy of all keys to locks at the rental premises. The application of the Acts Interpretation Act confuses the obligation of lessors as to how many copies of keys must be provided and to how many tenants. The bill will require the 1710 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 13 May 2003 lessor to provide a full set of keys and security devices to each lock per tenancy and in addition to provide a copy of those keys and security devices necessary to gain entry to the premises to each tenant named on the tenancy agreement. Inconsistencies in the act on the use of the terms 'lessor' and 'agent' in terms of responsibilities and obligations will also be addressed. Attempts to amend this by providing a general definition in previous amendments were not successful. This is of particular concern where penalties are attached to provisions and the RTA is unable to prosecute a party such as an agent because the section of the act refers only to the obligations of a lessor. In these circumstances, a lessor can also not be prosecuted because of a defence that reasonable steps had been taken by the lessor in employing an agent to act on their behalf. The bill clarifies legal responsibilities of lessors and agents to ensure the penalty provisions of the act can be applied appropriately to an offender to ensure compliance with the act. The bill will also clarify a number of minor technical inconsistencies. It will also amend the Residential Services (Accommodation) Act to mirror changes in the rental bond provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act as any changes must be reflected for consistency of purpose. These amendments will ensure the Residential Tenancies Act continues to maintain a fair balance between the rights and responsibilities of lessors and tenants and will clarify rights and responsibilities in residential tenancy agreements. The tenancy database provisions in particular will restore this fair balance with respect to this very important issue in the residential tenancies industry. The bill also includes legislative amendments to the Queensland Building Services Authority Act by way of implementation of the national competition policy review of that act. The amendments will reinforce the independence of the statutory insurance fund from the other activities of the Queensland Building Services Authority and enable a regulation to prescribe the prudential requirements which the authority must observe in administering the insurance fund. The Architects Act, which commenced on 1 January 2003, provides that only individuals who are registered as architects may use the title 'architect'. Amendments are to be made to this act to enable an architectural company to also use the title 'architect' in the company name in circumstances where the company has nominated to the Board of Architects an architect who is to provide architectural services for that company. This amendment will complement the free market approach of the legislation while protecting the interests of consumers. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

GOVERNORS (SALARY AND PENSIONS) BILL Second Reading Resumed from 12 March (see p. 508). Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (3.06 p.m): The opposition supports the Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 2003. No member of this House can doubt the importance of the role of the Governor of Queensland. Our current Governor, Major General Peter Arnison, has played an important supervisory role in the affairs of the state. He has contributed to the system of checks and balances. Major General Arnison has also undertaken a relentless campaign of charity work and, through his role as patron of many benevolent organisations, contributes greatly to the social fabric of this state. I think that we all join in thanking and congratulating Major General Arnison and his wife, Barbara, on the way in which they have carried out their duties. They have certainly carried them out with dignity and charm. The Arnisons were well known to people in my electorate because of Major General Arnison's role as the person in charge of Canungra in his army days. I remember the amusing start to Major General Arnison's role as Governor. Quite obviously, cabinet members were sworn to secrecy about who was going to be the next Governor. Of course, Peter would have shared the fact with Barbara that he would be the next Governor. The media was doing a ring around, as it usually does, to find out who would be Governor. One media person rang the Arnisons and Barbara answered the phone. That person said, 'We wish to speak to Peter about the role of Governor' and she said, 'I am sorry, I didn't realise that it had been announced yet.' Of course, we then had to bring forward the appointment of Major General Peter Arnison, because the media knew about his appointment. It was an amusing start to their role and I know that they were a little 13 May 2003 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 1711 embarrassed about that. But the Arnisons have done an excellent job. Their term was extended by the present government and, once again, they have done an excellent job in that period. No doubt the recent appointment of Quentin Bryce to the role of Governor will continue the important work required of this office. Once again, we wish Quentin Bryce a period free of controversy in this very important job. In supporting this bill, the coalition welcomes the initiative of the Commonwealth government to remove the income tax exemption for vice-regal representatives. We believe that this is a timely modernisation of income tax standards. We acknowledge this bill's role in facilitating these changes that were initiated by the Commonwealth government. We have also observed, following the introduction of this bill, the Premier seeking media coverage in the radio and print media proclaiming that we would be forcing the new Queensland Governor to pay tax for the first time. The Premier was obviously trying to play politics with the concept of fairness and equality. What the Premier also neglected to mention was that, whilst he is now forcing the Governor to pay income tax, he has also decided to increase the salary in line with the new tax responsibilities. The current salary of the Governor is set at $110,550 by the Governor's Salary Order 1996. For the Governor's net salary to remain at the current level following the imposition of income tax, the Governor's gross salary will be increased to $190,000. In other words, due to the increases approved by the Beattie government, the Governor will continue to receive the same salary regardless of any new income tax responsibilities. Contrary to wider opinion, this bill will actually cost the people of Queensland more. The taxpayers of Queensland are essentially increasing the Governor's salary and paying the income tax bill themselves. The Premier's comments in the Courier-Mail of Thursday, 13 March that this bill 'takes the salary back to the people' are not a fair representation of the truth. It is acknowledged that this bill undertakes many worthwhile functions. It makes necessary changes to update and modernise the legislation in line with modern standards relating to income tax and the pension status of the Governor. The coalition is supportive of the intent of this legislation. However, as I have expressed, the Premier's attempts to mislead the taxpayers of Queensland that they would gain financially under this new tax regime are misleading. They are paying for an increase in salary to account for the new income tax responsibilities. The coalition is strongly supportive of the role of the Governor in Queensland. We applaud the work that the Governor performs on a daily basis for all Queenslanders, and the opposition certainly commends this bill to the House. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (3.11 p.m.): I am pleased to support the Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill, which seeks to accommodate recent changes initiated by the Commonwealth government which remove the vice-regal income tax exemption. The bill modernises the act and ensures that appropriate salary and pension entitlements are preserved. I did not want to miss the opportunity to say a few words about the role played by our current Governor, Major General Peter Arnison, and his wife, Mrs Barbara Arnison. Like many members, I have had the opportunity in recent years to be present with the Governor and Mrs Arnison at a number of public ceremonies and functions. In my role as parliamentary secretary I have also had the pleasure of joining with His Excellency in the conduct of numerous awards ceremonies for the Duke of Edinburgh's Award at both Government House and more recently here at Parliament House, in the red chamber. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award program is funded and run out of the Office of Youth Affairs in the Department of Employment and Training. It is a fantastic opportunity for young Queenslanders to develop their personal skills and character, and the Governor's support for this program is well known and very much appreciated. On behalf of the many young people who have participated in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award program I say thankyou. His Excellency and Mrs Arnison have earned the respect and trust of all Queenslanders. They have performed their role with dignity, with professionalism and, notably, with a human touch. They have been accessible, available and actively engaged with the Queensland community, supporting many worthwhile causes during their term. As Queenslanders we are proud of the way in which they have fulfilled the important role the office of Governor performs in our democratic process, and I join with all Queenslanders in wishing them well in their future endeavours. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (3.13 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 2003. Firstly, I join with other members in congratulating Dr Quentin 1712 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 13 May 2003

Bryce on her appointment as the next Governor of Queensland. I am very sure that Dr Bryce will build upon the good work undertaken by outgoing Governor, Major General Peter Arnison, to continue making the role meaningful to all Queenslanders and will also bring to the position her vast and well-documented experience on social issues. I take this opportunity to thank, as other members have, His Excellency Major General Peter Arnison and Mrs Arnison. I wish them all the best for their futures. I thank them for the work they have done during their time as Governor and wife of the Governor. When she takes over as the 24th Governor of Queensland in July, Dr Bryce will be fulfilling a position that will befit from her extensive experience as a lawyer and her personal commitment to human rights issues. Her fine reputation precedes her. Dr Bryce will join with Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, and South Australia's Marjorie Jackson-Nelson as present constitutional female heads of state governments, making a total of three women state governors for Australia. With the announcement of Dr Bryce's appointment, I would like to commend to the House the timely introduction of the Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 2003. The bill modernises acts relating to the salary and pensions of the Governor. It takes in the removal by the Commonwealth of the vice-regal income tax exemption. As has already been noted, the salary of the current Governor of Queensland is exempt from income tax under the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In 2001 this exemption was repealed to take effect from the appointment of the next representative in each state and territory—in Queensland's case upon Dr Bryce's appointment in July. This bill is a step forward. Briefly, I would like to make note of a key provision of the bill. The bill provides that the surviving partner of a deceased Governor is entitled to a lifetime pension. The eligibility of a Governor's spouse or partner, which includes a de facto, is consistent with recent amendments contained within the Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002. It also sets out and clarifies entitlements upon remarriage and is consistent with provisions covering the partners of judges and members of parliament. In short, the bill brings the pension arrangements for governors into the present time. The setting of the Governor's salary by regulation instead of by Order in Council promotes accountability, because a regulation is disallowable before the Assembly. The mechanism of an Order in Council is antiquated and, therefore, these amendments are opportune. It is timely that we bring the salary and pension arrangements for governors' partners up to date and into modern times and that we ensure consistency across related legislation. Consequently, I am pleased to support the amendment of the Governors Pension Act 1977 to ensure that pension entitlements of future governors remain in proportion to salary. This bill is an opportunity to modernise the legislation on the Governor's salary and pension entitlements into one clear act of parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.16 p.m.): The Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill addresses a number of issues and modernises some of the arrangements for not only the payment of the Governor's salary but also the pension arrangements for the Governor and the Governor's wife or partner. The opposition will support this bill. I will use this opportunity to say some words of congratulations to Major General Peter Arnison and his wife, Barbara, for the way in which they have served our state of Queensland so well. I think Peter and Barbara are well loved throughout Queensland. They have brought to the position great grace, great commitment, great care and great interest in the people of the state. It is the quality of the governorship that has been provided by Major General Arnison and his wife, Barbara, that continues to enhance the position of Governor of Queensland. Those of us who have been members of parliament for some time have seen previous governors provide this wonderful governance. It enhances the democracy we have in Queensland. It enhances good and peaceful government, in particular in recent years, in the nineties, when we had parliaments with very, very small majorities. I think that demonstrates quite clearly how the system in this state works well. The system provides for a peaceful transition from one government to another following an election. We are indeed fortunate in Queensland and in Australia to have such a democracy and such a system. Not only have Barbara and Peter travelled the state and shown very genuine interest in people throughout the state; they have also shown compassion for those who have gone through some difficult times or events. Regardless of whether they have been in the capital city, a major city or a small outback area, they have shown the same amount of interest. 13 May 2003 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 1713

They have shown wonderful hospitality and opened up Government House on many occasions so that Queenslanders can feel that Government House does belong to the people. The Governor has brought the people of the state into Government House for various receptions and various events—to acknowledge people who have received awards and so forth. Ms Quentin Bryce will take over as the next Governor. I think we are all looking forward to that. She is held in high esteem by people throughout Queensland for her various achievements, and we are so fortunate in this state to have people of this quality who are able to take over the position from those who have held the position before them. I really wanted to express the heartfelt thanks of the parliament to Peter and Barbara for what they have done in serving Queensland so well for their extended period of time. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (3.20 p.m.): I also rise this afternoon to speak in support of the Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 2003. The objectives of the bill are, firstly, to make adjustment to the salary of Governor to ensure the after-tax salary is consistent with the level achieved prior to the removal of income tax exemption; and, secondly, to adjust the rate of pension to ensure that the pension level also remains consistent prior to the tax change. It is a well-known fact that I am a republican. Although I acknowledge history and our historical tie to England, I am a strong believer that this country has matured over the years and should have an Australian as head of state, not someone who is tens of thousands of miles away. I have a great deal of respect for our Queen. In fact, I think she has made a lot of personal sacrifices to keep the integrity of her office and she is a model for all people who hold public office. I have very fond memories of her. I met her twice. Once she shook my hand when I was 14 years old, and that really is a highlight of my younger days. I am sure that we will have another opportunity to debate whether this country should be a republic in the future. While we still have vice-regal offices, these offices must be treated with reverence and respect and the office holder must also, in turn, treat the office of the vice-regal with respect. It may sound trivial, but it means that the officer must seek, first and foremost, the benefit and reputation of the vice-regal's office above all things, including their personal convictions and determinations, and I say this in light of the current crisis surrounding the Governor-General's office. Queenslanders have been fortunate and blessed to have in recent times two great governors: Leneen Forde and the current Governor, Major General Peter Arnison. If there is any possibility of my being convinced of the benefit of the office of the vice-regal, these two governors might just tip the scale. Both of those two governors have shown great leadership in bringing Queenslanders together. They have shown compassion, determination, courage and commitment and, more importantly, they have made contact with the common people. Whether a person is supportive of a monarchy or a republic, no-one can dispute the roles of these two great governors. I would like to put on record my appreciation on behalf of my electorate of the wonderful example—in fact, model—these two governors have shown Queensland. I think they represent standards that Queenslanders, if not Australians, come to expect from the office of the vice-regals. I personally consider it inappropriate for matters relating to the salary of the Governor to be discussed in public, but I also acknowledge that legislation needs to be introduced to facilitate certain changes. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (3.23 p.m.): The Governor, Major General Peter Arnison, and his wife, Barbara, have been a credit to their important roles in this state. I have met them on a number of occasions over the last five years at various functions, and I thank them for the way they have performed their duty for the people of Queensland. I support this relatively small bill and maintain the passage of this bill will greatly enhance the perception of the democratic process in Queensland. The current Governor's salary is exempt from income tax. It is a tax-free wage and part of a total package remunerating the vice-regal representative in Queensland. This has always been the case, but in contemporary society the case to continue is no longer sustainable. Most socially conscious people would find it unacceptable that an appointed official be granted a tax-free salary while thousands of low income earners battle to pay their bills after paying their fair share of income tax under the pay as you go system. The Governor should pay tax, and in 2001 the Commonwealth passed legislation with a requirement that they would no longer be exempt under the Income Tax Assessment Act. This legislation brings the remuneration package into line with that paid to someone paying tax and 1714 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 13 May 2003 codifies minor amendments to ensure a pension is determined by consistency with other pension schemes. Accountability is fundamental to the social democratic processes we use to promote equity, responsibility and good administration in public office, and the office of the Governor should be seen to be accountable to the ATO like the rest of us. It is important that the tax concessions available to taxpayers are not abused by the office, and I am sure that the ATO will monitor this situation to ensure a degree of fairness is retained in the system. This initiative will bring the office of Governor closer to the situation the average Queenslander finds themselves in and remove the other layer of the royalist mystique surrounding one of our community leaders. I wish Quentin Bryce all the best in her role in the future. Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (3.25 p.m.): Bill Hayden once famously speculated that holding the office of Governor-General would be a fete worse than death. He was referring to 'fete', spelt f-e-t-e, to refer to the role of Governor-General being ceremonial but powerless and involving many attendances at various community events. At this point in time, one suspects that the current Governor-General must also be thinking that the job is indeed a fate worse than death; 'fate', spelt f-a-t-e. Certainly Dr Hollingworth's tenure has not been a happy one, dogged as it has been with controversy and deep public disquiet. But I will not dwell on this at this time and in this debate, as I am sure that his position will take up columns and columns of newspaper articles and much time in our media over the coming weeks and months. What I did want to talk about in this debate is the fact that we have seen the nature of the office of Governor-General and state governors change quite profoundly over the years. The bill before the House is another step in the evolution of the office of Governor by bringing salary payments of the Governor into the Australian taxation system. Recently the Premier initiated what he described as a tentative yet important step to involve the parliament, and thus the people of Queensland, in the process of appointing the state Governor. This parliament was invited on 11 March this year to give parliamentary recognition to the appointment of Quentin Bryce as the next Governor of Queensland. Combined, this bill and the parliamentary debate recognising Ms Bryce's appointment as Governor invite an examination of the position of Queensland's Governor and poses the fundamental question of whether the position remains relevant and, if so, what form it might evolve into over the next decades. From the time of British settlement, the position of Governor has been instrumental in the government of, firstly, the Australian colonies and then post Federation in the government of the states and the nation. I do not intend to undertake a historical survey on the position of Governor, but I do recommend that honourable members of this House and members of the public who are interested in a short history of the role of Governor read the excellent issues paper produced in July 1999 by the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission. Suffice to say that the role of Governor has gone through a number of distinct phases which might be summarised as follows: firstly, the direct government phase. This occurred from the time of the First Fleet in 1788 to the adoption of responsible government in the New South Wales colony with the passage by the British parliament of the Australian Constitution Act 1842. In this phase the Governor was in effect both the executive and the legislator of New South Wales, which included the settlements in what would become the state of Queensland. The second phase runs broadly from the time of the creation of the separate colony, such as Queensland in 1859, to Federation in 1901. In this period the Governor remained politically a powerful figure able to inter alia appoint members to the upper house of the colonial parliaments and disallow acts passed by colonial parliaments. Of course, the Governor was appointed by Queen Victoria not on the advice of the Premier of Queensland but on the advice of the British government. The Governor was drawn from England and directly represented the interests of England in the governing of the Australian colonies. The next phase runs from Federation to the end of the Second World War. Federation itself did not alter the structure of the Queensland government or the position of the state Governor. Indeed, section 106 of the Australian Constitution provides that the constitution of each state shall continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth until altered in accordance with the constitution of the state. But Federation and dramatic social and economic changes wrought by the First World War, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and communism, and the direct threat to Australia during the Second World War greatly shaped Australia and its geopolitical alliances with Great Britain and the United States of America. 13 May 2003 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 1715

Australian independence as a nation state, which began with Federation, took hold and deepened during the first half of the last century. These changes markedly altered the role of Queensland's Governor. Gradually the political power assigned to the role declined as the influence of Great Britain ebbed away and the power of the national Australian government and parliament increased, vis-a-vis the power of the states. Our governors were predominantly Englishmen, and it was not until 1946 that the first Queensland resident became Governor with the appointment of Sir John Lavarack. Interestingly enough, given the bill before the House, the Australian States Constitution Act 1907 of the British parliament reserved a number of subject matters of the state legislative power for Her Majesty's consent, including bills which affect the salary of the Governor of a state. In other words, but for the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, this bill could not have come into force without the approval of the government of England. We have seen since then important events and, of course, in 1975 Sir John Kerr demonstrated that the reserve powers of the Governor-General were indeed substantial when he dismissed the popularly elected government of Gough Whitlam. Each of the reserve powers stems from the continued existence of royal prerogative powers from England under the colonial arrangements in the first two phases of the Governor's position in Queensland. The powers come into play in certain circumstances of stress in the political process and remain of real importance. This takes me to the final phase of the evolution of the role of the state Governor. This phase runs from the passage of the Australia Act in 1986 to the present day and beyond. In some ways the role of Governor, or the role of Governor-General at the federal level, has assumed a new relevance. Certainly Sir William Deane brought much to the office of Governor- General in terms of the office holder being a national figurehead of unity and inspiration. I know that Peter Arnison is held in high regard—I personally hold him in very high regard—and has brought the community to the office of state Governor. I also know that Leneen Ford is still held in high regard for her role as Queensland Governor and beyond. Australia remains a constitutional monarchy, not because of any real commitment to the notion of a monarchy but because of the inability of republicans to galvanise the obvious and majority support in the Australian community around a suitable model for change. Queensland, in a political and government sense, can do without a Governor. The constitutional powers which the office holds can be vested in a future national president or a combination of officers, as occurs in the Australian Capital Territory. In contrast, there is strong argument for retaining an office of Governor as a unifying position beyond the political fray. But this office would not be the Queensland manifestation of the head of state of a foreign power, as is currently the case. In conclusion, the Premier has led Australia by taking the tentative step of involving the parliament in recognising Ms Bryce's appointment as Queensland's next Governor. I hope that the Labor governments of the other states will build on this first step and involve the public in the selection process of their future State Governors. Finally, can I add my belated congratulations to Quentin Bryce on her appointment as Queensland's next Governor. I know Quentin, and my husband, Michael, has been on the board of Plan International with her for some time now. She is an outstanding Australian and a person most worthy of appointment. I look forward to working with her when she takes up her new role. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (3.33 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 2003. As the Premier said, this bill is to bring the pension arrangements for governors and their partners into the 21st century so that partners, if they remarry after their dies, continue to get that pension and they are not disadvantaged. As the legislation stands at the moment, if you live in a de facto relationship you get a pension; if you marry you do not. We have sorted that out, and I think that is a good thing. The bill also brings about compliance with federal legislation in that state governors will now pay tax, just as the people they represent in this country pay tax. I think that is well and good, too. I have to say that not all governors have served Queensland as well as Peter Arnison has, and I know Quentin Bryce will. I will borrow the words of my colleague and say that she will do a marvellous job. I am sure that she will. When the Labor Party got into power the Governor at that time would not sign people into the upper house and made it very difficult for legislation that was passed by this House to proceed to the final stage. It probably did us a favour in the long run because it was the beginning of the end for the upper house. We are the only parliament in 1716 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Bill 13 May 2003

Australia with a unicameral parliament, and I think that is standing Queensland in very good stead. Governments in this state, when they get elected, can govern; they can get on with business. Queensland is much better off with only the one House. We get on with business and we get things done. I support the bill. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (3.35 p.m.), in reply: I want to thank honourable members for their contributions to the bill. I will respond briefly to a number of matters that were raised. The member for Beaudesert, Mr Lingard, raised an issue whereby he indicated that I had misled the people of Queensland in regard to the funding arrangements arising from the removal of the income tax exemption. Other than that, his comments were positive about Major General Arnison and his wife. Let me just say to the honourable member for Beaudesert that I am not quite sure what he means. The member suggested that I had misled the people of Queensland by taking the salary of the Governor back to the people. I have never tried to hide the fact that a salary subject to income tax, which remains in proportion to the salary of the current Governor, would require an adjustment to gross salary so as not to disadvantage future governors. I have never suggested otherwise. This bill complies with Commonwealth legislation, and the approach adopted is consistent with that in other jurisdictions. Other measures in the bill, such as ensuring that only one total pension is payable to the surviving spouses of a deceased Governor, ensure that costs are kept to a minimum and the taxpayers of Queensland are not burdened. So if there is some misunderstanding by the member about what I have said, or what I have been reported as saying, or some misinterpretation by the member, so be it. I have now clarified the issue for the record. The member for Toowoomba South, Mr Horan, supported the bill and took the opportunity to thank Major General Arnison and his wife, Barbara, for their good works and support over the years. He also praised the appointment of Quentin Bryce, and I thank him for that. He said that it reflected the high calibre of Queenslanders that we had such high quality people from whom to select the new Governor. I want to thank the honourable members for Cleveland, Nudgee, Capalaba, Mount Ommaney, Kurwongbah and Bulimba for supporting the bill. Let me take up one of the points that was made, and that is in relation to the calibre of people available to be appointed Governor. The honourable member for Toowoomba South is right; Queensland does have a large number of people who could quite easily have been appointed to that position. Quentin Bryce stood out because she is a very talented Queenslander and someone who I believe will perform her duties with distinction and with dignity. She will follow one of the state's best governors, and that is Major General Peter Arnison. Major General Peter Arnison, as members would know, was appointed by the Borbidge government and reappointed by my government. In fact, to be correct, he was appointed by Rob Borbidge and reappointed by me because, under the current rules—and I have talked about this previously—the Governor is the choice of the Premier of the day. However, it is unique to be appointed by both sides of politics, and Peter Arnison is a distinguished Queenslander. He has done a fantastic job. Not only has he carried out the role with dignity; he has done it in a very warm way. He has opened up Government House. In terms of dealing with the government and the opposition, he is very, very non-political, and he has carried out his duties in a very warm and open way. His wife, Barbara, is just a magic person. She is a lovely lady. I have to say that one of the pleasures I have had as Premier is to deal with His Excellency the Governor and Mrs Arnison. They really have done the job superbly. We are very lucky to have had him. The fact that he has been applauded by both sides of the House in this debate today I think confirms the respect with which he is held. I will add to what I have said in this regard at the next opportunity to do so at the formal farewell for the outgoing Governor, as well as at the formal welcome for the incoming Governor, Quentin Bryce. Other members will also have an opportunity to speak on these occasions. I again thank the Governor for the excellent job that he has done and say that he has been a pleasure to work with. He has also done something that other governors perhaps have not done, and that is play a particular role in exports. Rob Borbidge asked him to play this particular role and I continued the offer. Interestingly enough, he has actually served more of his tenure as Governor while I have been Premier than he did under Rob, even though Rob initially appointed 13 May 2003 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1717 him. That is the way politics works, as we know. He has performed in an export capacity for us. He has used his office as Governor to enhance our trading links with a number of countries. I have specifically worked with him on a couple of overseas trips and have worked with him on receiving high level delegations from countries overseas. I want to say to Rob Borbidge, even though he is no longer in the House, that it was a very good idea to ask His Excellency to perform that role. He has done it with great distinction. He has also travelled widely in the state, getting out and meeting Queenslanders from Cape York to the border. Again, I think that has been very important. The bill proposes to adjust the rate of the Governor's pension to take account of the removal of the vice-regal income tax exemption. The current rate of pension for the Governor is set at 60 per cent of salary. The bill adjusts the rate of pension to ensure that after the Governor's salary becomes subject to income tax, the pension remains in a similar proportion to salary in the Governor's hands. This has been achieved by setting the Governor's rate of pension at 35 per cent of salary. This approach is preferred rather than expressing 60 per cent of net salary as the rate of pension, as a percentage of a legislatively prescribed salary. It will ensure that the rate of the Governor's pension is certain for the duration of his or her term in office—that is, the pension amount will not be affected by changes in the application of Commonwealth income tax legislation or alternatives in income tax rates. The amendment of the law relating to the Governor's pension has provided an opportunity to restate and modernise the Governors' Salary Act 1872 and the Governors' Pensions Act 1977 into one bill. While pension entitlements pertaining to the Governor are unique to the office, some elements of the pension entitlement are similar to other public sector superannuation and pension schemes. To ensure that these elements of the Governor's pension entitlement are consistent to the greatest possible extent with other schemes—that is, the scheme for judges and parliamentarians—a number of minor amendments have also been made. In terms of amendments contained in the bill, the surviving partner of a deceased former Governor remains entitled to a pension in the event of remarriage, and there are a number of other amendments. The bill provides that only one total pension is payable should a deceased former Governor have more than one surviving spouse—for example, a married spouse and a de facto partner—with the minister to determine the apportionment of the entitlement after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The bill provides that the pension entitlement of a former Governor can be removed on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly having accepted the findings of a tribunal of former judges that determines misbehaviour on the part of a former Governor has been proven on the balance of probabilities. The salary and pension entitlements of the current Governor of Queensland and pensions currently being paid to former governors and the surviving spouses of former governors will not be affected in any way by the passage of the bill. There are a string of other things that I could deal with, but I think I covered them in my second reading speech. If there are any other questions, they can be raised during debate on the clauses. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 26, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

SOUTH BANK CORPORATION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 25 March (see p. 722). Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (3.45 p.m.): The opposition supports the South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2003. As most of us are aware, the South Bank Corporation Act established the corporation in 1989 to facilitate the development of land 1718 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 and other property associated with the former site of Expo 88. That period as a backbencher was probably one of the most exciting that I have ever experienced and one that not many backbenchers will experience. There was never any thought that Queensland was to host Expo 88. It was supposed to go to a southern state. But at 1 o'clock one morning the Prime Minister contacted Joh Bjelke-Petersen and at 9 o'clock the next morning at a party room meeting the Premier announced that he had been offered Expo and asked if anyone disagreed with Queensland hosting it. Of course we were all gobsmacked and within seconds he said, 'Thankyou. I take that as unanimous support.' He closed the meeting and went outside and held a media conference. Then it was a matter of how we ran Expo and exactly what was going to happen. The biggest problem was that all of that land on South Bank had to be resumed and somehow or other the government had to pay for it. The idea was that with that land being resumed it would then be resold after being rezoned and would obviously bring in a fair profit which could be used to run Expo. One of the most amazing things to happen during Expo was the fact that the land virtually became God's own country because Queenslanders adopted and accepted the Expo site. Any thought that we could sell that land to private developers after Expo was not acceptable to the Queensland public. Therefore, new legislation had to be brought in for a new way of running South Bank. To be quite honest, I think it has been to the benefit of Queenslanders that this was not a site developed for private enterprise and that it became a public site. The difficulty has been in repaying the massive cost of land that had to be resumed for Expo. I travelled to Vancouver and saw the exact same thing happen there as well—that is, its government thought it would resell the land but it just was not possible. The people of the area said, 'No. We want to keep that site,' and that is exactly what has happened in Queensland. South Bank today is a key landmark in Brisbane's landscape and plays a vital role in contributing to the lifestyle quality of many Queenslanders. Anyone who walks around the area of Dockside and Kangaroo Point would appreciate the amazing facilities as they come around to the South Bank area. However, management of South Bank has been plagued with problems in all that period. We know of at least 13 businesses that have gone bust and seven businesses have indicated the possibility of legal action. I would hope that this bill will contribute to alleviating some of these problems. I note that one of the primary roles of this bill is to amend the act to refer to the corporation's current role as manager of public space and property manager. Whilst this sounds like a very benign amendment, this does draw some queries about the current role of Byvan. To refresh everyone's memory, I point out that an announcement was made in February 2001 that the South Bank Corporation had appointed the retail property specialist Byvan to manage the South Bank site. Subsequently, Byvan was given a full property management and marketing brief. In light of these new amendments, the question remains as to what role Byvan currently takes in South Bank. Who is responsible for property management at South Bank—Byvan or South Bank Corporation? If Byvan is responsible for property management at South Bank, what requirement is there for these amendments? If South Bank Corporation does not have the primary role, why have we seen staffing numbers escalate over the past two years? In 2000-01, South Bank Corporation employed 59 staff. Over the past two years this number has blown out to 67. New provisions are inserted to provide for a corporation board and the appropriate powers associated with that role. Further, minor amendments are inserted to clarify the corporation's role as a statutory body. I note that there is also provision for the minister to request criminal history checks on proposed board members. This amendment then poses the question: what prompted this amendment? Is the Premier aware of any criminal records of current or former board members and why this section is in the legislation? There are a number of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 and the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 that essentially provide that the act does not apply to long-term leases entered into or granted by the corporation, even if the lease is for the purpose of residential accommodation. The application of the Retail Shop Leases Act is significant because it will now give tenants of South Bank Parklands an affordable avenue to address grievances against the corporation. There have been some concerns relating to the time frame of these amendments. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from the Premier stating that these changes to the act would be implemented by early 2002. Leave granted. 13 May 2003 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1719

Premier of Queensland 14 Sep 2001 ... Thank you for your letter of 17 August 2001 concerning the application of the Retail Shop Leases Act (RSLA) to tenants of the South Bank Parklands. I am pleased to advise you the South Bank Corporation Act 1989 will be amended to remove the current exemption and these changes to the Act will be implemented by early 2002. In the meantime, I understand that the South Bank Corporation is ensuring all leases in the Parklands precinct reflect the principles and objectives of the RSLA. I would also like to thank you for your efforts in assisting both the Corporation and retailers resolve their issues and continue to promote the precinct as an important and vibrant part of Brisbane. Yours sincerely (sgd) Peter Beattie MP Premier and Minister for Trade Mr LINGARD: Therefore, the Premier has a duty to explain why these amendments were delayed for over one year and what actions he has undertaken to provide assurances for South Bank lessees. It is understood that the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 will now apply to leases in the parklands except in the case of long-term leases with options of more than 100 years. However, it has not yet been explained why the act was limited in the case of long-term leases and it is yet to be determined how these changes will affect subleases in the case of the corporation granting a long-term lease. A number of other sensible amendments have been included in this bill that contribute to the updating and modernisation of South Bank. The town planning provisions are updated to replicate the development and approval processes required by the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and to provide for a development scheme that is consistent with the IPA. It also removes any reference to the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990. The aim of this process is to aid the integration of the precinct into the Brisbane City plan when development is complete. New definitions are inserted for the commercial precinct, which includes provision for development sites. There is provision for minor boundary adjustments to be made with the appropriate approval, if considered necessary, for the purposes of development. The bill clarifies that the corporation will enter into an agreement with the Brisbane City Council for the payment of moneys for rates on land owned by the corporation. The bill expands the provisions relating to roads in the corporation area. It also deletes the traffic plan for the area, as this is no longer deemed necessary. There is a transferral of the provisions relating to the appointment, powers and operation of security officers in the corporation area from the by-law into the act. In advance, I thank the Premier for providing these additional details on the matters that we have raised. The opposition commends the bill and supports the transformation of South Bank into an area that is widely used by the public. As we travel over the James Cook Bridge and look to the left, we see the vista of the magnificent South Bank Parklands, which offers a positive approach for visitors driving into Brisbane. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (3.53 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2003. This bill provides for the continued effective development and management of the South Bank Corporation and this excellent city landmark, which has become popular not only with the people of Brisbane but also with visitors from around the world. I take this opportunity to commend the work of the architects who designed South Bank, in particular an architect by the name of Evan Winkle, who had a lot to do with the gardens that we all enjoy. I thank Evan Winkle for his vision and artistic flair. He can be justifiably proud of South Bank. As honourable members have already said, we all enjoy the South Bank precinct. When looking at the South Bank web site recently I was pleasantly surprised to learn about myriad exciting activities hosted every month at this tremendous facility for our city—activities such as exhibitions, cultural displays, live performances and, of course, the famous markets, not to mention attractions including shops and restaurants, health and leisure pursuits, art and cultural exhibitions, which are all contained within the South Bank precinct. It is appropriate for the legislation to be amended, because the work of the South Bank Corporation has evolved over the past 14 years since it was opened as a public facility. The act which set up the corporation after the highly successful World Expo '88 was established to 1720 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 essentially promote and manage the site. These days the corporation has a greatly expanded role, which this bill takes into account. The South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2003 amends the objectives and functions of the corporation. It recognises that both the developmental and managerial roles of the corporation have evolved. This will ensure that activities within the South Bank precinct complement the activities of public facilities at other major sites in and around the CBD, including the Performing Arts Complex and the Queensland Museum. The corporation's responsibilities have now taken on those of a body which controls and influences a major centre of community activity and celebration, hosting many colourful and well- attended events every year—events that I am sure many honourable members have attended. As a focal point of the city, South Bank is the centre of Brisbane's Australia Day celebrations as well as significant fireworks displays on the river throughout the year. South Bank is a Brisbane landmark where many residents enjoy activities, including dining out, swimming and celebrating local events—all of which my family and I have enjoyed over the years. South Bank's tag line of 'always creating' is befitting and acknowledges its changing face and the evolution of its place in Brisbane's social and leisure landscape. Brisbane residents have taken South Bank to their hearts as a popular destination for leisure activities, and the amendments in this bill encompass the extended activities of the corporation. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.57 p.m.): I rise in support of this legislation. In common with other speakers, I commend the foresight of the planners of that precinct. South Bank is an area of public space that is the envy of all other centres. During sitting weeks, I often watch the activities at South Bank. I can tell by the number of people in attendance at that precinct and from their obvious enjoyment that it is an area that people greatly appreciate. The previous speaker, the member for Cleveland, commended the planners and named one in particular. I wish to commend a lady who worked very hard in the middle period of South Bank's history, Peter Hackworth, who had a great deal of input into the establishment and running of the early markets. Peter is no longer attached to the South Bank Corporation. Some time ago her involvement in the markets was stopped and other organisers were put in place. Peter is an unusual person not only in terms of her personality but also in terms of her approach to things such as the markets. When she has a vision she throws herself into it wholeheartedly. She is not a young woman and is a person of Bohemian tastes. She carries out her roles and responsibilities with a great deal of enthusiasm. She organised and ran the South Bank markets for several years. I believe one of the reasons that South Bank built up such a strong reputation, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, was her enthusiasm, her ability to involve people and to draw the best contributions out of them. I certainly wish the corporation and those who work at South Bank every success. I would like to have seen the removal of Peter Hackworth from any involvement handled with more consideration, because I know that she had at heart the wellbeing, the benefit and the advantage of the people of Brisbane. She worked above and beyond the responsibilities that were required of her. This bill also requires criminal history checks to be carried out at the request of the minister or the nominator, which is the corporation, for those who may be nominated to take a place on the board. I note with some relief that that request can be carried out only with the consent of the person of whom the criminal history check is to be sought. Given the role that the board plays, I believe that that consent is only appropriate and it is a suitable safeguard to protect people's privacy. Again, I commend all of those who are attached to South Bank. It is a precinct that benefits the Brisbane people. It also benefits visitors to this city. I look forward to it playing a vital role and having a strong future. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (4.00 p.m.): The South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2003 amends the objects and functions of the corporation to acknowledge the dual development and management roles of the corporation. Significantly, it also acknowledges the corporation's social and environmental goals. This bill also addresses inconsistencies in the act that have resulted from successive amendments and it removes the ambiguity surrounding the Brisbane City Council's role in approving development on the site. On the Sunshine Coast, albeit on a smaller scale, is a very similar project called East Bank. I believe that both East Bank and South Bank are fine community spaces for people to utilise, to 13 May 2003 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1721 enjoy their recreation and their time. East Bank on Queensland's Sunshine Coast will have open space, business, retail and beaches abutting a canoeing and a rowing course. We will not have a swimming pool similar to that at South Bank, which is, I know, a very well utilised facility. Lensworth Kawana Waters has a master plan community, which incorporates a great area of my electorate of Kawana. In 1998, when I was a member of the Caloundra City Council, that council signed off the Kawana Waters development control plan. Part of the East Bank facility comes under the Kawana waters DCP. People's lifestyles continue to change as do our cities and communities. East Bank, which is in my electorate of Kawana, is taking shape. Although it will be on a much smaller scale than South Bank, I believe that it will be loved as much as Brisbane's South Bank. I have raised issues relating to the Sunshine Coast's East Bank with the Premier and various ministers in the Beattie cabinet. At present, we are fighting for funds out of the Major Facilities Fund for a community hall and library, which will in the future be the home of the Caloundra chorale when it relocates to the area. South Bank is a marvellous facility. This morning we walked through South Bank for a bit of exercise. It was amazing to see the number of people utilising such a community facility, whether they were jogging, pushbike riding or swimming— A government member: Or walking. Mr CUMMINS: I take that interjection from my fellow exercise companion. People utilise this marvellous facility. When my wife and son come to stay at parliament with me, they are quite regular visitors to South Bank. The Goodwill Bridge links this side of the river to that marvellous facility. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (4.04 p.m.): I would like to say a few things about the South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill. One of the best things that ever happened to Brisbane was Expo '88, which those members who were in Brisbane at the time would remember. Before that we had the Commonwealth Games. At that time, Brisbane was a large country town. We grew up and the development of the south bank of the river was a very integral part of Expo being a success, as was its proximity to the city. That success continues with the further development of South Bank. This bill allows the corporation to make boundary changes without too much fuss. It also gives it some legitimacy. The South Bank Corporation Act 1989 relied on legislation that has since been repealed. Therefore, it is necessary for this bill to sort that out. I would like to say that the development of South Bank will continue to happen while the people of Brisbane want to use that area. For many, many years people thought that it was not going to be used. Certainly, in the past two or three years, it has become a much more vibrant place. A lot more people get around there at night. Mr Reeves: A lot to do with the busway. Mr PURCELL: As my colleague said, the busway now runs right into South Bank and drops people there. South Bank also has access by rail. So it is an easy place to get to. With the Goodwill Bridge from the north side of the— Mr Beattie: A great bridge. Mr PURCELL: It is a great bridge, Mr Premier. It makes South Bank very accessible. I support the bill. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (4.06 p.m.), in reply: I am overwhelmed by the contributions of all honourable members. I thank them very much for that. I thought that there was another speaker on the list, but I am always happy to see him drop off—no, I am not; I love him dearly. The member for Beaudesert raised an issue about Byvan's management of retail operations in the corporation area. Byvan has been appointed by the corporation to manage retail operations on its behalf. Over the past several years as the area has developed, retail operations have expanded significantly. The appointment of Byvan provides the corporation with a range of expertise that is necessary to meet the demands of retailers in the corporation area. I think that makes good sense. Members know that there were a number of disputes at South Bank and, if members wish, I am happy to talk about some of them. But whenever we have a commercial activity, from time to time there will be disputes. That is life. One of the great things about the human species is that 1722 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 we know how to love one another and we often know how to fight or disagree with one another. There is nothing unusual about that. Unfortunately, that is what happens. I think that it made good sense to have someone appointed to manage the retail operations on a very sensible, rational basis. As I said, members will be aware that recently the corporation has been involved in a number of commercial disputes with tenants of the parkland. The parkland comprises 17 hectares and is one kilometre in length. It contains 18 venues and various licensed premises. Members would appreciate that, with the range of activities that the corporation is responsible for, it is inevitable that at times there will be dissatisfaction expressed by some over the manner in which the corporation carries out its functions. Commercial disputes are properly the function of the corporation to resolve. At all times, the corporation seeks to achieve resolution of such issues by mediation. However, at times that is not possible and parties must be free to seek resolution of such issues through the courts. In a nutshell, that is why Byvan was appointed. It is a fact of life that we have arguments and this is one way of resolving them. The honourable member for Beaudesert also raised issues relating to the criminal history checks provision that has been inserted in this bill. The current act provides that a person is disqualified from becoming or continuing to be a member of the corporation if the person has been convicted of an indictable offence. The amendment provides for a head of power for the relevant minister to request or obtain information from the Queensland Police Service. Basically, this is a mechanism to enforce the act. Clearly, with a corporation as significant as this one, we want to make sure the people on it do not have criminal convictions. I think the community would support that. We are talking about a multimillion-dollar enterprise. We are talking about one of the most important parts of the river in Brisbane. It is not the most important, but it is one of the most important. Mr Matt Foley: The most important part is along Yeronga. Mr BEATTIE: I had to say that because I knew that the honourable the minister would make that interjection if I said otherwise. I would not want to be at odds with the honourable the minister. The opposition spokesman raised the issue of exception of long-term leases. The Residential Tenancies Act and Retail Shop Leases Act do not apply to leases of at least 100 years or if a perpetual lease as defined in the act has been made to ensure that the corporation is not seen as the landlord under these acts. The member would be aware in relation to the Thiess building that the previous government, of which he was a minister, gave a long-term lease, which we supported. We supported the Thiess headquarters there and we have followed that precedent in many ways. The member asked why the number of staff at South Bank has increased from 59 to 67. Of course, this is a government about jobs, jobs, jobs. I promised jobs, and there are a few more. South Bank general manager Bill Grant says that the main reason is the staff at the car park. The car park is no longer contracted out. The car park attendants are now employed directly by South Bank. Also, an accountant and a part-time administrative staffer are working on the remaining land development, which will soon be complete. The information has been provided through my department. I made a call as soon as the member raised that issue. That is the information I have been given. The member raised the issue of why it has taken so long and he incorporated in Hansard, with my support, a letter I wrote. Preparation of the bill raised a number of issues, particularly regarding planning legislation, which needed to be resolved before finalising the bill. As the minister with portfolio responsibility for South Bank I can say that these planning issues in the inner city can be described in one word—nightmare. As the member would appreciate, this is regarded as inner city. He is an old Fairfield boy. He would understand that we need to ensure we consult. Mr Matt Foley: Annerley. Mr BEATTIE: I will get it right. It was in the minister's neck of the woods. Mr Matt Foley: He will not put up a poster. Mr Lingard: They tried to put a poster on my fence. Mr BEATTIE: If the opposition spokesman had any decency, he would put the minister's sign on his place! I am appalled that he will not do that! 13 May 2003 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1723

So that there is understanding about why there was a delay, the preparation of the bill raised a number of issues, particularly planning legislation, which needed to be resolved before the finalisation of the bill. I thank the member for Gladstone for her positive comments about South Bank. I also thank the members for Cleveland, Kawana and Bulimba for their positive comments. South Bank has become a jewel in the city heart. It is one of the most attractive parts of the city. Members would be aware that my government has been developing a new heart for Brisbane. It includes enhancing South Bank. It includes Northbank. It includes Roma Street. It includes the Gona Barracks. It includes what is happening at Suncorp Stadium. It includes what is happening at the Art Gallery. We are building a new world-class art gallery. It includes all of those developments, as well as the State Library and the Goodwill Bridge. We are building a new heart for the city for two reasons. One, it is for the people of Brisbane and the people of Queensland to enjoy. Two, it is to be a magnet to attract tourists from interstate and around the world. We have to remember that city hearts are not just an integral part of the body of the capital and the state; they also need to operate as a magnet to attract tourists, because tourism is our second biggest industry. There are a couple of other things I want to mention. I have responded to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The committee has sought to clarify the effect of proposed section 40E(2). The committee has queried that the section might in theory give rise to an injustice if the appointed person had a legitimate reason for wishing to resign from the security officer position. The members need to note that the provision does not govern the conditions of employment of a security officer. It essentially deals with how to resolve an ultimate conflict between a condition of employment and an apparent entitlement under the act to resign from an appointment. Any such conflict would not arise until all options of changing conditions of employment were exhausted. Other industrial relations laws deal with conditions of employment. The provision is a long-term precedent of the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel that is intended to deal with all eventualities. The OQPC has noted the remarks of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and will take them into account when reviewing the inspectors provisions. The other issue I want to mention relates to the Goodwill Bridge. In my view, the Goodwill Bridge has been one of the great success stories. I know that there were a number of critics who wanted to take, I guess, a bit of a backhander at that bridge. Anybody who uses it knows that it is incredibly popular. One of our biggest problems is in fact the usage of it. When we decided to go down that road and build it, we had a vision for Brisbane—this new heart that I have been talking about. On Sunday, for Mothers Day, Heather and I went for a bike ride. We went across the Goodwill Bridge. It was one of the most popular parts of the city on Sunday. One of the things we have to remember in politics is that it is easy to criticise and it is easy to throw stones, but sometimes we have to have a vision for where we are going. We have to have a vision for the future of the state. One of the things this government does have is vision. We see that in the Smart State. We see it in the education reforms. We see it in the strategic positioning for employment opportunities and health. We also see it when it comes to a vision for infrastructure. While we are talking about South Bank today, we have to remember that this government has a strategic approach to building infrastructure from one end of the state to the other. I will give some clear illustrations. Since I have been Premier I have had the opportunity to open The Strand in Townsville, which we contributed a significant amount of money towards. I had the opportunity of opening the new Esplanade in Cairns only a few weekends ago. As people go down the coast they will see it time and time again. We are building infrastructure—in Mackay, Rockhampton, Hervey Bay and other places. I have been opening hospitals. In Maryborough I opened the prison and new infrastructure has been built there. The Gold Coast has a new convention centre. I was with the member for Kawana recently for the opening of new TAFE facilities on the Sunshine Coast. I have been in Toowoomba North, and the honourable minister, of course, was with me. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. I will take that interjection. The list goes on. That is the sort of infrastructure we are building. So while we are ensuring that the capital, Brisbane, has a heart—a very new important, dynamic heart that we need for a capital—we have also been building new infrastructure from one end of the state to the other. Now that the Education Minister has turned up, and South Bank is in her electorate, if there are any complaints the opposition has about any issues relating to commercial tenants on South Bank, send them to the Minister for Education. That will be the last time she interjects on one of my speeches! 1724 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

In terms of the overall objectives of the bill, it is about maintaining a focus in the act on development activities that fail to address the additional responsibilities of the corporation now that the area has developed as a principal location for community activity and celebration for the people of Brisbane and Queensland. This is about modernisation. The bill will amend the corporation's objects to provide reference to the corporation's contemporary role as a property manager responsible for managing a significant public open space and providing a range of recreational and other activities for both residents and visitors to Brisbane. The administration of the South Bank Corporation Act 1989 also relies on legislation that has since been repealed—in particular, the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990—giving rise to concerns that many of the processes and requirements of planning and development approval contained in the act are no longer applicable or relevant. The bill substantially amends parts 4 and 5 of the act to replicate planning and development provisions in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and to promote consistency with the act to provide clarity for users and to facilitate the eventual integration of the corporation area into the Brisbane City plan when development is complete. The bill now also provides for the corporation to transfer land in fee simple to other than the council and on the minister's consent—that is, my consent—for the purpose of minor boundary adjustments. As the area changes, that makes sense. We have to do that. The bill provides the capacity to make minor boundary adjustments as required to ensure the effective management of the corporation area and to prevent possible disputes over management of the land in the future. The bill amends schedule 7 of the act, which sets out the requirements of bodies corporate in the corporation area to provide for resolution without dissent. Unanimous resolutions are no longer required for any motion. This provision avoids the need to seek a positive vote from every owner and mortgagee while still protecting their interests and is designed to reflect the current legislative practice of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, which allows resolutions without dissent. Amendments to the act do not confer any additional powers on the corporation with respect to planning and development of the corporation area. Amendments put the corporation on the sound footing to complete development of the area and maintain a focus on achieving best practice in the management of parkland and recreational space. There are matters I could talk about in relation to the budget and other issues, which I will not, but I want to conclude on two points. First, as I indicated before, the Goodwill Bridge has been a great success, and I thank the people of Queensland for making it such a success. At some point we will need to look at the future of that bridge. It is currently run by the state government. At the beginning I was of the view that it should be handed over to the South Bank Corporation, and at some point we will do that. I need to discuss that with South Bank, as the minister, but I do put on record that at some point it is my intention to hand over the Goodwill Bridge to South Bank. The security system and cameras operate throughout South Bank anyway. It is a pivotal link to the QUT, and I want to thank the QUT and the South Bank board for the energetic way they have supported the Goodwill Bridge. At some point I will have a discussion with Tom Barton, as the relevant minister, about a transition. It may be some time away, but that is a very important handover. I think it needs to be integrated into what the South Bank board does, and the best way to do that is to give them responsibility for it. The second thing I want to say is that South Bank has become a gathering place. As I indicated, Heather and I were there on Sunday. We regularly go there. It is a very important part of the city and it is enjoyed by the people of Brisbane in the tradition of Expo. If people look back now to 1988, when Expo first started, they would be very pleased with the outcome and the use of this land. Expo was a great shot in the arm for this city. It was part of our maturing process, and indeed part of the maturing process of the state, as was the Commonwealth Games a few years earlier in 1982. What we need to do is to continue to enhance this site. It will cost money. We have spent a reasonable amount. We need to make sure we continue to move with the times. But any money we spend on South Bank will need to be done in a way that is mindful of expenditure in other parts of the state. I am determined we will be a government for all Queenslanders regardless of where they live. I thank members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1725

Committee Clauses 1 to 50, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

WATER AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 April (see p. 1361). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.27 p.m.): I rise to make some comments about the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 currently before the House. This bill makes a range of amendments to the Water Act 2000 and makes some specific amendments to the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Valuation of Land Act 1994. As is outlined in the explanatory notes, the government feels that this bill is necessary because changes have been identified as a result of ongoing implementation of the Water Act and also to facilitate proposed new water infrastructure in the Burnett Basin. The Water Act has now been in place for two and a half years, and it is understandable that there would be a need to amend some of the provisions of that act. This bill sets out to amend a range of small but important issues that have come to the fore since the implementation of the Water Act in the year 2000. The Water Act was part of the water reform process that the opposition generally supported. However, it would be appropriate to note at this stage that the part of the Water Act which we did not support still has not been amended. That refers specifically to the water resource planning process and the 10-year rollover of the water resource plans and the fact that water allocations and water entitlements can be eroded away at the end of each one of those 10-year periods with no compensation payable or due to the holders of those water entitlements. It is that insecurity of title and that potential loss of property rights of water entitlement holders that has always been a part of the Water Act that the opposition has not supported, will continue not to support and will continue to argue is unjust and unfair. More than that, we will continue to argue that that part of the Water Act will produce a result that is the opposite of the one that the government argues is its intent in the implementation of the Water Act. It is therefore necessary for me to put on record that I am disappointed that this bill, which sets out to amend the Water Act, does not address that obvious inequity and unfairness which was part of the Water Act 2000. In that respect the bill before the House today is lacking. The water reform process set out to separate water entitlements from land titles. There are a number of elements of this bill which finetune that process of separating the water entitlements from land titles. That is a process which has had our support and has been an essential part of the water reform process. It allows those water entitlements to be traded. It is in the overall interests of water use and water users for those entitlements to be traded to areas of higher value and to allow water users to trade between themselves those entitlements to ensure that their own particular enterprises are able to acquire or realise the capital value that has become part and parcel of those water entitlements over the years. There needs to be a security of title. There needs to be security in the property right that water users hold that entitles them to use water. That property right has certainly been eroded by the water reform process that has been undertaken in the way that I spoke about before, in that those entitlements can be eroded away every 10 years. It has also been eroded away by the allocation system that has been put in place which allows announced allocations to be almost always considerably less than the nominal allocation. The nominal allocations that the water users have enjoyed and the nominal allocation that has formed part of their property right has almost, without any fanfare at all or almost without any explanation at all, been eroded away—quite substantially in some cases—by the fact that now announced allocations are almost always considerably less than the nominal allocations. There 1726 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 are a number of issues that relate to water entitlements and water allocations that no doubt will be the subject of debate in the committee stage of this legislation. The most important part of this debate I believe is to recognise the importance of secure property rights—the importance of the security of the entitlements and the allocations that water users hold—so that this trading system can work properly, so that we can get some long-term sensible decision making about the use of our natural resources, in this case water, so that we can encourage those water users to use those water entitlements and allocations in a sustainable and responsible way. Unless we have that security of title, not just with water but with all natural resources, then we are not going to see that type of sensible decision making and that move to sustainable management decisions that I think everyone wants to see, that we certainly want to see on this side of the House, and that the government espouses at every opportunity but unfortunately does not achieve because the legislation, such as the Water Act and various other pieces of legislation, refuses to acknowledge the importance of this security of title issue. This security of property right that property owners need, irrespective of what the property is—in this case we are talking about water entitlement or water allocation—is critically important to achieving any sort of sustainable management, any sort of sensible decision making. Unless a property owner has that security of title, then the obvious incentive is to get as much as they can as quickly as they can from that particular property right. That leads to unfortunate decision makings. The incentives are all in the wrong direction in that particular instance. While this bill does tinker around the edges with a series of small changes to the water allocation and water entitlement system, it does not begin to address the fundamental issue of the security of those water property rights held as water entitlements or water allocations that were such a failing of the Water Act 2000, and that is particularly disappointing. It is worth while to note that the scrutiny of legislation has identified that this piece of legislation has an element within it which reverses the onus of proof on property owners in regard to the overuse of water in particular circumstances. This is very much like the reversal of onus of proof that was encompassed within the vegetation management legislation that was debated in this House recently. Once again we see a situation where landowners are being asked, or property holders are being asked, to prove themselves innocent against an accusation that can be levelled at them by a government department, in this case by the Department of Natural Resources or probably by the government owned corporation Sunwater. It is bad enough that we have this situation where the reversal of onus of proof is almost becoming a standard part of legislation, especially in regard to natural resources legislation. It is bad enough that we have this element of reversal of onus of proof in the legislation at all. It is even worse given the situation that has become a reality in Queensland, where the trust between landowners, property owners and the Department of Natural Resources and the government has broken down completely. In that situation, where there is no trust, there is no expectation that the department can be relied upon to do the right thing. This reversal of onus of proof that has been identified by the Scrutiny of legislation committee becomes a much greater issue than it otherwise would. In a situation between two individuals or between an individual and an administering authority where all trust has disappeared, it becomes more critical that there are processes in place to ensure that situations do not arise in which individuals are treated in a manner that none of us would suggest is fair. That, unfortunately, I believe is certainly a possibility in regard to that clause or that element of the legislation. No doubt we will discuss that further in the committee stage of the legislation. It is the same element as has been included in the vegetation management legislation. The same concerns are certainly expressed by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee this time as they were when that last piece of legislation was introduced into the House. I just wonder whether or not this is going to become a standard part of all of the Beattie government's legislation where we are going to see a reversal of onus of proof, where people are going to be required to prove themselves innocent rather than have an authority prove that they are guilty, or is this something that is just unique to natural resource management? Is this something that is just unique to the administration of natural resources in this particular minister's department? I think the people of Queensland need some explanation as to why this is necessary every time it is included within a particular piece of legislation. Is it going to be a standard part of the 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1727 government's legislation, or is it just that this particular department and this particular minister believe that the people who own and use Queensland's natural resources somehow need to be treated differently and need to be assumed to be guilty and forced to prove themselves innocent? I can tell the Minister that that is the impression that this series of pieces of legislation is giving to the land holding community in Queensland. That is unfortunate, because it continues to break down that relationship between individuals and the government department that administers the natural resources which are the key part of the businesses that they run. While that relationship continues to be eroded and continues to deteriorate, we are not going to get the sort of progress that is so often espoused by the government. The bill before the House makes some changes to the Burnett River resource operation plan, particularly in relation to the Barlil Weir. The Barlil Weir is a relatively small structure to be built between Murgon and Wondai, which is actually within my electorate so I know the area particularly well. Even though it is only a small part, it is a very essential part of the infrastructure that is necessary in the Burnett River Basin. Much of the emphasis is given to the Paradise Dam whenever infrastructure within the Burnett River Basin is spoken about in this place and in the public debate. It is critically important that these small structures are also recognised as an essential part of that infrastructure package, because the Burnett River Basin is quite large and very diverse in terms of a large number of tributaries that form the economic base of a large number of communities. It is essential that those communities in the upstream areas are allowed to use the water resources in those areas to enhance that economic base. It would be unfortunate and we have to continually guard against the tendency for Burnett River infrastructure to be seen as something that is going to be built to service the industries at the mouth of the river in the Bundaberg and Childers area, because there are a large number of communities in that upstream area which could very well use an increase in access to the water resources of the Burnett River Basin. The Barlil Weir is going to be a relatively small structure with an allocation of only 4,250 megalitres, but it will make a difference in that immediate area and provide some extra water to water users who badly require that extra allocation in that area. It deserves a mention as to how this allocation of 4,250 megalitres has been arrived at. In the debate on the Water Act 2000 and in subsequent debates in this House where that act was previously amended to allow for the construction of the Paradise Dam, this question of what the available allocation is in relation to the environmental flow limits that have been identified in the water resource plan has been thoroughly canvassed. Again here we have another allocation being made available—this time for the Barlil Weir. I certainly support that, but it once again highlights the need for those figures within that water resource plan to be constantly reviewed and the basis upon which they were decided to be constantly reviewed to ensure that extra water can be made available as time goes on and as the administration of those water systems becomes more exact. There were a number of elements to the calculations that went into drawing up those environmental flow limits that certainly had a degree of inaccuracy, and that was recognised by the people who were doing it. It was very much a new area in terms of the science that was involved. Those environmental flow limits that were arrived at could easily have been quite different numbers. If those environmental flow limits are moved to the full extent of the variability, it means that there is considerably more water available for water users within the Burnett River Basin. Last time we debated a piece of legislation that amended the Water Act to allow for the construction of the Paradise Dam and the Eidsvold Weir I did make the point that those environmental flow limits should not be seen as hard and fast rules. They should not be seen as hard and fast lines across which we must not trespass. I think that point needs to be continually made. The illustrations that appeared in the water resource planning documents were particularly good in outlining the concept that the planners had in mind where the need for environmental concern changed on a gradual basis as those flow limits or those factors increased. It is certainly not a case where we cannot go across a particular line—that is, on one side of the line it is environmentally acceptable and on the other side of the line it is doom and disaster—yet there are people engaged in the public debate who like to promote that idea that these things are set in stone and cannot be increased. I would hope that, in time, as the science involved in the modelling of the whole Burnett River system is refined, the precautionary principle that has been 1728 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 part and parcel of that planning process can be relaxed a little and more water can be made available to those areas. Even though this 4,250 megalitres will be particularly welcome in that part of the South Burnett, there is a great need for more water to be made available particularly in that South Burnett area but also within the Central Burnett area. They are just as important as the areas that will benefit from the Paradise Dam, that is, the areas further down the river system that are represented by the member for Burnett and the member for Bundaberg. The upstream users are just as in need of extra water resources as those users further down the system. There is an issue in the Central Burnett area that I am sure the minister is aware of that would be appropriate to mention in the context of this debate, and that is the issue with the Burnett River flood harvesters and the conversion of their licences from a flood harvesting licence to a volumetric licence. That was part of the whole planning process and I know that the department has been negotiating with the Burnett River flood harvesters, who are particularly concerned about the water entitlement that they are going to end up with. This bill before the House refers to historic use agreements and clause 52 refers to the conversion of entitlements and volumetric limits. Those concepts are essentially what is at the heart of the dispute that has caused a great deal of angst for the people who were traditionally flood harvesters in that part of the Central Burnett. Once again the argument for them is that they have an equal entitlement to harvest that water as the people who would benefit from it should they not harvest it, and that is the people who will benefit from the construction of the Paradise Dam. While we have not seen a resolution yet to that particular issue, I would express to the minister the hope that some fairness and equity can apply and that the quite valid arguments that have been put forward by those people about their historic use agreements can be adequately addressed by his department. When we get to those particular clauses that deal with volumetric limits and conversion of entitlements we might pursue those issues in more detail. The bill also deals with changing water entitlements. This is the area in which all the alarm bells ring for water users. Under the water reform process and under the Water Act 2000, their water entitlements can be changed on a rolling 10-year basis. It is quite possible—although I would hope not probable—that a water entitlement can be eroded away considerably over time. We are talking about a resource the management of which is over a long period of time—that is, 30, 40 or 50 years. In, say, 50 years it is possible that we will have five different water resource plans in place. At the conclusion of each and at the start of the next, water entitlements can be eroded. Over a period of five of those rollovers a water entitlement could be eroded substantially, certainly to a point at which the economic viability of an operation could be threatened. That is the reason the compensation principles I spoke about at the beginning of my contribution are so important. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr SEENEY: We will have a chance to talk about the detail in the committee stage. I am sure the minister looks forward to that as much as I do. I hope that his keenness to participate in the second reading debate persists into the committee stage. We will talk about the detail then. This bill sets out to ensure that the percentage of the total water available in a particular catchment remains the same for each entitlement holder. An example is set out in the explanatory notes of a person with one-thousandth of the water available in a catchment maintaining that same percentage of water as the water entitlements change. That in itself is fair enough, but it does not address the essential element of the security of the property right that people need to invest in to develop businesses that have a 30-, 40- or 50-year life span and that will have to weather four, five or six changes in water resource plans. I note also in that proposed section of the bill there is what is referred to as a long form and a short form for amending the water resource plan. I support the concept that has been put forward, namely, that there should be two different ways of amending water resource plans. There is provision within the long form to include the type of compensation provision which I believe and which we have always argued should have been part of the Water Act 2000. Essentially, that issue will not go away. It will continue to be an issue and we will continue to argue that those compensation provisions need to be there to provide the security of title that is needed for proper management regimes to be put in place and for sustainable management to be achieved in the long term. The other issue that I need to talk about in relation to the Burnett River infrastructure is the land resumptions taking place in and around the Paradise Dam site. I have spoken at length 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1729 previously in this House about the need for land resumptions to be carried out fairly and in such a way that does not put the owners of the land identified as needed for public use through unnecessary angst or disruption. Unfortunately, that has not been the case with the Paradise Dam land resumptions. It is particularly disappointing that this sort of problem continues to arise. I acknowledge that land resumptions are never easy. Every honourable member who has had to deal with land resumptions in their electorate recognises that land resumptions are never easy. People are likely to be upset when asked to give up their piece of land for public infrastructure. When we as a community identify that an individual's land is required for public infrastructure, I believe we have a duty of care and a responsibility that cannot be underestimated or understated to ensure that that individual is not asked to bear the cost of what will provide a benefit to us all. Whether that land is being resumed for roads, schools or whatever, the government of the day has a responsibility to ensure that those individuals being asked to sell what is theirs are not put through a negative experience. That is exactly what has happened with respect to the Paradise Dam land resumptions. Burnett Water was the corporate entity set up by the government—I will not go into the reasons why it was set up—to pursue the project. It went into the marketplace and set out to acquire the land required for the Paradise Dam in some sort of commercial negotiation-type exercise. At all times during that so-called commercial negotiation exercise the threat of compulsory resumption was hanging over the heads of these land-holders. That threat of compulsory resumption was used in a way by the people conducting those commercial negotiations that was quite unacceptable. Ordinarily, somebody in the field trying to acquire land by commercial negotiation would not have had the benefit of having the compulsory acquisition process as a big stick hanging over the negotiations. That has affected the balance of fairness within those commercial negotiations. As far as I know, most of the land has been acquired through commercial negotiations and there are still some parcels of land that may go through the compulsory acquisition process. We in this parliament have a responsibility, irrespective of the side of the House on which we sit, to get this issue of acquiring private land for public use right. It is unacceptable to see Queenslanders put through the anguish, frustration and trauma that I have seen my constituents go through in the acquisition of land for Paradise Dam. It has been very difficult for me as a local member, as it would be for any local member in that situation, because of the commercial negotiation process. Until that process of negotiation between Burnett Water and the individual land-holders was finalised, the compulsory acquisition processes set out in the compulsory acquisition of land legislation did not kick in. However, that combination did not work well. It did not do anything to facilitate that process. It is something that I believe the government needs to bear in mind. If the government is going to acquire land for public infrastructure such as this in the future, I suggest the Paradise Dam example is not one that it should follow. It did not produce a desirable outcome or make it any easier for those people involved. In my view, it would have been better had the government gone through the compulsory acquisition process right from the start instead of combining the two processes, that is, not use the commercial transaction process at the same time as having the compulsory acquisition process hanging over people's heads. It was used quite blatantly in particular cases where people were in negotiation with Burnett Water and at the same time compulsory acquisition notices were being published in the local newspaper. For people who did not understand the complexities of the process or the differences between commercial negotiation and a compulsory acquisition process it was a very frustrating and worrying time. I do not think we can overstate the importance of getting that process right. Clause 137 of the bill makes some amendments to the Fitzroy River water resource plan. The clause contains a series of small amendments to the conversion of water entitlements, the priority of those water entitlements and the rate of take that is allowable for those water entitlements. The whole issue of security of water entitlements is addressed in those amendments to the Fitzroy River water resource plan. Currently, the Fitzroy River resource operation plan is causing a great deal of concern within that Fitzroy River basin—and quite rightly so. Once again, the impact of these planning processes upon individuals, existing operations and communities has not been properly canvassed by the government. We could be forgiven for thinking that the government is not particularly interested in the impact, because no socioeconomic study has been done in regard to the Fitzroy River draft resource operation plan. That plan was introduced just before Christmas. I believe that its introduction was designed to reduce or minimise the level of scrutiny that was going to be 1730 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 available. Irrigators were given three months to respond to the plan, but the fact that it was introduced just before Christmas meant that it took a while—after the holiday period—before the impacts of the resource operation plan became clear to the people who were going to be affected by it. There was next to no consultation. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines failed to consult properly with the irrigators and the communities who were going to be directly affected by that resource operation plan. That has had the understandable outcome of a further reduction in the confidence that water users and those communities have in the department. That level of confidence is now at a new low. In fact, confidence in the whole process is at a new low. There is a proposal to enlarge the release outlet at the bottom of Fairbairn Dam—to release about 4,000 megalitres of water per day for 21 days. That is quite a large amount of water to be released from what has been one of the most successful irrigation dams in Queensland. Too often in this House members stand up and talk about the negative impacts of water use. They like to point to the problems—real or imagined—of particular irrigation schemes in Queensland. They love to talk about the lower end of the Murray and the quite obvious problems and mistakes that have been made there. We very seldom hear the success stories, such as the Fairbairn Dam at Emerald. I suggest that those members opposite who like to participate in these debates get themselves out to Emerald and have a look at the way in which the Fairbairn Dam is operated and the great success that has been achieved there and the great community that has developed in Emerald simply because of the Fairbairn Dam and the water that it has made available not only to irrigated cropping but also to coalmining and a range of other smaller industries. This proposal to release some 4,000 megalitres of water a day for 21 days will undoubtedly erode the reliability and the viability of that dam. For quite a number of years now that irrigation project has proven to be one of the great success stories. It has contributed to a very viable and very prosperous community. That viability will certainly be eroded and the confidence of that community will be destroyed by this proposal to release such a large percentage of the water from the dam in the way that has been suggested. That proposal will have a major impact on that region of central Queensland, which has prospered markedly more than other regions in Queensland. Organisations in central Queensland have conducted studies into the impact that this proposal in the draft resource operation plan will have on the region's primary production. I believe that some of the statistics that have been revealed by those studies need to be taken into account in this debate. Over the past 10 years, the dam has been at almost 100 per cent allocation. If implemented, the draft resource operation plan would have seen three of those years with nil allocation. So for three of the past 10 years, there would have been nil allocation and no irrigated cropping in that area of central Queensland. Under this draft resource operation plan, in those three years there would have been no allocation, hundreds of millions of dollars would have been wiped off the central Queensland economy, and hundreds of millions of dollars would have been lost to the Queensland economy with the loss of the cotton and horticultural crops that have been growing in that particular area. That would have also represented thousands of on-farm and industry jobs lost. That is a part of the water planning process that the Beattie government seems reluctant to get into. There has been no socioeconomic impact study done of the proposals that are contained in the draft resource operation plan. The Beattie government has tried to rush through this draft plan without any consultation with primary producers and next to none with the local community. Is it any wonder that confidence in the planning process and confidence in the department is so low in that area? There is a very strong need to protect the environment and to ensure sufficient environmental flows. That can be taken as a given. But no-one can ignore the fact that thousands of people in central Queensland rely on irrigation for their production. If the proposals that are contained within the draft resource operation plan come to fruition, those crops and the livelihoods that are dependent on them are certainly at risk. I acknowledge that the minister has extended the submission deadline to the middle of the year. That needed to be done. But I hope that the minister will do more than that and take notice of the concern that the irrigators and the communities have expressed about the draft resource operation plan. I hope that we will not see a situation that will jeopardise the viability of the most successful irrigation scheme in central Queensland, because this draft plan, if implemented in its 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1731 entirety, has the potential to cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of that local economy and cut thousands of on-farm jobs and local town jobs. I would like to address the clauses in this bill that deal with the imposition of moratorium notices. The bill allows for moratorium notices to be applied to particular areas where no planning processes are in place. At the moment, the moratorium notices are part of that planning process. This bill allows the minister to apply those moratorium notices to areas where water resource plans have not commenced. My concern about this element of the bill is that it seems to me that it will allow moratorium notices to be imposed indefinitely. Although I acknowledge that the bill contains a requirement for the minister to review those moratoriums each year, while they are not part of a planning process there is no incentive to arrive at a stage at which those moratorium notices can be lifted. I imagine that the only way in which a moratorium notice would be lifted would be if that planning process was completed. Once the planning process is completed and the resource available in that particular catchment was identified, then the moratorium notice could be lifted and the development that was the subject of that moratorium would be allowed to proceed. However, under the provisions of this bill, the moratorium notice would be put in place but the planning process would not commence. There would be no incentive—there would be no likelihood even—that a moratorium would be lifted at any foreseeable time in the future simply because nothing changes until the planning process is completed. At least when the planning process is in place it becomes something that is measurable in terms of an outcome of the department. It becomes something that we look at each year—how many of these water resource plans the department has concluded for a particular year and how many river operation plans are part of the outcome that the department identifies in its budgetary processes each year. That results in an incentive for the department to complete those planning processes in particular catchments. It would be unlikely that once the planning process was started in a particular catchment it would not be completed within a three-year or five-year time frame. If the planning process was still going on in a particular catchment 10 years after it was started, I as the shadow minister and other people would be asking questions about that. That in itself would provide an incentive for that planning process to be completed, so that the moratorium that was imposed as part of it could be lifted and the development identified as possible within that catchment could proceed. If we go away from that process—if we take the ability to impose a moratorium out of that process and allow the minister to impose moratoriums without that planning process—there is no incentive at all for those moratoriums to be lifted. I think what is being proposed is a recipe for moratoriums that will be applied indefinitely. I suggest to the minister that the parliament deserves an explanation of his intent in relation to those moratoriums. No doubt during the committee stage we will have a chance to explore that intent and look at how those moratoriums will be used. The bill also deals with the requirement for land and water management plans. The land and water management planning process is something I personally support very strongly. It is something I believe is very much needed by the industry as a tool to defend itself against some of the hysterical and emotive claims that are increasingly made about the activities of the irrigation industry in particular. Some of those claims are quite ludicrous and can be shown to be so. But the industry needs a tool to be able to show the silliness and unfairness of some of those claims. Land and water management plans, if they are properly constructed, properly used and part of a proper overall management process, can be used to rebut some of the emotive and sensationalist claims that are made by the anti-everything brigade that seems to have the intent of closing down the irrigation industry right across Queensland. I certainly support the land and water management planning process, even though I do recognise that it is an imposition on land-holders. Land-holders are understandably cautious about the increasing number of such impositions that are being placed on their businesses. But I believe it is critical for the industry to embrace this land and water management planning process to give itself the tool to rebut the sensational and emotive claims that are all too often made. This bill extends the requirements for those land and water management plans in a number of areas. One of those is in relation to seasonal transfer users of water. The extension of those land and water management plans is something we would certainly support. I take this opportunity to encourage water users to embrace that land and water management planning process. 1732 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

The bill also contains an element which seeks to delay valuation changes when water entitlements are separated from the land. I am a little puzzled as to why this particular provision is in the legislation. The whole issue of unimproved value of land is always contentious. I and other members have spoken about that many times in this House. The whole system of arriving at an unimproved valuation for a particular piece of land is becoming increasingly difficult. The particular section of this bill that deals with changes in that valuation when the water entitlement is separated is something we will have to discuss to some degree in the committee stage. The bill sets out to delay those valuation changes for 12 months. I think the minister has an inherent responsibility to explain to the parliament why that particular element has been included in this bill. Clauses 144 and 146 of the bill address an issue of utmost importance to water users throughout my electorate and right throughout Queensland. Clause 144 deals with the minister's power of direction over government owned corporations. Of course, the government owned corporation in this particular instance is SunWater. Clause 146 goes on to clarify the situation of water entitlements and their transfer to SunWater. I have said before in this parliament—I will say it again and I will continue to say it at every opportunity I get—that the government and the minister in particular cannot use SunWater to abrogate their responsibilities to the water users of Queensland. The fact that this particular element is included in clause 144 of this bill evidences the argument that I and other members have made in this House over a long period of time. The government owned corporation system—the government sets up these GOCs and asks them to operate in a corporate manner, at arms-length from the cabinet decision making process—probably has particular advantages, but I think it has been grossly misused by this government, particularly in relation to decisions that it knows are unpopular or difficult. That is exactly the position that the minister has adopted in relation to SunWater. That position has also been adopted by other ministers. Those of us who were in the House this morning during question time saw a classic example of it with the Minister for Tourism and Racing. The minister refuses to take any responsibility for decisions that impact severely on Queenslanders throughout the whole state. That is the case with decisions that have been taken by SunWater, yet the minister refuses to take any responsibility. This government's ministers use this GOC argument as a cop-out. The nonsense and the absurdity of that argument is demonstrated clearly by clause 144 of this bill, which deals with the minister's power of direction over those government owned corporations. Of course the minister has power of direction over those government owned corporations, and that should be the case. The government of this state is elected by the people of this state to administer these particular areas of public administration. This morning the example was Queensland Racing. In this particular instance the example is the administration of the water resources within the state. Whether it is the administration of Queensland racing or the administration of water resources, government owned corporations such as SunWater and Queensland Racing cannot be used as a cop-out by ministers who refuse to do the job for which they are paid. That is what is happening with SunWater at the moment. It has been happening with SunWater for quite some time. If there is one organisation that has been at the heart of the reason the trust and confidence of Queensland water users in the government has been destroyed, it is SunWater and the attitude it has adopted towards people who are essentially its customers—towards people who have always had an entitlement or a water allocation and have previously dealt with the Department of Natural Resources or the Water Resources Commission and who are now being asked to deal with this government owned corporation called SunWater. The approach that SunWater has taken has been abysmal in terms of customer relations and any sort of corporate responsibility. It has destroyed any sort of confidence that water users have had or may have had in that water reform process. That is not only disappointing but also tragic in terms of achieving the outcomes that we want to see and that responsible people in regional Queensland want to see and which the government stands up in this House and espouses as its aim. While we have this sort of approach from government owned corporations like SunWater, those outcomes will not be achieved. They will not be achieved until the minister takes some responsibility for the actions of SunWater and uses those powers that are referred to in clause 144 of this bill to give some direction to government owned corporations—in this case SunWater—to act in a manner that, one, would be much more acceptable from a corporate point 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1733 of view and, two, would be much more in keeping with what should be expected from a government in its relationship with the people who elect it. Clause 144 deals with the power of direction that shareholding ministers have over SunWater. I certainly support the fact that ministers should have the power of direction. The point should be made here at every opportunity that they should have the power of direction. Of course they would anyway, because with every one of these government owned corporations there are two shareholding ministers. Even in the corporate world, using as an example a corporation with two shareholders, those shareholders would have a fair bit of influence on the activities of that particular corporation. Even in the corporate world, quite removed from government, if a shareholder of a corporation with only two shareholders were to ring the CEO of a corporation and say, 'I do not think this is a good idea' or 'I do not think this outcome is to anyone's benefit', then it would be appropriate to think that the CEO of that corporation would take a bit of notice and be influenced by the opinion of those shareholders. That is even more so when we are talking about government owned corporations. It is absurd and ludicrous to suggest that ministers have no influence over the activities of government owned corporations of which they are sole shareholders. This whole tendency to use government owned corporations as some sort of a buffer from public opinion or a buffer from constituents is one that has to be brought to an end. The government needs to be accountable for the actions that it takes and the policies that it implements. That is the reality of any government that sits on that side of this House. Whoever sits on the government benches needs to be accountable to the people who are affected by the decisions that the government makes. The idea of continually using GOCs to shirk that responsibility and to hide from that accountability that should be part and parcel of occupying that side of the House is something that I believe is despicable and has to be brought to an end. Ministers have to be held to account for the activities of GOCs for which they are accountable and responsible. As much as we are able, the opposition will continue to use whatever mechanisms are available to us in this House to ensure that ministers are responsible for the activities of the government owned corporations that operate under their jurisdiction. In this case, we are talking about SunWater, and we could not get a better example. There are a number of issues that will be addressed in the committee stage of the debate. I look forward to hearing from the minister some of those— Mr Shine interjected. Mr SEENEY: The member for Toowoomba North can go home if he likes. With the contribution that he makes to this place, he probably would not be missed. He can go home if he likes, but we intend to explore the provisions of this legislation on behalf of the people who will be affected by it. I look forward to the minister responding to some of those issues that I have raised. We will continue to pursue these issues in the committee stages of the debate. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (5.25 p.m.): Commercialisation of water—and that essentially is what some of our rural sectors see this as—was at the initiation of the federal government. I do not think it can stand apart from this and start blaming Queensland or anywhere north of the Tweed for the fact that people in rural areas are unhappy with the way water is dealt with. We have had threats of withholding of credits under the national competition policy or amending the Constitution giving the federal government authority to take control of water resources. It has not got the guts or the nerve to do either, though I suggest that even though it is in denial over withdrawal of credits under the NCP it might even try that one. The federal government says that there are no threats to withdraw credits under the national competition policy, but I was at a conference in Canberra last year where this was stated by a senior member of the federal coalition. This is denial and an outright lie. If it is going to change policy, come out and openly say, 'This is what we planned. Now we have changed our minds and this is what we plan.' Mr Robertson: Hear, hear! Mr FLYNN: I have to say in response to the minister's 'hear, hear!' that the state is not immune. I concur with the remarks of the member for Callide in that they must respond to the shareholders, and the shareholders are this government. So, really and truly, it has to be the government who is responsible for what SunWater does. Having said that, I believe Queensland has the moral ground on planning for the future of the conservation and the consumption of water. There is no other state in this country that has taken the strides that we have, under whatever government, in order to ensure the sensible and conservative use of water. 1734 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

The federal government wants Queensland water, amongst other things, for southern wasters of this resource. Anywhere north of Tweed Heads, in their thinking, is not in the equation except as a place to steal water resources. There is a great deal of confusion amongst water users in reference to the issue of licences, the extent of what the licences allow, allocations, transfers, and the policing of the act and its regulations. We have situations where large landowners—and it has happened in my electorate—are buying up small blocks and transferring water in bulk through pumps. If with this legislation we are endeavouring to not grant any licences to more people at the expense of people who already have licences, this practice by large land owning squattocracy has to cease, and we have to identify those who are buying up these large blocks and squirreling away the water when it could be used for smaller users. We also have examples of natural holes and creek beds being enlarged to maximise supply against the interests of those down the river. Small business—which I refer to as small farmers—are the ones who create the most in the way of wealth for this state. There are more of them, they are more efficient, and they are producing what we need to feed this state and to supply interstate interests and overseas interests. So we need to ensure that people are not rorting the system to conserve water for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of Queenslanders. I ask: why is it that we see all sorts of difficulties with water supply and yet the blame seems to be placed on farmers? In whatever area we look most—and I stress most—are thrifty in such use. They have to be. They have no access to the huge dam supplies in and around Queensland, particularly from the Wivenhoe in a case I wish to quote, in which greedy, wasteful city people from the downs and through regional towns—Brisbane to Logan, Beaudesert to the end of the line and ultimately to the Gold Coast—continue to hose their yards and driveways, wash their cars wastefully and just generally pour water down the sink. Yet farmers are the ones who are supposed to be thrifty with water when they are growing what we eat. I cannot eat a car, I cannot eat a driveway and I certainly do not appreciate yard owners wasting water by hosing something off when they are too lazy to go out and sweep the thing. This bill, along with similar bills before it, seems to be aimed at opposing unclear restrictions, not necessarily unfair restrictions, on people on the land instead of throwing the book at towns and cities that collectively waste enough water in one year to irrigate the greater part of Queensland's agricultural basin in the same year. We continually get bombarded with advertisements which show a tap dripping and we are told that if one tap in one house keeps going for the year we will waste so many thousands of litres of water per year. This advertisement was repeated, on purpose, throughout regional towns and cities, but it has to be policed. The only way it can be policed reasonably is by local authorities. Local and state authorities have to agree on a method of policing the wastage of water by city folk. Sensible regulation by the minister—yes. Mollycoddling of city folk at the expense of our food basket—no. Water allocation, it appears, seems not to have been made on a needs basis; rather, it is made on size of the block, which bears little resemblance to the actual needs or water usage of some of our farmers. The issue of water regulation, whichever catchment we refer to, will not be addressed until we have a common understanding of the issues involved. One of the players involved is Canberra. It has one opinion. Brisbane state, another player, has another opinion. Brisbane city differs yet again, but it always does. None will agree with the farmers who continue, in my area anyway, to suffer from the arrogance of city centric authorities. No laws will make it rain, but when it does we do not need to be in the business of earning money through trading not merely in a natural resource but a resource so vital to the world that in fact we would die without it. The Premier refers to the Smart State. Fine, that is all right, but we cannot eat microchips. We do eat food and we need water to produce it. There are people wasting water. I believe a return to the drawing board is warranted and we will support a bipartisan approach to this subject. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (5.32 p.m.): I rise in support of the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill because of its importance to all Queenslanders now, of course, and, importantly, in the future. In particular, I would like to direct my comments to its importance to the implementation of a water trading market and consequently, because of that, the separation of water and land title. As members of this parliament would be aware, water licences and other entitlements to take or use water have been historically attached to the land. Water licences actually contain a description of the land that they are attached to. But in 1994 COAG developed a water resources 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1735 policy that requires all states and territories to develop marketing water entitlements that are separate from land as part of that wider water reform agenda. I am pleased to say that Queensland is leading the pack in the field of water reform, largely due to the strength of our primary water legislation, the Water Act. When a resource operations plan is approved for a catchment, existing water licences can be converted to separate tradeable water allocations that travel separately from the land. These allocations will be listed in the newly developed Water Allocations Register, which is operated by the Queensland Resource Registry. This is the only place that newly created water allocations, as well as any interests like mortgages or covenants that are held over those allocations, can be registered. Queensland's Water Allocations Register is based on the Lands Title Registry, and it is a testament to the Smart State that Queensland's approach is being used as a model for registration systems throughout Australia. I think what is important for us to consider is why exactly we are separating water title from land title, because I think separate water titles are vital to a robust, effective market in tradeable water allocations. Just as with land, separate titles for water allow for more efficient operation of key market mechanisms, such as supply, demand and price—the sort of things that historically some members of the opposition parties were elected to this place to highlight. There are a number of factors that need to be considered in implementing such a major change to the way we think about and deal with water entitlements. This bill contains amendments to the Water Act that are necessary to manage some of these considerations and better facilitate the process of separating land and water. I know the minister and his department have consulted and negotiated extensively with stakeholders in this area. Of course, when dealing with any of these issues there are very diverse groups of stakeholders. It is not just irrigators or other holders of water allocations. When there is this separation, particularly with separate title, we are talking about banks, solicitors, accountants, valuers and real estate agents as just a portion of that wide group of stakeholders. I take the opportunity this afternoon to talk about some of these amendments and what they will actually achieve. The process of separating water allocations from land will affect how each of the separate titles, the water entitlement and the land entitlement, are valued. That is why this bill amends the Valuation of Land Act 1944 to provide for at least a 12 month deferral of the impact of the separation process on land valuations to allow local governments to review the rating systems. When one separates water and land title, it has an effect on the land's value because the value of the water has been deducted from the total unimproved value of the land. This obviously has implications for local councils who use valuations as part of the process of setting rates and collecting the revenue they need to operate. This amendment means that the unimproved valuation of any property cannot be changed, because of the separation of water and land title, for at least 12 months. These amendments demonstrate the Beattie government's commitment to making sure that the implementation of the water reform process causes as little disruption to local councils as possible. We need to make sure that local councils can still do their jobs and that they do not suffer huge financial upsets as water trading is introduced. These amendments also give the government the opportunity to assess the implications that separate water allocations are likely to have on land valuations for the key players before they actually occur. The deferral allows local governments to consider differential or other rating options for land that is affected by separation of title so that local council revenue raising is not affected. A further amendment raised by this bill is about extending the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act that relate to obtaining and dealing with sales information so that they apply to water allocations. This amendment, allowing access to information about water trades, is an important part of ensuring that Queensland has an effective market in water allocations, because I think everybody in here will appreciate that open and accessible market information is absolutely fundamental for an effective and efficient market to operate. Whether it be in water, in land, in electricity or in gas, this goal of the most effective water markets possible is a central part of the Beattie government's commitment to the water reform agenda and to a sustainable water resource management framework. In reaffirming my support for the bill, I encourage all members of the parliament from both sides of this House to take a fair and correct view of what the government is trying to achieve here, and that is making minor and largely procedural amendments to the Water Act. These 1736 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 amendments will not undermine, or fundamentally change, the act. They are necessary to ensure that the act can operate to maximum efficiency. They are necessary to ensure a better delivery of the goal of an equitable and sustainable water management framework that will deliver benefits to all Queenslanders today and, importantly, into the future. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (5.39 p.m.): The Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is an extremely important bill, particularly at this time following a disastrous drought and when property rights and water entitlements and allocations are one of the major issues in rural Australia. The people of rural Australia are feeling very vulnerable. They have made massive investments in their properties and agricultural enterprises. When they buy a property and spend vast amounts of money developing that property, the value and security of water allocations are extremely important. It is also important to the banking system and the whole economy of agricultural areas. This bill deals with matters that follow on from the Water Act 2000, but I wanted to make the point as to how crucial and important property rights and water rights are to rural Australia. Whether the various areas rely on overland flow or on taking water from a serviced and sourced system such as a dam or whether it is allocations from bores and underground aquifers, it is important for all of those people to have a degree of certainty so that they know exactly where they stand. The recent drought—and sadly there will be more of them—demonstrated the importance of water and the importance of water security. The drought also demonstrated that just because a person has an allocation from those storage systems does not necessarily mean that they will get it. Because of the seasonal conditions on the Darling Downs, hundreds of ring tanks have been constructed over the years to catch the overland flow. Properties have been laser levelled so that they can catch the overland flows from storms and tail water from irrigation systems so as not to waste a drop of water. Many of those systems, which cost $500,000 to $1 million, have been empty for years and years because there simply have not been the seasonal conditions to allow them to catch overland flow or there has not been the flow in the Condamine-Balonne system to enable them to source water because of the low level of the Leslie Dam, one of the sources of the Condamine-Balonne system. So it is essential that we get this right. Agriculture, the associated small businesses and the flow on that comes from agriculture in terms of jobs and exports are very important and so much of it stems from water. Places with relatively good water supplies such as Goondiwindi, the St George district, Gympie, Emerald and the Atherton Tableland have been able to do other things. They may have been struggling with various commodities in terms of the traditional types of agricultural pursuits, but once the water situation was resolved and there was access to adequate water they were able to expand into cotton, a high level production of grain, horticulture, grapes and all sorts of products. They have been able to look for export markets and higher value crops. That has brought about a degree of economic improvement. The fact that young people are moving into those areas with a contracting business with their utility, spray rig or whatever clearly demonstrates that there are opportunities for those young people. These young men and women are working in agriculture with degrees and diplomas. There is a future for them and it stems from the fact that there is a reliable water supply. It is absolutely important that all sides of this House realise the importance of water security. Many people, particularly those in rural Australia, understand that there is only so much water in the bucket, particularly in lower rainfall areas. An area may be associated with a great breadth of wonderful soils but may be a low rainfall area. One such area is the Condamine-Balonne system, and there are many challenges of providing security to people to ensure that they have adequate amounts of water to undertake agriculture while at the same time ensuring the long-term health of the river and the environment. It is very important to get it right. I again say in the presence of the minister that the importance of the people believing that the science being undertaken is right is absolutely crucial. When people come to meetings and there is community input, it is important that that input is listened to. In last week's Country Life there was an article about a mayor from north Queensland who no longer wants to be involved in the community discussion and negotiating process. He said that he travels hundreds of kilometres to go to such meetings but the George Street bureaucrats do not take any notice and the results reflect what they want in Brisbane. It is important that we listen to the sensible contributions of those people who know and understand the land and who want to pass it on in a productive way to their community or their children or who want to sell their place as a viable, sustainable property. That is why it is important for the water resource planning to be completed. That is why it is important for there to be 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1737 security. That is why it is important for people to be able to have some knowledge that if in the event there has to be some change and adjustment there can be some compensation. If there is not, it is just like saying to a business, 'You can no longer sell 10 per cent of your particular products. We're taking that off the market because we believe there are too many businesses in this city.' I have mentioned the Condamine-Balonne system. It is a system that has three separate components to it—the Upper Condamine area, the central area of the system and the lower area. I hope we never again see in this state an attack on a rural community like we saw with Cubbie Station. Hopefully the lessons learnt from that will be that rural communities will work and cooperate if it is a genuine arrangement with true science. They certainly will stand up for themselves when it is a stunt to simply destroy a community or destroy a property for some sort of political gain without any real gain for the environment or any real gain for the river system or the overall sustainability of agriculture. I hope the lessons have been learnt, because one reason after another was put up for the attack on Cubbie Station and they were shown to be incorrect. I hope that those lessons are well and truly learnt. If there is confidence—confidence that it is genuine, confidence that ensures that the science and the measuring and the use of the data that is obtained from the river measurement is being used correctly and not taking selected pieces of evidence or data for one's own political gain—genuineness and truthfulness in the political system, then there will be real cooperation from rural communities. I have spoken about what water can do to rural communities. I have spoken time and time again about the recycled water project for the Lockyer and Darling Downs. Some great systems have been put in place in Queensland like the Burdekin Falls Dam, which has such a big catchment and which has such a high rainfall in its catchment. It supplies an area of a huge expanse of fertile land in the dry tropics and enables producers in the area to apply the water as it is required so that they can get the maximum value from the agricultural processes and the crops being grown. Likewise, the Darling Downs and the Western Downs have some of the best farm land in the world and some of the best farmers in the world. Some of the yields in terms of sorghum, corn, winter crops, cotton and so forth are up there with the best, if not the best, in the world. That area has some magnificent black soils. The one thing that is missing is that it is in a low rainfall area and it does not have a stream that comes from a high rainfall area. Maybe at the head of the Condamine just up from Killarney there is reasonable rainfall, but for most other areas in that catchment system there is not heavy rainfall. It is an area that does need water, and the recycled water project fits the environment bill, fits the agriculture bill and fits the jobs and economy bill. The recycled water project would take the 120,000 megalitres of waste water that currently flows into the Brisbane River in the Goodna area and into Moreton Bay, treat it perhaps even to a higher standard and turn it back so that some 40,000 megalitres could be used in the Lockyer and 80,000 megalitres could be used on the Darling Downs. People ask, 'How will you get the water over the range?' Toowoomba's water comes up the range. Toowoomba's water comes from at least two-thirds of the way down the range, mostly from the Crestbrook Dam. It has to be lifted 400 metres. A project such as this one that would see water lifted somewhere in the order of 500 or 600 metres through a lower part of the range makes sense, particularly when we see that this will immediately deliver some $200 million a year in increased farm gate sales right from day one when the water arrives in the Lockyer and the Darling Downs. The economic benefits will be far greater than that, because once the water is available farmers will be able to expand some of the agricultural practices they undertake on their properties. Imagine $200 million extra in the Lockyer and the Darling Downs. Imagine how we would fall over ourselves if a huge company said it was going to open up a new factory generating sales of $200 million a year. Imagine the jobs that would flow from that. Imagine the jobs that would flow from this project. Imagine the job opportunities created for young people, the opportunities for small business and the export opportunities for our state. We need exports if we are to grow our state. We have to bring in outside money. We cannot keep selling to ourselves. We have to find outside markets. Imagine the value adding that could occur through that certainty. People would know they had an allocation of water even in the worst of droughts. They would have a minimum of, say, a 500 megalitre allocation of recycled water. This would enable farmers to plan and actively pursue exports. It would enable them to look at higher value crops. It would enable them to have a sensible mix of water use—overland flow, allocations from the Leslie Harrison Dam and the Condamine, and the bore water systems, which are almost becoming mining operations and are becoming more difficult as time goes by. In times of good rainfall this project would enable 1738 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 more water to flow down the Condamine-Balonne system and provide further environmental benefits throughout the rest of the Condamine-Balonne system, because the farmers would not necessarily have to extract all of the water they are entitled to from the river. At the same time, the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay would enjoy wonderful environmental benefits. This would stop the growth of blue-green algae because of the nitrogen phosphorous going into the river from Luggage Point and Goodna. It would provide for a more pristine Moreton Bay. There are benefits in not wasting that water. The water is already being stored in Wivenhoe and used in Brisbane. It is being thrown out into Moreton Bay and creating an environmental problem. Why not use it for dry, parched but fertile land so as to provide crops, exports, jobs and economic growth? If we had $200 million a year in increased farm gate sales in both the Lockyer and Darling Downs, even if we take it on a dollar-for-dollar basis it basically means a $400 million increase to the economy of south-east Queensland. Similar to the Burnett River Dam, which is part of the Paradise Dam and which is referred to in this bill, the project has been overseen by the Department of State Development. But there is enormous input and involvement from the Department of Natural Resources. This project needs to be pushed. DNR&M should be pushing for this. It is a great project—a Snowy Mountains project. Its ballpark cost is in the order of $500 million to $600 million, if we look at the sensible projections that have been put forward by those who understand hydrology and flood irrigation and the transfer of water. We do not need a Rolls Royce system where a tap is turned on and high-pressure water comes out of a pipe. We need a simple but well engineered system where water can be taken off using a cheap method into a system of channels and infrastructure that will be provided by the farmers. Already on the Darling Downs over 300 farmers have said that they would be prepared to contract the airspace in their ring tanks to take 500 megalitres per year come rain, hail or shine. Even in flood times when they do not need extra water they would still have the airspace available to take their allocation. This is a wonderful project and is the sort of thing we should be doing in Queensland. I shake my head when I think of the economic and environmental benefits, the opportunities for young people and for exports—everything about it makes sense—and yet it seems to be taking so long for this to get started. We have the hoo-ha from people asking, 'Who will pay?' There is only one way to make this pay. The irrigators have said they are prepared to put in capital on top of the recurrent costs that they would have to pay for the water. The National Party has said that we would be prepared to put up at least $200 million as our commitment to this project, that being approximately one-third of the project. The federal government could put in a similar amount and private enterprise might provide a proportion of it, perhaps the pump station at the bottom of the range. If everyone works cooperatively, this project is a goer. We can make it happen. We just have to have the political will, the vision and spirit of development to make this happen. These are the sorts of things that governments should be doing. We can stand in here and talk about schemes to help people with long-term unemployment or schemes to help people who have trouble finding jobs. But here is a chance to provide real jobs—apprenticeships, traineeships and all of the other ongoing benefits that would flow from a project such as this one, particularly in some of the semiskilled and marketing areas. I hope the minister takes this on board. The key points I wanted to make today concern property rights and security. Anybody who has put their hand in their pocket and borrowed big money and battled the elements, whether in small business, larger businesses or agriculture, would know there are big risks. People who do that accept that there is a risk. It behoves governments to ensure that in return for the hard work, effort and risk that people put into major business enterprises they have a fair chance of succeeding. In agriculture the key component is water. Water security is an important part of the property rights debate. We agree with having resource allocation plans, with ensuring that the correct amount of water is used from a system, with the principle of having an adequate amount that can provide for sustainability of the river and systems further down the river. We believe in all of that. We also believe in people's property rights. That means that the plans should be worked out properly. The DNR needs well trained staff. At present it is struggling with staff numbers. At no time has it probably more needed good staff and an increase in its staff numbers than now so that these water allocation plans can be undertaken in order to bring about this certainty. The longer this uncertainty goes on, the more contractors and young people we will see out of work, because no more development and maintenance is being conducted. People need to know what their 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1739 allocation will be so that they can have a degree of certainty when going to their bank. They need to able to say, 'This is what we are doing. This is our plan for the future. This is what we think we will do. We think this is what we can deliver in repayments on our property or loans on equipment to run our property properly.' I urge the minister to crack the whip, to get water resource planning under way and to work to the principle of property rights and property security to ensure that people can get on with it. Most importantly, as the minister responsible for DNR, he should drive this recycled water project, which can deliver so much to south-east Queensland. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.59 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. In speaking to this bill, I acknowledge that the bill allows for amendments to a range of state acts, which include the Water Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Integrated Planning Act and the Valuation of Land Act. In thinking through what stance I would take on this bill, I reflected on conversations that I had last year in my electorate with many of my constituents—irrigators, people living in suburbia, environmentalists, and people just concerned about responsible water usage. I certainly do not want to take my time in this debate to get involved in a slanging match or criticism of one group in my community against another. Suffice is to say that, during the drought last year, the message that came through to me very clearly was the need for the government to respond and the need for the community as a whole to focus on responsible water usage and not pass the buck. Simply, the system has to change. I believe that the minister, through this bill, is making a genuine attempt to move forward, because there simply is not enough water to provide for the many needs and requests that we have at the moment. In my electorate of Nicklin there are very real competing interests between irrigators, spiralling suburban growth, and members of the environmental movement who want to ensure that there is proper water flow down our streams all year round. The last thing that I want to see is the construction of more dams in our water network, because that will simply lead to more resumptions and more relocation of small communities. So I believe that we have to focus on identifying that we have to change our ways and not simply abuse a resource that for too long we have taken for granted. I do not use those words lightly, because I believe that there are people in our communities for whom, for whatever reason, water has been so easy to access. It has been available and in the past they have not had to be accountable for their use of it. I want to comment specifically on a number of clauses of this bill. I refer members particularly to clause 122, which inserts new section 812A(8), which appears to exclude the operations of sections 23 and 24 of the Criminal Code to the extent that these two sections of the Criminal Code appear inconsistent with that section of the bill. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee commented on the implications of proposed new section 812A at page 30 of the Alert Digest, which was tabled this morning in the House by the chairman of the committee. I would like to share with members some of the comments and observations made by the committee. At page 30 of the digest the committee stated— Proposed s.812A may effectively legislate a reversal of the onus of proof, in that it creates a presumption that the holder was the person responsible for the breach of condition, and requires the holder to exculpate him or herself by proving that some other person had physical control over and responsibility for the works associated with the contravention. There was then reference to the explanatory notes. I note in the highlighted section of the digest that the committee noted— ... proposed s.812A (inserted by cl.122) creates a presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a breach of a water allocation or other relevant authorisation via the unauthorised taking of water was committed by the holder rather than by any other person. The proposed section provides a defence to the holder if he or she can prove they did not have physical control over and responsibility for the relevant works at the time of the contravention. The committee noted further— It is not clear to the committee whether this provision in fact produces a reversal of the onus of proof which might otherwise in practice apply in such situations. The committee then referred the matter to the House. About midday today I had a briefing with some of the ministers's departmental staff and we discussed this very issue. I thank the minister for providing that briefing to me. For the purpose of making my intention quite clear, I propose to quote from the briefing note that was provided to me on this very important issue. The department's advice is that it is simply— 1740 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

... for ensuring holders of water entitlements and water permits assume responsibility for the use and management of the water the licence authorises the holder to take in relation to excess water use. The amendment provides for the holder of a water entitlement and permit to be responsible in the first instance for the taking of unauthorised water (for example, taking water in excess of the volume authorised to be taken under a water licence), subject to a defence where the holder is able to nominate another person who in fact has the responsibility and control of the works to take the water and has knowledge of the conditions of the authorisation. The amendment is similar to provisions relating to 'camera detected offences' under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. In short, I am happy with the assurances that I received from the department and after reading the minister's explanatory notes, second reading speech and the bill, I believe that this is a responsible step. The other issue that I wish to touch on briefly relates to clause 131, which inserts a new part 2A of chapter 8, which provides for the appointment of metering contractors and confers certain powers upon these people. I note that under proposed new section 977, these metering contractors may enter lands for various purposes associated with the installation, testing, maintenance, or the reading of meters on private property. The provision of entry powers to private land by public servants or contractors is an issue that I believe we in this House must focus our attention on at all times. I believe that we need to ensure that these powers are strictly controlled and are not handed out willy-nilly to public servants or contractors—call them what we wish. I believe that we need to at all times make sure that, when we grant additional powers of entry, we ensure that there is proper justification and valid reasons for those new powers. I say again that, after reading the minister's second reading speech, his explanatory notes and the detailed briefing that I received from his department, I am of the view that the extension of entry powers, which this bill will provide, are reasonable, especially in light that these provisions are similar to provisions that are contained in the Electricity Act 1994 in respect of powers for entry for electricity officers. In conclusion, I basically say to the minister that there is certainly a long way to go towards ensuring that all members in our community realise that water is a very, very valuable resource and is no longer a resource that we can take for granted. At this stage, I will certainly be supporting the bill, but I will wait to listen to the opposition's proposed amendments that it has already flagged it intends to raise during the committee stage. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (6.07 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the bill tonight. It contains a couple of amendments that are very necessary to my constituents and the people of the Burnett region, which I would like to touch on, because they resolve issues that arose during the final stage of developing the resource operations plan for the Burnett catchment. This bill contains a number of amendments that have been developed in response to issues that arose out of the Burnett catchment's water resource plan—or ROP. One of the amendments contained in this bill will allow a reservation of allocated water for the proposed Barlil weir project in the final Burnett ROP and allow for changes to an existing resource operations licence to include the Barlil weir project. Around 4,200 megalitres of unallocated water will be reserved in the ROP for this weir. This was a factor that was identified in the public review of the environmental factors for the project and is also in line with the objectives of the water resource plan. Honourable members will be aware that the water resource plan is developed before a resource operations plan and sets out the objectives for the water system. The ROP deals with the practical implementation of those objectives. All of the proposed amendments of the Burnett catchment's water resource plan are consistent with the objectives of the plan and do not adversely affect any of its environmental aims. This weir will deliver major benefits not only to the people of my region but also to people throughout the entire South Burnett. It will provide a reliable source of water for the diverse agricultural, horticultural, industrial and urban uses throughout the area. This supply will supplement existing supplies, which are not always reliable. It will also increase the yield of the system supplying the Barker-Barambah irrigation project. The Bjelke-Petersen Dam on Barker Creek is fully allocated and cannot be relied on to satisfy the existing requirements in every year. Additional water supplies and improved reliability will allow increased diversity of agricultural production in this scheme and deliver improved financial security to land-holders in the area. The Beattie government made a promise to build a dam on the Burnett River. This bill provides further proof that this government is delivering on its promises. In 2001 the government established Burnett Water Pty Ltd to develop better water supplies for the Burnett region. I commend the directors of Burnett Water, Mike Montefiori and Rowena McNally, for their application to the task. They have generated an enormous amount of credibility in the project and 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1741 have gained a tremendous amount of respect as a result of the way they operate their business and the way they are pushing forward with this project. One of the corporation's principal goals was to coordinate the proposed dam in the Burnett Basin, the only major water infrastructure project in the country at this time. An impact assessment for this project has supported the proposed dam, which will deliver benefits to my constituents and contribute to the future development of the region. A number of amendments have been developed to allow this project to be completed. One amendment relates to landowner consent for development on land which has been the subject of a community infrastructure designation under the Integrated Planning Act 1997. This House has already amended the IPA to remove the requirement for landowner consent, but these amendments have not yet commenced. This bill brings forward commencement of these provisions so that development of the Burnett Water infrastructure project occurs consistently with the objectives of the IPA. These transitional provisions will apply only until the owner consent provisions in the Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001 commence. A further issue that has arisen out of consultations with the Burnett community relates to how land that may be inundated by one-in-100-year floods should be managed. It is important to ensure that the appropriate storage of water does not come at the expense of the rights of the land-holders at the tail waters. Previously, land that is temporarily inundated but could otherwise continue in its present use would have been acquired by the government or dam operator to extend the land that is controlled for the purposes of the dam. This historical approach is not appropriate for land at the top of the storage area of the dam, because this land is not flooded frequently and even then the inundation is only short term. Currently the Land Act and Land Title Act allow an easement for water storage to be created on inundated land that is behind the weir. These amendments extend those provisions to allow the creation of public utility easements for the purposes of temporary water storage. We are talking about temporary water storage in certain limited circumstances. These circumstances are where there is a flood event that requires the temporary storage of water on land outside the storage area of the dam when it is operating at full supply level. These amendments to the Land Act and Land Title Act respond to the preference expressed by land-holders that inundated land not be acquired but rather that easements be created to allow the storage of valuable floodwater. These provisions are an excellent example of the government's commitment to community consultation and to the protection of individuals' rights in the context of major infrastructure development projects. The amendments in this bill are due to the water resource and resource operations planning processes in the Burnett Basin and will improve the water management framework and the levels and standards of water service provision to my constituents and all those of the Burnett region. I cannot stress enough that the long-term sustainable management of water is vital to the future of the Burnett community because of its importance to local businesses, agriculture and industry as a whole. I support this bill and encourage members to similarly support the wishes of land-holders in the Burnett region. I commend the minister on this bill. He must leap out of bed to come to this place with legislation that he knows will be of benefit to the Burnett. I think of the joy he must receive from listening to 57 to 60 minutes of the member for Callide. He must be excited and filled with expectation that this bill contains 147 clauses to be considered later tonight. The contributions of the member for Callide have been described as a six-minute speech repeated 10 times or as an argument that should take one and a half minutes to set out elongated to 60 minutes to have a greater impact. I commend the minister on the bill. Mr Robertson: Here we go! Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.15 p.m.): I am pleased that the minister is enthusiastic about listening to what will be said by those of us on this side of the chamber. Mr Robertson: And you only have 20 minutes! Mr HOBBS: What a shame! We could have very easily given the minister some more detail in relation to some of the integral matters of water management, water trading and fees. The Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation. It has taken many years for us to get to the stage where water trading will become a reality across-the- board. There has been water trading within some existing schemes throughout the state for some time. It was put in place for a trial period when I was minister. No doubt there was a lot of concern 1742 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 when this commenced in the first instance; however, as we go through we iron out difficulties that may arise. Water trading is not new in Australia. In fact, many states have had it and it has worked reasonably well. It is my view that water trading will help to spread the availability of water across Queensland. Some people have said that the big guys will end up with all of the water. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view. I do not doubt that in some areas they may, but generally speaking, because there is higher use for some of the water, particularly in the horticultural area, those people can afford to pay more for water, as opposed to those in large areas of broadscale irrigation. We will find that in many instances people who wish to get water will be able to buy it at a rate maybe dearer than the broadscale guys actually pay. Certainly it will allow many operations that presently cannot get water to start up. The problem we have is that there are many instances where some areas of a catchment may be fairly heavily licensed while others are not. This bill will allow a better spread in relation to the ROPs, which will set out where water trading can occur. The tax of $3 a megalitre and the charge of $50 a bore are grossly unfair. Seventy-three per cent of the money collected from the charge of $3 a megalitre will in fact come from the Lower Balonne. This charge is quite selectively targeting those particular people. They were targeted simply because they took the government on in a very high-profile case. The Premier went there with his argument about salinity. He said that only a moron would not do something to try to stop the salinity and the destruction of St George and Dirranbandi. He then found out that the data he was using as the basis of his argument was not true. The independent panel down there came up with a report that suggested the river at this stage is healthy and not unhealthy, which is how the Prime Minister, the minister and government members have been referring to it for some time. We need facts, not just political fiction which seems to be going around. We need political science and not something that seems to be the flavour of the month. I have another very good example. Although it is not in relation to water, it could very well apply. I notice a proposed new section which gives the minister discretion to put in place a moratorium notice which is to be reviewed annually to protect natural ecosystems. We need to discuss this issue sensibly. We need this system only where there is a genuine need to protect a genuine ecosystem. There is a case at the present moment in the Miles district where 12,500 hectares are going to be locked up. It is now a high conservation area, with wildflowers and suchlike. It was only a few years ago when the Gurulmundi toxic waste dump was put in that same area that the environmental report said it had no environmental qualities. It went through the whole lot—birds, lizards, marsupials and plant species—and it said all of them are plentiful and there is nothing exceptional about this area. So suddenly now we have this high nature conservation area. It is so frustrating when I know that it is a political decision being put together and it is not based on any science. The government is trying to convince the public that it is doing the right thing. It is not protecting the area; it is doing more harm to it, quite frankly. There are many reports that say locking up areas does not necessarily protect them. Getting back to the issue of water, if there is a natural ecosystem that needs to be protected, we need to have some genuine science on which to base that decision, not some political mileage that seems to be the hallmark of this particular government. Valuations have always been particularly interesting in regard to water and unimproved capital value. In many instances valuations escalate quite a lot even though the price of the land has not necessarily gone up correspondingly, and it has all been put down to water. At least now we will be able to separate the two and have two different valuations. I think that will be beneficial. There will probably be a few hairs on it to start with, but I notice there is a 12-month lag time for local governments to catch up with that valuation. That will certainly be important. There will be some substantial changes. For instance, if a large operation closed down and that water licence was sold to a neighbouring shire, the valuation of one shire to another would change considerably and that would need to be taken into consideration because in many instances we find that valuations are mostly based on water. That will make for interesting reading for us in due course when it comes about. Another important issue in the legislation is that of beds and banks forming the boundaries of state land property. That has always been a controversial issue. In fact, even today we have two systems that operate. There are some areas that are valued on middle reaches—what is the terminology? Mr Seeney: Centre line. 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1743

Mr HOBBS: I suppose it is middle reaches or centre line. In fact, that is where the boundaries are. But, generally speaking, it has been within the beds and banks of the river. I tried to sort that out. We reached a consensus, but in the end did not get to finish it. That needs to be resolved. It seems as if the boundaries are going to sit roughly around the beds and the banks—and that is lower bank. Of course, there is a lower bank and a higher bank. If there is flooding, the argument has always been that if there is a natural flow level where a river or creek would run in an averaged flow, that is the benchmark. However, in many instances water levels will go much higher than that. Even in the flood plains it goes out for miles in some instances. The argument has often been who owns the land between the lower level and the higher level. There is some argument for having it at the higher level. However, when it goes through the flood plains, that causes some great difficulties. So it is a difficult issue. One instance I can recall in relation to an argument against having centre line as a boundary was that rivers change so much. Even waterholes change dramatically. Some river systems, particularly in north Queensland, might have a major waterhole on one side of the river at one stage and 10 years down the track that waterhole has changed dramatically. So someone might have no stock watering point at all, so no water for stock or domestic purposes. The previous speaker, the member for Burnett, spoke in relation to some changes to the legislation. This is a very interesting piece of legislation. In my view, the amendments made by the minister are trying to correct a mistake made in relation to the original water management plan and subsequent ROPs that are coming on since then. This is a flaw. The government has a serious flaw in the Balonne in relation to the science used, and that has been proved in the courts. The information that the government has used was not correct. It was found that it has used information that was to the detriment of the river, not for the betterment of the river. Any information that found the river was healthy was not used. So the science was flawed. If it has happened there, the same methodology would have been used in other systems. I would be very surprised if there were not fairly serious errors in other systems as well—more than likely deliberate errors. When the government came to the conclusion that it was going to build Paradise Dam, it found that it made a mistake and it could not build it, even though it is a lot smaller than what it should have been. I think it could have held up to as many as 1.3 million megalitres or 900,000 megalitres. While it would still be a substantial dam, it is really only a good puddle at about 300,000 megalitres. Still, those opposite are the ones who are building it. If they want to have a Mini Minor, they can because there is certainly adequate water in that system. The way that I see it, this legislation is trying to right a wrong that was done. The government set a standard which it wanted to maintain and when it went to do something that it committed to do quite a long time ago the system beat it. So it has had to change this legislation. I see also in the legislation the change from the Land Court to the Magistrate's Court. It has happened in other legislation and the government is making it consistent. I do not think it is the right way to go, quite frankly. There is a reason for that. The Land Court was set up as a specialised court with people with special skills in relation to these sorts of matters—land matters and complicated matters of property rights. It is a whole different ball game in relation to magistrates and the other court systems that really have not got that expertise. It is very difficult for them to come to grips with the complicated issues. I certainly think it is the wrong way to go, and I believe that we will end up with some court cases that will drag on or lead to inconsistencies. We have a good system, a proven system, in the Land Court, which has been standing on its merits for a long, long time—in fact, in excess of 100 years. It might have been 101 years or 99 years—however long it has been going. There is no reason at all why that court system could not be, and should not be, the one that handles these matters. Mr Shine: Magistrates are much cheaper. Mr HOBBS: The member for Toowoomba North says it is cheaper. It could be, but then again the Land Court should be cheap as well. That is the way I set it up after the review that was done. In fact, I put in place a mediator as well. If people wish to, they can go in there with a barrister, but they probably do not really need to do that. People can represent themselves. First of all an appeal can be lodged, and then the Land Court mediation process can help to resolve that. Then a conclusion should be able to be reached. People should be able to represent themselves in the Land Court. 1744 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

I cite the instance of the case of Ashley McKay out at Augathella. He has spent $300,000 so far in the Magistrates Court and other courts, and the government has spent about $600,000, over about 140 trees. It depends how far one has to go. The member for Toowoomba North is a lawyer, so he would know more about that than I would. Mr Robertson: It certainly saps one's confidence. Mr Purcell: You can't rely on lawyers, brother. You'll be in all sorts of trouble. Mr HOBBS: That is right. The minister is probably right. Mr Robertson: I'll let it pass this time. Mr HOBBS: The other very important point is that once again this minister has the dubious honour of legislating for the reversal of the onus of proof. The minister is arguing that that is not really the case, but quite clearly it is. It creates a presumption that the holder was the person responsible for a breach of conditions and requires the holder to extricate himself or herself by proving that some person or other has physical control over, and responsibility for, the works associated with the contravention, if there was one. Perhaps the member for Toowoomba North might explain it to the House. My understanding is that there is no reversal of the onus of proof in the case of serious crimes such as murder. I do not understand why it is the case in regard to land-holders. It does seem extraordinary. It certainly seems a bit over the top to me. I would have thought that we did not really need to go quite that far. It is not as though we are dealing with life and death issues. I would have thought that we could have had a much more reasonable approach in these types of cases. As to the $3 megalitre charge and the $50 bore licence, I understand that the $50 bore licence is basically an administration charge. It is a a five-year licence. Once a bore is licensed and there is not a notice for another five years or 10 years, why on earth is there another charge payable on it? It has to be purely revenue raising. Obviously Pete's a bit short and he wants a few dollars to come in. I still think it is being terribly unfair to impose that charge. What is the government going to do next? It is going to have another tax on stock and domestic water? Is it going to charge people for the water that lands on their place? I know there are limitations now on the size of earth dams, for instance, in relation to stock and domestic water, but is the government going to charge people for those in due course? I certainly hope it does not. It would be an absolute tragedy. It would be a travesty of justice if the government started down that road. How can the government charge $50 for a bore licence year after year when it is a one-off payment? If it is a five-year licence, the charge is $250. That is what people pay. For the life of me, I think it is terribly unfair— Time expired. An incident having occurred in the gallery— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! Quiet in the gallery! Remove that person, please. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (6.35 p.m.): We are all well aware that water is our most valuable natural resource. We have land. We have skilled farmers. We have a climate which allows us to grow almost anything, and we are free of many of the pests and diseases which are present in many other parts of the world. But we can take advantage of none of these things unless we also have proper management of our water resources. The guiding force behind water resource management in this state is not in the best interests of Queensland, nor is it a set of priorities set by Queenslanders for Queenslanders. The guiding force is, in fact, the COAG—Council of Australian Governments—water policy. Under that directive, Queensland governments have been aiming for what is called a triple bottom line in water management. That is, they are not just looking for the economic benefit; they are also looking to balance environmental and social benefits. It is a nice theory. However, I am concerned that the triple bottom line is not being delivered. I believe that the focus has swung too far towards environmental and social or cultural concerns at the expense of primary producers and the regions dependent upon them. I do not want members opposite to misunderstand. I am not opposed to environmental or social issues being addressed. I am, however, opposed to their demands being placed above the legitimate needs of rural industries and communities. I note that, in his second reading speech, the minister referred to the development of water resource plans and resource operation plans as helping to show that the fundamentals 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1745 underpinning the Water Act were sound. My electorate of Tablelands is presently involved in the development of a resource operations plan for the Barron water resource plan, itself only released late last year. As I know the minister is aware, there are some major issues facing a significant proportion of irrigators on groundwater and unsupplemented surface water above Tinaroo Falls Dam. I recognise the minister's preparedness to discuss those issues and so do not intend to address them tonight, other than to say that a process that results in an estimated one in five irrigators facing sustainability issues is not perhaps quite as sound as one might wish. The same resource plan also knocked a proposed new dam on the Walsh River on the head, indicating that it would not be needed for at least the next 10 years. That dam at Nullinga was intended to ease the burden on the Mareeba-Dimbulah irrigation scheme and provide for expanded farming in surrounding areas. As recently as December, this process produced this plan which indicated that Nullinga would not be needed for at least 10 years. Now, just six months later, SunWater is warning MDIA irrigators that they can expect no more than about 60 per cent of their allocation next year. They cannot yet provide an accurate figure, but are providing early warning so that farmers can make appropriate cropping decisions and so on. I do suggest that those two examples are indications that not everything is as fundamentally sound as we are told. I come now to the bill itself. As a general comment, I note that the estimated cost to government is not expected to rise. In fact, there may be some reduction in cost. I wonder what the cost to the community may be. Amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997, in combination, do concern me. There are quite a number of clauses—clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6—which relate to the removing of requirements for owners' consent to development approvals, changes to such approvals, cancelling them and changing or cancelling provisions of such approvals. I am not comfortable with these provisions as they remove rights from landowners. The removal of rights from ordinary Queenslanders is something that occurs too often in legislation brought before this parliament by this government. I believe it is quite prepared to make its own life easier at the expense of individual rights. Amendments to the Land Act 1994 and the Land Title Act 1994 relate to the creation of easements over land occasionally covered by dam waters in times of flood. My only concern with this is whether it will impose harsher conditions than necessary on affected land-holders—for example, whether land-holders who may have substantial pumping stations and structures in an area covered by one of these easements would be required to relocate their infrastructure. Clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 amend the Valuation of Land Act 1994 addressing the impact on land values, which the creation of separate water titles may have. Indeed, the creation of separate water titles with water no longer linked to particular blocks of land as it is under the licence system is an essential part of this government's water management plans. The separate titles are intended to make water a tradeable commodity. I have a number of concerns with this, the first of which is that the creation of tradeable water titles raises the possibility that water can be sold away from productive farm land to other uses such as urban or industrial and that this could reach the stage where there is no longer enough water available for sustainable primary production. I ask the minister to consider this possibility and to consider how that eventuality may be prevented from arising. I am also concerned about the potential impact on council rate bases. I believe the separation of water from land will reduce the unimproved value of much of our farming areas. Councils are unable to rate the separate water titles, so how will they address the fall in their rates revenue? I understand that councils would have 12 months to come up with an answer once a resource operation plan was in place in their locality. However, I am not convinced that methods such as differential rates will provide an equitable answer. For example, neighbouring properties of similar size and used for similar activity could be expected to have similar unimproved values and be subject to similar cents in the dollar council rates. The separation of water into a separate title could be expected to affect the unimproved values equally. How is a council to know when trying to strike a new rate whether one of those properties has access to plenty of water through an allocation or whether the other property does not either because the owner never secured sufficient water or perhaps traded away too much to meet some pressing short-term financial need? How in such a case can a council strike a new rate that is not inequitable to one or another property holder? I ask the minister if he can indicate how local government might address these issues. Clause 40 is one of the many clauses amending the Water Act 2000 and outlines new categories of people who must have land and water management plans before using water on 1746 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 land for irrigation. Essentially, they are those where such plans are specified and those who, with a certain frequency, use water received under a seasonal assignment. My question in relation to that clause is this: are such land and water plans required annually, especially in cases such as the rolling annual agreements referred to in the explanatory notes? If the annual plans are not required, what sort of life span would the minister consider such plans would have? For example, would a plan drawn up for irrigating, say, corn on a certain property apply for five or 10 years regardless of whether the irrigator actually entered such a rolling transfer each year or not? I have already mentioned Nullinga dam and the decision reached through the Barron water resource plan to ignore it for at least 10 years. I have also already mentioned the severely reduced allocations facing MDIA farmers. I ask the minister: is he aware of the financial cost of such reduced allocations and how far towards building a modern Nullinga dam would that amount of money have gone? Even on Natural Resources and Mines' own figures of some $120 million, it would take only a few years of significantly reduced agricultural production for that cost to have been met and surpassed. In conclusion, I want to mention the comments of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in relation to proposed section 812A, which creates a presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary that a breach of a water allocation or other relevant authorisation by the unauthorised taking of water was committed by the holder rather than by any other person. The proposed section provides a defence to the holder if he or she can provide that they did not have physical control over and responsibility for the relevant works at the time of contravention. The committee queried whether this, in fact, produces a reversal of the onus of proof. Also noted by the committee were the powers conferred upon metering contractors to enter land subject to certain conditions for the purposes of carrying out various functions in relation to meters. When compared with those in many other bills, they are relatively narrow and compare to provisions in the Electricity Act 1994 in respect of powers of entry for electricity officers. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (6.44 p.m.): The Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is an interesting bill and quite obviously deals with people's rights. It deals with the issues of having to provide for more water. I do not want to make a long speech, but I do believe that we need to look at water from a different perspective altogether. We should all be trying to take a longer-term, innovative approach to water issues. Much is said about our Smart State and many people are trying very hard, but we should be investing in water smart technologies to guarantee future water supplies for central Queensland and indeed the rest of the state. We should be looking to produce water through the desalination process. Indeed, the future supply of water within central Queensland can be enhanced and significant benefits to the environment can be realised through such an investment. I know that people will say that this is costly, but technologies are improving. If we had these sorts of processes in place, then we probably would not have to debate bills such as this which create quite a lot of difficulties for some people. There is an abundance of water smart opportunities within Queensland just waiting to be tapped into. For instance, and I am quite sure that the member for Gladstone would agree with me, using heat produced from existing central Queensland industries such as power plants and other heavy industries which generate significant heat means that desalinated water can be produced relatively inexpensively. That would mean that we would not have to use the water from the Awoonga Dam as much, which in itself leads to difficulties—that is, having to lift the weir, going to people to whom this bill refers and taking rights away from them and so on. Mr Shine: How much would that cost? Mr LESTER: The cost would be borne, to some extent, by the industry, and industry itself would be very pleased to take part. It also costs a lot of money to be involved in lifting the weirs for dams and so on. I am not trying to make a political speech tonight in any shape or form; I am just simply saying that we have a problem. Mrs Pratt interjected. Mr LESTER: Yes, absolutely. Water can then be reticulated to supply industry or, depending on the quantity, could be distributed for domestic use, thus reducing the demand and reliance on existing natural resources. As natural sources of water such as rainfall and rivers become less and less reliable—and that is another very key point in that our rivers are becoming less and less reliable because we are belting the hell out of them; it is as simple as that—we need to examine the latest developments and innovations available within the water industry. There is a whole range of technologies and products that government and industry should be looking at for use not throughout Queensland entirely but within our own region. In a modern and developing world, 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1747 we simply cannot rely on primitive irrigation mechanisms alone such as pumping water from the Fitzroy or Water Park Creek for the long-term sustainable use of water in the Capricorn Coast area, the third fastest growing area in Queensland. The time has come to make an investment in our future. Quite often during drought we say that we are going to do all sorts of things, but then it rains and we forget all about it. We need to do a little better than that. Mr Robertson: It's called the rural water use efficiency scheme. Mr LESTER: We have the schemes, but we have to ensure that we are all committed. I am not for one moment taking that away from the minister, but I am simply saying that people in general have to be far more conscious of our water or we are going to be without it one day. It is as simple as that. It is the essential ingredient and it means support for the underpinning of primary production, industry and life. If Queensland is to be really smart—and that includes all of us; I am not talking about the government as such—then it should start with the basis of getting our water from an innovative source, and that in itself opens up a whole new international industry and opportunity for Queenslanders while conserving our natural resources. Although the initial investment in desalinisation plants might seem expensive, it is a long- term investment. Members should remember that as technology improves things get cheaper. How much did our first television sets or computers cost? Now look at how much they cost. A range of variables such as the quantity of available water sources, energy and plant capacity will determine the price of a desalinisation plant and ongoing production costs. However, with improvements in technology, production costs are falling, and recent studies suggest that desalinised water could cost as little as 55c per kilolitre. The science has been done. The technology is there. Although capital costs might look to be expensive, it is an investment in our state's region and our future. The potential of central Queensland is only limited by its water supply. This limitation can be overcome for the prosperity of the region in an innovative manner and one that brings with it further opportunities. Water is our most precious resource. For far too long it has been undervalued and, in many instances, wasted. We are probably all guilty of that. It is only when we come to pay a true market price that we fully appreciate its value. With drought conditions recently affecting most of Queensland there has never been a more appropriate time to invest in this technology. The drought has had a severe impact on regional-rural communities right across Australia. The lack of rainfall has taken its toll on primary producers and they are doing it tough. The lack of rain has also had a significant impact on urban areas of the Livingstone Shire, with tough water restrictions in force until recently. We must remember that this drought has not yet entirely broken. Restrictions must always be observed in order to conserve this precious resource. But if we had an alternative source of water, one that was not dependent on the natural environment, perhaps restrictions would not need to be applied as severely. The challenge before the state government—and that means all of us—is to examine innovative water technologies in water desalinisation, looking at aquifer storage and recovery, wetlands and grey water reuse, so that our producers, industry and residents are not at the mercy of rain from above to satisfy domestic primary production and industrial consumption demands. If we all had the courage—including the government—to invest in these technologies, we could leave our creeks, rivers and streams and the environment in a pristine state. That would be an environmentally sound, sustainable and responsible approach to this most important issue. I call on every member to forget about our politics and see what we can do to make this state more pristine and to use technology to the utmost. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (6.52 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the bill. I am proud to be a member of the minister's legislative committee. The natural resources and in particular water issues dealt with by that committee are most important to Queensland and in particular to the region I have the honour to represent. In my electorate we have a watercourse called Gowrie Creek, which is subject to many demands and uses. In the past there has been some controversy over its use and no doubt that will continue into the future. The matters we are discussing tonight, the matters the subject of this bill, are important. The bill contains some small but very important amendments to the Water Act that relate to compliance and the moratorium provisions. It is important that we get these types of things right. It is more than two years since the original Water Act was passed. In that time this legislation has helped to develop a more sustainable water management framework in Queensland. In his second reading speech, the minister indicated that the Water Act itself provides for the first time a 1748 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 sustainable management framework for the planning, allocation and use of this most precious resource, namely, water. He said that the act sets out a process for water licences to be separated from land. The concept of title to land that we have been used to for centuries will now extend to title to water, which places water into the important context that we have been speaking about. As we know, water can now be traded, mortgaged and leased, just as land can be. The Water Act and the associated COAG resource policy have fundamentally changed the way that water is managed. This area is of huge significance. It is a credit to water users and all Queenslanders that we are already seeing the benefits of the new system recognised by the Water Act—a system that protects both environmental flows and individual's access to water. In his second reading speech the minister referred to the fact that the proposed amendments do not in any way change the structure or policy that the Water Act underlines. The amendments we are discussing tonight aim to improve the development of water resources and operational plans as a result of the experience learnt over the past two years. One of the things that has come out of the experience over the past two years has been the high regard in which the system in Queensland is held interstate. The Water Allocations Register is held up across the country as a model for how water entitlements should be registered. I wish to speak in some detail about the moratorium provisions and then about the non- compliance provisions. They are small in the context of the overall content of the Water Act, but they are important in terms of their effect and the consequences that they have now and will have into the future. To ensure that this strong framework we have spoken about can effectively fulfil its aims, our legislation must contain the appropriate mechanisms to allow catchment based planning processes to work and to ensure compliance with the system. Bearing that in mind, I want to speak about the important aspect of moratorium notice provisions. The Water Act currently allows moratoriums to be issued on the taking of additional water or the grant of further licences only when a water resource planning process has commenced in a particular area. This bill will extend this provision to allow moratorium notices to be issued for an area to cover circumstances where the grant of further licences or the taking of additional water would affect the entitlements of existing users or have negative environmental impacts. That means we will be able to protect the interests of existing water users in a catchment even if the water planning process has not started there yet. It means we will be able to ensure that everyone gets a fair go and that no-one falls into the gap. It means that we will be able to protect that catchment for future generations by making sure that it stays as healthy as possible. Most honourable members would probably already know of water sources across the state that are getting close to their limit, if not exceeding the limit, in terms of the amount of water that can be extracted. Many of us have areas such as that at or near our electorates, and I have already cited Gowrie Creek. Especially since the crippling effects of the drought—various honourable members have referred to the drought in this debate—it is incredibly clear that in circumstances such as this we have a responsibility to protect the environment and to protect the interests of existing and future water users. We need to make sure that people get a fair go now and that future water users are also protected. It is clear that in circumstances like this if the environment is to be protected and existing and future water allocation holders' access to a water source is to be maintained, the government needs to have the ability to put a temporary halt on activities. We need to be able to say to people in these areas, 'We know that this water is important to you. It is important to everyone in Queensland. To be able to protect your water, your rivers and your aquifers, we can't let any more water be taken until we have a strong solution to the issue.' No-one disputes that if water is under threat it should be protected by at least maintaining the status quo. Honourable members should remember that this is not a permanent prohibition on the taking of water or the issuing of licences. These amendments will ensure that the minister reviews such moratorium notices annually, to make sure that these decisions are responsible, publicly accountable and reflect the latest science and conditions in a catchment. Sitting suspended from 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Mr SHINE: As I was saying before the dinner adjournment, the other significant amendment that I would like to speak to relates to the compliance provisions. These amendments will ensure that water entitlement holders take responsibility for the management and use of the water that they are authorised to take specifically in relation to excess water use. Under this bill, people who take more than their entitlement will bear the responsibility for that unless they can show that someone else was actually responsible and had knowledge of the conditions attached to the 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1749 authority to take water. These provisions are similar to those that apply to red light cameras and speed cameras and will encourage water entitlement holders to be responsible for our most precious resource. I want to make the point strongly that the vast majority of water users use their water responsibly. They conserve every drop and they abide by the conditions of their licences. They make do with whatever they have, although in certain circumstances that may be difficult. It is the willingness of water users to go further with what they have that has made schemes such as the rural water use efficiency initiative, which the minister mentioned earlier tonight, so successful. I remind honourable members that this initiative has saved water with a productive value of around $280 million. The vast majority of water users are responsible, law-abiding people and will not be affected in any way by this amendment. Another important compliance mechanism that is contained in the bill allows a water entitlement to be suspended if the entitlement holder has not paid their fees and charges. That is a fair and effective method of debt recovery—very similar to that used by local governments and other service providers—and which does not take the extreme path of cancelling completely the entitlement. Some members opposite may adopt a narrow-sighted reaction to this provision. If that is the case, not only would I question their motives but also I remind them to consider the fact that the suspension will not apply to the minimum amount of water necessary for domestic and stock purposes. It will also benefit all the responsible water users, who are by a long way the majority, by encouraging that minority who have not paid their bills to take the government's water management framework seriously and to contribute fairly to the system just like their neighbours do. As I have mentioned already, these amendments are really just finetuning the excellent framework that exists under the Water Act. They are necessary to ensure that everyone in Queensland is equally responsible for protecting and responsibly managing our water resources to ensure sustainability. I encourage all members to support these amendments and demonstrate their own commitment to responsible water planning and management use. The honourable member for Toowoomba South referred to the proposal to transport waste water from Brisbane to the Lockyer Valley and thence to the Darling Downs. As the Premier himself has indicated on a number of occasions, it is a visionary project and we all look forward to the release of the studies from the various expert bodies that, hopefully, will be out this month or next month. The proposal will potentially have a great impact on the Lockyer Valley and the Darling Downs. As one of the members who represent that area, I am certainly keen to see the results of those studies and see what can be done. Of course, these studies, which bear on ecological, financial, economic and other considerations will determine what has to be done. Then it will be a question of how we are going to pay for it, if that is the case. The only other point that I raise is that the member for Warrego made reference to the reversal, as he saw it, of the standard of proof. If that is the case, one assumes then that these measures are made in this type of legislation to assist in the prosecution of crimes. I note that recently the National Party has come out with a policy to slash the crime rate in Queensland. Therefore, I would have thought that the National Party would have been supportive of such measures. However, it may be that their support for crime reduction is rather selective. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (8.35 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill which has been put forward by the Beattie government to amend the Water Act 2000, the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Land Valuation Act 1994. The need for these changes has been identified as partially facilitating the proposed new water infrastructure in the Burnett basin. The water reform process has been going on for quite some time and there has been an enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding the process. I believe that land-holders are experiencing uncertainty with the river operations plan and the water resource plan and they find it intolerable. It is through the ROPs that tradeable water allocations were established which allow the separation of the value of water from the value of land. Some people have found the separation of the value of water a possible bone of contention in that it might reflect poorly on their property values in the future. The following questions have been asked. What happens when large land-holders buy up smaller properties to obtain their water licences to hoard the water supply? What happens if land-holders, through good land practices, do not utilise their total water allocation? Will that land-holder lose part of his allocation in the future? Once the water allocation has been transferred to another property holder, will this impact negatively in the future on the 1750 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 sale price of his property? When, if ever, will his property be reallocated or permitted to purchase a water licence? At the time that he does that, will he be able to actually afford it? The ability to trade water has an enormous impact on the future of all land-holders. With it has come serious concerns. The greatest of those is the security of the water entitlement. Under this legislation, water entitlements can be eroded away every 10 years. The concerns of land- holders are justifiable. This uncertainty will dictate how these property owners work their land in the future. Will the fear of losing an allocation or part thereof see water perhaps being used in a less than efficient way? In the future, will opportunities to break into additional irrigation areas become limited? Will it take enormous capital to buy back water allocations? Recently, real estate and property valuer Bruce Gunning stated that there has been a mad scramble by established cotton growers to buy extra water licences. He stated that, over the past six months, on the New South Wales Border River system the average 972 megalitre licence had increased from $1 million $1.7 million. He also stated that if people had money to invest, water is the commodity that was likely to experience the biggest growth over the next five years. I and many others would like to know how the minister will stop this kind of trading now that water is a tradeable commodity? I have to agree with the member for Lockyer when he stated that it appears that the southern water wasters have squandered their resource and now blame Queensland for their problems. I, too, feel enormous frustration when I travel along the coastal urban fringe and see the enormous amount of water filling the gutters and being wasted. I have watched developers build large urban beehives on huge tracts of land, killing every living thing by bulldozing, with the aim of crowding even greater populations into an already overstretched environment. Whilst all this is going on, urban dwellers are castigating rural land-holders for clearing bush or for their water usage. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Another concern of land-holders is that the onus of proof has been reversed. In this legislation, as in the tree clearing legislation, the land-holders and water users will be forced to prove themselves innocent of water abuse instead of being innocent until proven guilty, as was once the mantra of this country. Over the last few years the government has instilled a lack of trust in property owners through legislation passed, and at every turn land-holders are finding themselves penalised severely in the very business they are endeavouring to run. Most people realise that water has become a very precious commodity. No-one knows better than the man on the land the devastation of drought, with recent experiences only instilling once again the lesson learned long ago—that is, the need to preserve our water. Farmers do not want to exploit their assets, whether they be land or water, and more often than not look for a sustainable balance between their agricultural practices and the environment. It has always been highly offensive to most individuals on the land to have a bureaucrat from the city who has never lived on or made a living from the land assume that land-holders' sole purpose in life is to decimate the land they rely on to survive. Most land-holders also recognise that they have to exercise greater flexibility in their operations, but it is necessary that environmentalists also look to their own demands, be a little more flexible and look at things realistically in given situations. Australia, and Queensland in particular, has an unpredictable water resource, with some areas receiving very little rain while others have regular floods. Water storage and irrigation has become the major water usage method, and in recent years this irrigation has been seen to have a huge impact on our water flows. Water harvesting has been an enormous issue over the last few years, with the Cubbie Station example being the major headline contender. The actions and accusations surrounding Cubbie Station management proved to be in many cases unsubstantiated, and a huge question mark hangs over the science involved in recommendations made to address given situations. Water harvesting is something that has happened in the past and is still happening in almost every watercourse. There is often a lot of confusion associated with who can and cannot harvest water. The current licensing process has left many in total confusion. That confusion has undermined their confidence even at the local water advisory committee level. All areas in the Burnett and Brisbane Valley find water their primary concern and always will. Coominya still has no water supply, and constituents rightly ask why that is the case when they are so close to the Wivenhoe Dam. The property owners along the waterways of the Brisbane Valley still struggle to understand the system of licensing—how many licences and what licences 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1751 people have, how one person can pump continuously while others cannot and how one neighbour retains or increases his water allocation while another neighbour loses his altogether. The Barlil Weir between Murgon and Wondai, another area that worries about its water, is a small structure, but it will help the people in those areas. But the Paradise Dam will not benefit the area of Kingaroy. The Kingaroy shire has in fact had its water allocation reduced. That water allocation reduction has been seen by the council and general community as an impediment to future growth. Most see the Paradise Dam as a move by government to benefit the Bundaberg area at the expense of others. Everybody recognises the significance of water, but there are a lot of questions about and concerns with this bill. I look forward to the minister's response to not only my question but also the questions asked by others. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.43 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I recognise the importance of water as a commodity and as a necessary part of any rural property. Therefore, the availability, permanence and reliability of supply is essential for that farm to be able to return on the investment rural landowners make. There has been some comment in this House regarding the difference between urban users and rural users. There is a difference, but I believe that over time local authorities have gone a long way in trying to educate, for want of a better word, urban communities into understanding the value of water by reviewing their water pricing policies—the way that they charge water out. In fact, most reasonably sized urban communities have meters on their urban areas. I believe that is the primary indicator of a council interested in ensuring that water usage is in some way monitored and contained. In most urban cities or large towns meters allow the local authority to charge the community for their usage. The charging structures differ, but certainly there is an opportunity for users of water to learn that unnecessary consumption comes at a price. The urban community probably has some way to go, particularly larger urban communities, simply because a lot of young people grow up in towns where they never have to really think about where water comes from. They learned to accept circumstances as we faced in the last 12 months of exceptional drought when even urban water supplies were at risk. If people live in country areas, particularly non-reticulated areas, and they rely on overland flow—that is, dams, bores or tanks—then they learn from a very young age how valuable water is and that if it runs out there are two choices. One is to go without and the second is to buy water in. So I know that in country areas—particularly, as I said, those non-reticulated areas—people learn very quickly the value of their water supply. This bill addresses a number of issues in relation to reliability of access to water. The member for Keppel spoke a little about the water supply that the Callide Dam gets from Awoonga Dam. We have been very fortunate that previous and current governments have supported the extension of Awoonga Dam. That is completed and has benefited from the February rain. Certainly the spectacle of the dam now, after 24 or 26 inches of rain, is quite different from the one that faced us at Christmas, just four or five months ago. The water has replenished well. However, it still provides a medium- to long-term challenge as far as reliability of supply is concerned. Businesspeople and heavy industry representatives, in particular, are saying to me, 'Where is government now on the back-up supply?' A number of alternatives were looked at. One was a pipeline from the Fitzroy. Another was an additional dam site. The problem with that was the challenge that it also would rely on overland flow. A third option, mentioned by the member for Keppel, was desalination, which was fairly heavily supported by a lot in my community. As the member for Keppel said, within most of the heavy industries in the electorate there is excess heat that could be used for desalination purposes. A private business has actually indicated a willingness to establish a desalination plant. Given the importance of water in my electorate, a back-up system is needed for when things become absolutely critical, in spite of the respite we have been given with the February rains. Purchase of land from landowners affected by inundation needs to be done in a sensitive manner. Purchase of land affected by the Awoonga Dam extension was not handled well by the Gladstone Area Water Board. A number of landowners were in the first instance given an assurance that their properties would be purchased. When a new officer came to the Gladstone Area Water Board, he reneged on that undertaking—even the morning after a verbal agreement had been given to purchase a property. Throughout the entire negotiations relating to Awoonga Dam and the acquisition of properties affected by Awoonga Dam, the community in the valley was antagonistic at best towards the Gladstone Area Water Board and, I am sure, to some government officials because of their experience at the hand of this one officer. His treatment of the community was poor. 1752 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

This bill talks about the alternative use of land that will be inundated by one-in-100-year floods—how they can keep tenure of the land and enter into an agreement with the government in relation to the use of the land when it is not inundated. That has to still be done in a sensitive manner. The land use must be considered, including the regularity of inundation. We say once in 100 years, but it could happen twice in 10 years and then not again for 150 years because of the nature of our climate and because of the nature of our rain patterns. In February we had 24 inches in about three days. If that were revisited with a cyclone within a month, that would be a one-in-100-year incident and yet the people who have that property would lose a great deal of use and access to the property. So these agreements have to be made sensitively to ensure that the landowners are in agreement with retaining ownership and just entering into a special agreement with the government for the use of that property at times of inundation. The community in my electorate continues to be concerned about the non-extension in a complete sense of the Callide pipeline because of water loss. It is being extended to a certain extent, but there is concern that that be extended fully to the Callide holding area. I just put that on the table for the minister's consideration. I commend the minister on approval being obtained in this document to take water for stock or domestic purposes. Both of those have life implications—not just quality of life implications but life implications—and it is critical that that power be retained. I want to raise an issue that has been occurring with regularity in legislation that we have considered over the last couple of months. Almost without reason at times—there has been reason on a couple of bills but it appears to be a new policy of the government—the government has inserted in bills an ability for the chief executive officer or the minister or an appropriate person as defined in the legislation to carry out criminal history checks. Whilst there are circumstances where it is essential to research a person's background, this is an intrusive process and needs to be incorporated into legislation only when that information is pertinent to the position or the process proposed by the legislation. I just want to put on the record my concern that it seems to be becoming the norm rather than an exception. This legislation also clarifies the term of office for directors of the Gladstone Area Water Board. The water board has a very specific and important role to play. It is critical that the directors of the board are treated with dignity and respect for their skills and abilities. If they do not do the job well, okay. I would have to say that, in the last change of office, the office holders were not treated with any great deal of consideration or dignity at all. In fact, one person holding a fairly senior position on the water board found out from a media release that he no longer held that position. He was not contacted directly by the government. It was not explained to him why he had been removed from his position. He was not in any way advised that the situation was changing. He read it in the paper. I found that for the work that he had done—and I believe he had done the job well—there was little consideration shown for the contribution that he had made or indeed for his position in the community. I have to express concern about the clauses that add liability for unauthorised taking of water where it is an introduction of a reverse onus of proof. I know that this reflects the same process as occurs when a vehicle goes through a speed camera and the person who is shown as the owner of the vehicle on the registration was not the driver of the vehicle at the time. I acknowledge that that is the same process. I question the need for such an onerous provision to be included in this legislation. Clause 122 inserts a proposed new section 812A, and subsection 2 says— In any proceeding for the contravention, the holder of the authorisation is taken to have contravened the condition in the absence of evidence to the contrary. On small properties I think it would be fairly easy to follow and monitor who does what. We have a few larger properties in my electorate, but I am concerned more for the western properties where it could be possible for water to be taken from a licensed position without the knowledge of the licence holder. I am sure the minister will have some explanation for it. I am concerned at the inclusion of this provision in this legislation. I believe it places a responsibility on rural landowners that is unnecessary. It implies that a person is a criminal simply because they cannot prove who took the water. They may not have been in a location to be able to have that information, and I believe it is an unnecessary provision. People who install, maintain and read meters have been given powers of access, and there appear to be reasonably sufficient constraints on that person exercising those powers without due 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1753 regard for the property owner. What I wanted to clarify with the minister was that, in being able to access these properties with notice, will there also be an overt obligation on these people who install, maintain and read meters to ensure that they do not transfer noxious weeds? It is one of the big problems of property owners and managers to contain and control noxious weeds, particularly parthenium, which is carried very easily by vehicles. It is a problem that landowners do not need exacerbated by government representatives or government officials. So I would just like to check with the minister what level of education or obligation will be placed on these installers and readers of meters to ensure that they do not transfer noxious weeds on to properties inadvertently. I will be interested in anything that comes up when debating the clauses on this issue. While I understand the rationale or the theory behind the ability of the government to deny access to water when fees and charges are not paid, I am concerned about the implications of such a provision. I understand that, if a bill is due and it is not paid, there must be something to follow it up. However, I go back to my opening remarks: water is such a fundamental necessity for property owners that this provision, if misapplied or applied in a vexatious way, would have the potential to ruin a property. It says that the person who has not paid the amount owing has the opportunity to give explanation to the appropriate officer of his or her reasons for not settling the account in a timely manner. I would hope that those officers who have the ability to cut off access to water would do so only in the most extreme cases, bearing in mind the importance of a ready water supply to a rural property. I reiterate that water is a fundamental issue to our community. It has to be looked after. We continue to forget—and I do it myself; I am reliant on rainwater and dams—that we are the driest continent in the world. We are such a lucky country that it is easy to forget that element. We have to be responsible. We have to remember that it is not a never-ending commodity. We have to handle it with a great deal of responsibility, but I do put those concerns to the minister and look forward to his response. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (8.58 p.m.): Before speaking to the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition for the Health Minister from the people of Hughenden. Leave granted. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT: The passage of the Water Act in 2000 and its implementation to date has been an outstanding success and a credit to all Queenslanders. Queensland is leading Australia in its commitment to adopting and implementing a sustainable water management framework, a system that promotes the ecological sustainability of our most precious resource while also protecting and improving individual users' access to water. One of the areas where Queensland is blazing a trail is in the water allocations register, which has already been mentioned today. It was established under the Water Act as the register for recording all water allocations and all dealings with water allocations, including trades, mortgages and leases. The Water Allocations Register is being used throughout the country as the best model for implementing the COAG water resource policy aim of developing a trading market in water entitlements that travel separately from land. The Water Allocations Register allows this market to be developed by providing a secure system for registering water allocations and dealings over those allocations. By providing a level of security of these entitlements, and using protocols similar to the land titles registry, water users will be able to have the utmost confidence in the water trading and registration system, which will in turn increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our water market. Quite simply, the more transparent and efficient we make our water allocations market, the more likely it is that all players will achieve the best possible results. Under the Beattie Government's agenda of water reform, water users have greater security over their entitlements than ever before, as well as the ability to profit from their entitlements in more ways than ever before. Users will be able to gain a commercial benefit from their entitlement, either by using it for production or by selling it to another user who needs it and is willing to pay for the entitlement. We all benefit, including our children and future water users, through the simple fact that through the market mechanisms water will end up being used for more efficient production methods and purposes providing environmental, social and economic advantages. In short, it is a system that encourages water to move to its highest and best use. 1754 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

For those members who may not be familiar with the Water Allocations Register, I would like to fill them in on how it will work. The register is based on the land titles registry and the land registrar is also the water allocations registrar, so the systems are quite similar and will avoid doubling up existing systems and procedures. All water allocations will be recorded on the register. That record will include details like the type of allocation, where the water comes from, what it may be used for, how much water may be taken and the person who holds it. It will also include details of any third party interests held over the water allocation, such as a mortgage. This is an important point to stress. Because it travels on a separate title, water allocations will be able to be treated just like a land holding. A person will be able to take out a mortgage using their water allocation as security. They will be able to register a covenant over it. They will be able to include it in their will. They will be able to subdivide it or amalgamate several holdings and, of course, they will be able to sell it or lease it. When someone with a water allocation wants to sell or lease it to someone else, mortgage their allocation or register a trust instrument or caveat over it, they can simply go into any Queensland resource registry office, lodge the relevant forms and pay the relevant fees and duties. If a water user wants to do something with their allocation that involves changing its resource related elements, as opposed to simply the way in which the allocation is held, there is an additional step. For dealings that may involve a subdivision or amalgamation of the water allocation, the holder is required to first obtain from the chief executive of the Department of the Natural Resources a certification, which must be lodged with the registrar. This additional step allows the chief executive to ensure any dealings that affect the resource related elements of the water allocation are in accordance with the rules established under a resource operations plan and are in everyone's best interests. Just like the land titles registry, there are quite a few costs involved in administering the Water Allocations Register, which are covered by the users. These amendments include the provision of a head of power in the Water Act to allow fees to be set and to allow the Queensland resource registry to collect those fees. These amendments also allow for sales information to become publicly available in the same way as land sales. This is important to improve the effectiveness of the water market because for a robust water trading market, market information must be available—just as in our real estate market for land. Perhaps the most significant amendment, however, includes inclusion of a displacement provision for the purposes of the Commonwealth's Corporations Act 2001. This provision is essential to ensure the Water Allocations Register is a stand-alone register of interests in water allocations. This is important because it will ensure the security of the system and optimise user confidence in the water market. These amendments are necessary to ensure the Water Allocations Register operates efficiently and effectively and achieves the objectives of the Water Act. The amendments will continue to improve the operation of that act and continue to roll out an effective market in water allocations. This is not just a COAG requirement, it is a smart investment in Queensland's future. This bill will ensure Queensland continues to set the national standard for registration systems. I commend this bill and encourage members to support its passage and not let pettiness stand in the way of amendments that will improve operational efficiency in the water trading arena and provide solid benefits to all Queensland water users. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.04 p.m.): I rise to make a number of points regarding water policy tonight. As the shadow minister in this area has indicated, the opposition is generally supportive of the legislation before the House. However, there will be a number of issues that we are raising in clauses which have already been raised and which will be reinforced during the committee process. We will be opposing some of those clauses, I believe for good reason. Certainly Queensland has gone through a significant process of water reform over the last decade. That water reform process, in many cases, has not reached its conclusion yet, and for many people I think they are only probably still halfway through it. It takes me back to when I was Minister for Natural Resources. At that stage we were about to release the draft Fitzroy Basin WAMP. That was in 1998. I put that on hold because it was just about to come out and I thought, 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1755 well, the new government, whoever it may be—whether it is either me, the minister or the next minister—will want to have a look at it and balance that against their own set of policy priorities. A number of years down the track the WAMP was actually released following the release of that draft, and now we are still going through the process of the ROPs in that area. It just goes to show what a protracted process this water allocation planning process and the resource operation plans have been. I have made the point in the parliament in the past, and it needs to be made again, that there are many people throughout Queensland who are affected by the water allocation planning process and the process of water reform. They have grown somewhat frustrated by it and are basically wanting to see it come to some form of resolution. In my part of the world I am affected by the Condamine-Balonne WAMP, and I am affected also by the Border Rivers WAMP processes. The water users in that area are waiting with bated breath to see where we are going to be when those water management plans finally come to fruition. They know full well that that is only going to be the start because in many cases they have to then work on the ROP process. Then they know that 10 years after that it is going to be reviewed again. Government talks long and hard about the need for proper resource planning as a way of ensuring sustainable resource use in this state and in this nation—and they are fair enough principles. But sometimes I think they believe the means justifies the end, that is, the rhetoric does not necessarily match the objective in the desires and the reasonable expectations of those people who are water users. We know that we have a finite resource, and we know also that as we plan for an appropriate and proper use of that resource we are going to need to have proper science. We are going to need to have a proper consideration of the expectations and industry viability issues that go with being a water user, whether it is for industrial, town water or irrigation water use. Certainly when we are looking at the Border Rivers water management planning process, we have a draft out there at the moment. It is going to be a matter of time before that comes to finality. I would just like to reinforce some issues for the minister, and I am sure they are matters that he continues to hear about not only there but also around Queensland. A lot of people are saying to me in that part of world, and also the area that is covered by the Condamine-Balonne WAMP, that they just want certainty. They want security. They just want to be able to plan for their business and they want to be able to plan for their investment. I just say to honourable members: can they imagine a situation where they have not been able to go to the next stage of the development of their property—it might be a house—because there is some government regulation or government process that says 'Until we resolve this you cannot do that, even though you might have been starting to do that five or six or seven years ago'? That is the exact situation. I spoke to somebody on the Granite Belt today who raised the issue of water metering. He has put in his own private weir. As the minister would know, that is something which is widespread on the Granite Belt. People have put in weirs over many decades and those weirs block up a certain amount of water, generally no more than a few tens of megalitres but sometimes it might get to more than 100 megalitres. The reason is that that is relatively high country and the water flows away very quickly. Those river systems do not store the water at volumes which are necessary for the irrigation of those small crops and tree crops. Even though relatively small amounts of water are required, they just do not store 60 megalitres or 70 megalitres. Those land- holders have put those structures in over a period of time and were given per hectare allocations—that is, they have the right to irrigate maybe 10 or 15 hectares and in some cases they may have been taking up to 10 or 12 megalitres per hectare. Under this water management planning process, those people are going to get a volumetric allocation. There has been some argument over the level of that volume per hectare, and I suppose that is an issue which will be resolved. However, then there is the issue of metering, and this is the sticking point. Whilst I support the notion of metering insofar as being able to have a proper understanding of the amount of water coming from those systems, people would say, 'We put the weir in. It was basically our investment that has given this particular certainty. We've put a meter in here. We're actually going to have a reduction to start with, probably from the amount of water which we were taking before on a hectare allocation. It's not volumetric but an ability to be able to water so many hectares. And then what happens? Well, the government came along and charged us.' They are realistic 1756 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 concerns that those people have. Another concern they have is that, if a certain regime is agreed to through the water planning process and also the ROP process, what guarantee is there that that is not going to be changed at some future time? We know full well that under this water reform process these water resource plans are going to be reviewed in 10 years time and will be reviewed against enhanced scientific data and there may be an adjustment of that water entitlement. People are saying that, if that water entitlement is going to become something which they own and that is a part of their property and can be detached from their property and therefore has a greater commercial value and affects their overall viability, if government can change that against a set of policy parameters and it is crucial to their livelihood and viability, there does need to be some recognition of that as a property right. That is something which I very much support. If we are going to potentially reduce a person's water entitlement we need to recognise that will have an impact on the viability of that business. It can be argued that it is being done for environmental or sustainability reasons, and I suppose in many cases that is a debatable point. However, if that is going to be the policy parameter and that then affects the viability or the productive capacity of that property, we need to look at a compensation regime. That has been missing in the response from the government with regard to water policy in Queensland. If somebody is going to lose something and they have paid, in many cases, very handsomely for it—sometimes it was something which was granted to them as a part of a licence application process, but nevertheless has been pivotal to the viability of their particular enterprise, whatever it may be—or it is going to be reduced in some way, there does need to be a recognition that that should be a compensable commodity. I think that is only fair. That is the sort of relationship which government should have with these land and water owners. I use the term 'water owners', because under this water reform agenda water will be something that the people own and can detach from the land. That is something which we generally support in principle. However, there are some issues with that which the minister is very much aware of—that is, if we detach something from a piece of land in one area, that water is then transferred to another area maybe 200 or 300 kilometres away. There are a whole range of issues with regard to stripping viable capacity from that part of the world and there are also issues associated with the transportation of water over significant distances. These landowners and water users deserve to at least be considered with regard to a compensation regime. There is also mention in this bill of the reverse onus of proof, and that was something which came through in recent amendments to the Vegetation Management Act. The government has a particular policy reason for doing this and argues certain justifications for doing it. But I would caution the government against this process of generally heading down the track of reversal of onus of proof. In terms of serious criminal charges in our Supreme Court, there have been very limited occasions where there has been reverse onus of proof. I note that the minister has indicated in the past that a comparative example for this is the way that the Traffic Act works if a person gets a speeding ticket. That is one justification I suppose, but no situation is exactly the same. When dealing with some of the vegetation management issues and water management issues, it is not exactly the same as that circumstance. One of the real reasons we are seeing this issue of reversal of onus of proof is that there have been some cases where the government has been unsuccessful in the courts with regards to prosecution. There is another issue as well. Anyone who has any relationship whatsoever with departmental officers who are responsible for the issue of compliance and regulation in the area of resource management would know that they are absolutely snowed under with work and demands being placed on them in terms of compliance issues and in formulating the water resource planning process. They have limited resources and limited time. This is my view and I am prepared to concede that I might be approaching this from the wrong angle. However, based on what I am seeing with regards to the volume of work which departmental compliance and planning officers are undertaking, this is going to be an easier way for them to secure prosecutions without having to do as much work because of the current workload on them. At the moment if there is a suspicion that somebody has done something wrong with regards to taking water, then it is up to the department to prove that they have done something. Under what is being proposed here with regards to reverse onus of proof, there will be an onus on the person who has been accused of breaching regulations to prove that they did not do what they are charged with doing. That shifts the burden of responsibility from the department onto that particular water user or that person who has been charged with a particular breach. That will mean that they need to go and gather all of the information and all of the data and go through all of the 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1757 hurly-burly of gathering the information which they need to justify the case, or they will just go through the sheer difficulties that can sometimes be associated with proving something like that even though there might be in some cases what seems to be a fairly easily arguable position. Once that onus of proof has been shifted from the department to the person who is being charged with a breach or the person who the department has alleged has committed a particular breach of the Water Act—or whatever the case may be—then it means that they are the ones who are basically in the gun. This is something which should be of concern to this parliament. As I understand it, it was a concern to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, and the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has the job of reporting on such things. If this has come about because of some difficulties the department has had in sustaining prosecutions or some difficulties which have been brought about because of the inordinate workload which departmental officers have and therefore an easy way to do the job is to shift the burden of proof from the agency to the accused person, that is the wrong way to go about it and the government needs to look to address that issue in different ways. There are other issues covered in this bill that I will not be going into in detail, such as the Burnett ROP, the Burnett flood harvesters, changing water entitlement, Paradise Dam land resumptions—the Paradise Dam issue has been going on for many years—the Fitzroy River water resource plan and the ROP process, moratorium notices, valuations and so on, which are all fairly important and significant issues. Some of these are incidental and some are consequential. They are matters that nevertheless need to be dealt with in a properly planned and thought out way and not in an ad hoc way. The point of my contribution tonight is to say to the government: I do not believe that the people who drafted this legislation or those responsible for putting this legislation to the parliament have a real understanding of the extreme concern that water users have with respect to this resource, which is so vital to the future of their industry and their viability. They do not have certainty or security. These people want certainty and security. In businesses that members might have had prior to coming into this place, they would have wanted certainty and security. They would have wanted matters to be resolved expeditiously so that they were not left hanging. Because water users are such a small proportion of the Queensland population they are probably easy to ignore. But what would happen in Queensland if 1.5 million people were not able to make a decision with regard to certain planning aspects of their life because of a protracted process of resource planning? There would be a hue and cry in this state and rightfully so. That is the sort of situation these people are going through. If home owners' rights or entitlements were taken away through acquisition and they were not compensated for that, how would they feel? They would not be very happy about that, particularly if they have invested hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. If the government tried to take something away from those people without compensating them, they would not be happy. Yet that is exactly what we are doing in Queensland. All we are asking for is a fair go and for these people to be treated decently and to have water recognised not just as a property right but also a compensable property right. That is something that is vital to modern government. They just want certainty and to be treated fairly. They want the government to be honest and open. They feel like they are under siege. When they see things such as the reverse onus of proof, it only weakens their morale and affects their investment confidence. I ask members to consider those factors when voting on this legislation. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (9.23 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to rise in support of the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 because it provides for the continuing progress of the Beattie government's water reform agenda and deals with practical implementation issues that have arisen as part of that process. For example, a new water licence will not be granted if it will have an adverse effect on someone who already has a water entitlement or if it is going to cause environmental harm. Currently, these moratoriums can be put in place only after a water resource planning process has commenced. In practice, a number of water sources around the state are reaching their limits. To protect both the environment and the interests of existing entitlement holders we need to have the capacity to stop the taking of further water immediately. This does not mean that all development will be stopped in these circumstances. Rather, the act provides that these moratorium notices will need to be reviewed annually to ensure that these decisions are responsible and publicly accountable. In far-north Queensland we have embarked on a process of sustainable water use management so these sorts of moratoriums will not have to be put in place. The moratoriums are 1758 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 a legacy of poor decisions of the past. In far-north Queensland we are intent on avoiding those mistakes. The Barron River water resource plan sets out for the next 10 years how much water will be available for irrigators, urban/industrial use and for environmental flows of the river itself. The plan indicates that there will be no need for any additional water storage to be constructed in the life of the plan. While an additional 4,000 megalitres was provided for the Cairns urban water supply, the plan did not provide for any additional water for irrigators, because the maximum historical use of allocations in the Mareeba-Dimbulah water supply scheme has only ever been 70 per cent of the existing 161,000 megalitres currently allocated, with an amount of some 50,000 megalitres still available for use. However, given that current rainfall conditions are such that the last two wet seasons have failed and the Tinaroo Falls Dam is at 42 per cent, it is likely that for only the second time irrigators will be allowed less than their full allocations. SunWater has indicated that farmers should expect only about 60 per cent of their water allocation for the 2003-04 year. The final allocations will be announced in July and this estimate could be revised upwards at that time or hopefully later in the season. The member for Tablelands, who spoke earlier in this debate, indicated that the Barron River water resource plan is flawed and that, therefore, the Nullinga dam on the Walsh River should be built. She has failed to make the distinction between an appropriate response for drought conditions as opposed to one for increased demand for water. The appropriate response in the current circumstances is provided for in this legislation and in the water resource plan and the associated resource operations plan, namely, water trading, so that those people who do not need all of their allocation can sell it to those who do need additional water. The temporary transfer of water via water trading is one of the actions endorsed at a water forum I attended at the invitation of the Mareeba-Dimbulah water supply scheme customer council in Mareeba last month, along with representatives from the EPA, DNR&M, DSD, SunWater, the Mareeba Shire Council, the Cairns City Council and the Tableland Economic Development Corporation, to address the needs of tableland irrigators in the current drought and to look at future demand for water. Other actions endorsed at that time included greater use of water ordering, the extension of water efficiency measures in both rural and urban communities, and the targeting of water losses and leaks from the MDIA channel irrigation system by SunWater. I agreed to approach the minister to determine whether it was possible to extend the funding of the current water use efficiency officer, and I would appreciate his consideration of this request. All of these actions will be coordinated by a drought action committee, whilst another committee will be formed to monitor the Barron River water resource plan. I commend Canegrowers CEO Murray Smith for organising that valuable forum. There are still many people who believe that another dam will be required to be built to supplement the water supply in the Cairns region as demand for water from agricultural and urban uses grows. However, I am pleased to say that there is also a growing recognition that all possible action must be taken to improve water efficiency, recycling and conservation to reduce demand to delay the need for additional expensive infrastructure for as long as possible. In that respect, I am pleased to report that the Cairns City Council has accepted the offer of Environment Minister Dean Wells for $15,000 towards the commissioning of a least cost planning study—a positive outcome following the water efficiency use forum that I organised in February this year. The terms of reference for that study are currently being developed by the Cairns City Council and EPA officers, and I hope that it will be completed by the end of the year to assist in sustainable water use planning by the Cairns City Council. Although the catchment of the Copperlode Dam, the main water supply for the Cairns City Council, received good falls recently, there is still a need to be water wise. I commend the Cairns City Council for its initiative to have a stand at the Tropical Garden Show last weekend which focused on water conservation and recycling. However, I was disappointed to have confirmed the fact that, unlike some other councils, Cairns City Council still has no policy on the installation of water tanks. Apparently there was great interest from the public and maybe it is appropriate for the council to seriously address this issue. I have recently installed a 6,000 gallon water tank that will provide enough water for me to water my garden through the dry season. I am sure that many more people would take the same opportunity if there was encouragement from the council. Some local authorities such as Brisbane and, I believe, Maroochydore provide financial incentives for residents to install water tanks. I hope that such issues will be examined in the least cost planning study and I welcome its findings. 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1759

In the interim, we all have a responsibility to use water as efficiently as possible. The framework of this legislation that is before the House recognises the need for us to manage our precious water resources sustainably for future generations. I commend the minister for his continuing commitment to water reform and I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (9.30 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. It also gives me the opportunity to speak about some of the issues in my area and the two water schemes run by SunWater that are currently in place in the Mackay district. One of those is the Teemburra scheme, which was built in the Labor government era—and one of the few dams that was built by the Labor government. It was a partnership between Mackay Sugar, the state government and canegrowers in the area who were going to be supplied with the water. It amounted to a capital investment of about $10 million from each of them. Currently, the situation in the Teemburra scheme is rather desperate. The other scheme is the Kinchant scheme, which is basically a large off-stream storage that is filled intermittently by flows in the Pioneer River. A number of large pumps are situated in the Pioneer River and when the weir at Marian is filled, the water is then pumped into the Kinchant Dam. Unfortunately, this year there has been only one decent flow in the Pioneer River. When the pumps were started, there were some mechanical problems and only a minor amount of water was pumped this season. Some restrictions have been placed on the pumping of water. That has happened only in recent times. The protocol has always been that when sufficient rain has fallen in the valley, as the water moved down the Pioneer River, the pumps could be started before the water overflowed the Marian Weir. In recent times, the protocol has changed and now the water has to flow over the Marian Weir and fill the bladder before the major pumps that fill Kinchant Dam are started. This has led to very considerable problems in terms of the amount of time that the pumps are able to run. The situation now is that the Kinchant Dam is basically dry. The chances of having four days of flow in the Pioneer River so that water will not only fill the weir but also overflow the bladder are almost non-existent. Currently, in terms of the two major schemes in the Mackay district, the Kinchant Dam and the Teemburra Dam, SunWater has advised that the worse case scenario is that the allocation for the forthcoming year will be zero. The chances of that turning around at this time of the year are almost zilch. The prospects for this year are that, even though water was able to be pumped out of those dams and the supply was reasonably forthcoming, Mackay Sugar will harvest about only four million tonnes of cane this year, which is about half of what it would normally expect to harvest in a decent season. The chances are that, with a zero allocation next year, a lot of farmers who access water out of those two schemes would think twice about even planting cane. Of course, in the Plane Creek area—that is a CSR mill—the whole scenario is even worse than that, because they do not even have an established water scheme to supply water into that area. So the Mackay district will cut less than half a normal crop—and the farmers mainly had access to water—and we are moving into a season during which the chances are that the irrigation systems will have a zero allocation. If the mills can crush only half the usual amount of cane in a season when they have a water allocation, what sort of tonnage can we expect next year when there is zero allocation? The fact of the matter—and it is certainly not an issue that we can blame anybody for—is that protocols need to be put in place to ensure that there is a reasonable amount of water for irrigation from year to year. We talk about the plight of the sugar industry. The reality is that if Mackay Sugar was harvesting eight to 10 million tonnes a year and Plane Creek was harvesting two to 2.2 million tonnes a year, the industry would certainly not be in the plight that it is now. We are heading into the sixth year of those sorts of reduced tonnages. I am not sure how much longer farmers can hang in there. Certainly, changes in the legislation are not the real issue that we have to face; it is the ability of farmers to grow cane that is really causing the industry to go down. One of the great things about the Teemburra scheme is that it was the first time in Queensland that the stakeholders took charge of the distribution of water. As stakeholders, they took over the funding of the distribution of water. They took out loans and are paying those loans back year by year. The failure of the dam to fill with water is impacting on the ability of the Pioneer Valley Water Board to pay back its loans. Of course, the unfortunate part about all of that is that they still have to pay their bulk water charge, even if they do not get water out of the dam. That is a huge problem for the farmers who are hooked into that scheme. They are going to have to pay 1760 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 very considerable amounts of money for water that they will never get. On top of that, they will probably watch their cane die in the process. So we certainly are facing some real problems in that area. Unfortunately, as I stand here tonight, the future is not looking very bright at all. I plead with all members of parliament to really think about where we are in Queensland in terms of water storages. I point out that, in my area, probably three or four dams could be built in the future. I cannot see that we will ever get away from the fact that we have to build those storages. For instance, in Sarina, the last of their water ran out about two weeks before it rained. The Middle Creek Dam, which supplies water to Sarina, was filled last year. Sarina ran out of water because there was no infill during the season. That dam has about 38 per cent water in it now. This time last year, it had 100 per cent water in it. The chances of inflow during this period are pretty remote. So there is a pretty good chance that Sarina will again run out of water. There are also problems out at Moranbah. The reality is that, if we do not get reasonable rain during this winter part of the year, those townships will once again run very short of water. The other issue is that the coalmining industry is a reasonable consumer of water. Within a few months, the water supply to some of the mining companies will be almost non-existent. Without water, those mines cannot operate and there is a pretty good chance that they will close down. So I think it is timely that we start looking at the projects that we can build. It is certainly not going to help us during this drought, but as the years go by, we will once again have a drought—we always do. I point out to the minister—although I am sure he is aware of it—that the Blacks Creek dam site has been proposed for some time. It has some technical problems in terms of being able to build a dam. There is quite a depth of sand at the site where the dam wall has to be built. The other site that would make a very efficient dam is Finch Hatton Gorge. There has been a great deal of concern and misinformation that a dam may back water up into the national park, which is not the case. The water would get nowhere near the national park. It has been an ongoing issue for some time. Certainly, the inflow from that dam site would be sufficient that that dam could almost fill twice in the year. So it would be a very efficient dam. The other big dam in that area is Urannah dam. There has been a lot of talk about that over the years, but it has never been progressed. Finally, the Elliot channel would increase the productivity of that northern part of the Mackay-Whitsunday district very considerably. It is fine to talk about established storages and places where dams are able to be built. Unfortunately, in many parts of my electorate there is no chance of a major dam being constructed. Farmers have to rely on their own resources and money to develop their own infrastructure, such as by drilling or putting in their own dams. I would say that almost 90 per cent of farmers have spent huge amounts of money in a frustrating attempt to find water underground through drilling. They may have drilled 100 or 150 bores to get one or two that have sufficient capacity to pump into a dam. Very few of the sites have enough water to enable pumping directly as irrigation water. They have to be pumped initially into a dam and then pumped out with a bigger pump at night-time. That becomes very expensive for that operation. It really is a bit of a kick in the neck to farmers, after they have spent all of that money, to find that they will have to pay $50 a bore. As I said, there could be five or even eight bores with small pumps actually pumping into a larger dam and then being used intermittently for major irrigation purposes. If they are actually accessing water out of a creek, gully or whatever, depending on how much they take they could also be up for $3 a megalitre. All this after spending huge amounts of money with little or no help at all. In most cases they are actually facing imposts from the government. Just today I had a call from a farmer who was looking to access water out of a creek. There was run-off from the farm. He was basically told by the department that it was impossible for him to take that. There was no use applying for a licence because no more were being given out, yet this water was going to waste. It was basically irrigation water that had spilled into the creek and he was attempting to retrieve it. One would think that in this day and age that would be the way to go—to actually recycle that water—but the department said that he could not get a licence for it, that it would be impossible for him to do that and indeed if he pumped it out he would be fined and they would be out there checking. I just wonder where we are going with this stuff. I know that I am harping on this, but the issue of water in the areas in my electorate is a major one. It also affects other areas in Queensland. The big debate we are having about the sugar industry currently is not necessarily about—certainly from my point of view it is not at all 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1761 about—impacts of legislation on the industry. It is about the ability of farmers to grow cane. As I said, for six years this industry has suffered major droughts, unseasonal weather and all sorts of other problems. Right now we are facing a tremendous deficiency of water. That the Mackay district may have to face another couple of years of this is beyond comprehension. The fact of the matter is that for our two major schemes right now SunWater is predicting that there will be zero allocation for next year. The implications of that are horrendous. Even though that is not the government's fault, the fact remains that we need to be looking at further storages and ensuring water supply for the district. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (9.43 p.m.): I rise to join the debate on the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. Listening to my colleague the member for Mirani certainly brings home a lot of the issues that are critical to his part of the world. The ability for areas such as his and many other parts of Queensland to have water storage is absolutely critical. We see great opportunities in agriculture throughout this state, if only we had water. Of course, water storage is one of the key issues. Currently the situation is that drought has ravaged something like 60 per cent of the state and there has been very little rainfall over the last few months to fill any dams or streams. That is causing enormous angst to rural industries. We use water for a wide range of applications. It is a part of every aspect of life. It is critical that we have sufficient water. The Burdekin River irrigation scheme was built back in 1984. There was Commonwealth funding of some $150 million, which was well over 35 per cent of the value of the scheme. This scheme has been very valuable to the Burdekin region. Before, it just had pump storage types of devices. With the advent of the dam they were able to considerably increase their capacity to grow sugar cane and other crops. That really demonstrates that that area, which was so dry, could have seen massive productivity if water was going into it. One of the contentious issues they presently face is that SunWater has increased the cost of water from $28 a megalitre to $36 a megalitre. I understand that the growers agreed to pay the $8 a megalitre after protracted negotiations. This became a very contentious issue. I understand that the Queensland Competition Authority brought down a report which stated quite clearly that it was up to the government to make a decision about what it would do about water charges in that area. I believe the sugarcane growers are currently waiting for a response from the government. Sugarcane growers are saying they do not have the ability to pay for the return on their investment. That has been one of the major issues with this scheme. They do not have the ability to pay for the return on their investment. Seasonal demands are very high with the dry weather we have experienced. Labour and electricity costs are quite substantial. To grow a crop and water it over a period of time, with the little rainfall we have had, is very costly. When we look at the returns for sugar Cane, we see that growers are barely paying their way. Anybody who has a considerable debt is suffering very badly. Growers had to invest substantial amounts of money in laser levelling the area so they could carry out the flooding operations for the irrigation of their crops. Those costs are only part of it. Then we add the cost of water. Water will be an ongoing cost for a long time into the future. It will vary according to seasonal conditions. The conditions they have faced over the last couple of years have required almost total irrigation for crops to be successful in the Burdekin. There is a similar situation developing on the tableland. I will quote from a letter sent to Peter Noonan, the chief executive officer of SunWater. This letter is quite interesting because it relates to the issue of the Tinaroo Dam. The Mareeba District Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association Inc., whose president is Joe Moro, writes— The association is still greatly concerned with the release of water under the Hydro Rule. We appreciate there are provisions under the rules to allow water to be released to Stanwell or anyone else in the future but we believe that Sunwater has a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the interest of allocation holders. These announced water allocations have been paid for and have far greater rights than the provision to allow water to be released for Stanwell under the Hydro Rule. Although it states in the license that you are allowed to release water for Stanwell, from my understanding there is no legal provision that obligates you to do so. If there is sufficient water in Tinaroo Dam then Sunwater and Stanwell can come to a suitable arrangement under the Hydro Rule for these water releases to occur. We believe when Tinaroo Dam is in the current situation that it is this year and was last year with the drought, which is also throughout Australia, that Sunwater and yourself should utilise the long-term forecasting to make a judgment call not to release water from Tinaroo Dam. Although it would improve your cash flow, you have put incredible pressure for the following year with the amount of allocation that will be available for irrigators. I think that is indicative of what is happening out there. Those people have gone into fruit and vegetables. They have been in the tobacco industry for some period of time. Tobacco was grown 1762 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 first in Mareeba, as I understand it, back in the late thirties and it was a substantial crop. It was worth a lot of money to the Mareeba area. They found they had no option but to get out of tobacco because of the loss of stabilisation schemes, and buyers in Australia were reluctant to buy their crops. As a consequence, they looked for other crops. Sugar cane was one of them. Horticultural crops, because of the size of the holdings, were very popular. So growers up there had to change their way of agriculture and look for other types of crops to maintain their existence. In the case of the sugar cane crop, there are many hundreds of thousands of tonnes grown up in the Tablelands. Some people are very concerned by the low returns they are getting from sugar cane, but what we see with sugar cane is that there is enormous demand for water, particularly in the early summer periods when the peak growth of the crop is expected. If there is insufficient rainfall to meet the demands of the crop, irrigation is absolutely critical. I can understand the growers' apprehension with the fact that this valuable water may be turned into electricity and flow down the Barron River with the only end users being the hydro scheme. I think the minister really needs to take note of that because the levels in Tinaroo at this time are quite low. I understand they are in the order of about 40 to 42 per cent. What that means is that they will have insufficient water to carry through their crops into the next year. The likelihood now of rainfall that will fill the dam or partly fill the dam has passed. The wet season influence has drawn very little rainfall in that region. It has borne enough rainfall to grow grass but very little to fill any water storage systems. In Malanda only a few weeks ago dairy farmers had to sell their cows in the order of six to eight per week to maintain the cost of feeding the rest of the herd. This herd has now been depleted and they are in a very precarious position. Once again turning to Tinaroo Falls Dam, it is a very popular sporting and recreational facility, and there is little doubt that in the future there will be a need to build another resource on the tablelands. I have heard the minister talk about Nullinga dam and the cost of the Nullinga dam, but what is the actual price of not having water? That is one of the issues we really have to address. It may be high, but we are facing a situation where Cairns will need more water than it has at the present time. Between the requirements of the agricultural crops on the tablelands and what Cairns will need, there is every reason to look at that very closely. Without an additional capacity on the tablelands there will be a lack of development and there will be a loss as far as crops are concerned. Certainly the situation of the growth in Cairns city is quite important, too. My colleague the member for Mirani also talked about Elliot Main Channel and the Urannah dam. Bowen certainly could do with more water, but there are other uses for that water than for fruit and vegetable crops. There is enormous capacity between Bowen and the Home Hill area to grow sugar cane. I know that the price of sugar on overseas markets is particularly low at present. If in the future we are going to establish an ethanol industry, we have to do some long-term planning. These sorts of projects take years and decades in some cases to implement, and I think there is very good reason why consideration should not be given to them. I know the member for Burdekin has certainly pushed the issue as regards the Elliot Main Channel. If that did take place, enormous development could occur in that region that I spoke of. I believe we could certainly generate a lot of that crop into an ethanol industry. What the ethanol industry wants is a certain capacity as regards extracting sugar content in the first mill, then looking at opportunities to produce it from the other crushing operations. We could expand the industry but not totally expand the amount of sugar that we produce from it. As I said, at present nearly 60 per cent of Queensland is in drought. I know there are boring contractors in my part of the world who at this point are fully booked up until after Christmas because of the demand and the requirement of many property owners for water. It is not just property owners; towns, cities and communities right up and down the coast of Queensland are presently facing a situation in which they have barely enough drinking water. Water efficiency schemes are extremely important. I myself use a system called the Gopher principle, which measures water very accurately and gives a clear indication of the amount of water needed to get optimum levels of growth out of a crop. This system and many others like it are being used by rural industries throughout the country, and I believe they are maximising the use of water and attaining absolute efficiency out of it. There are some other major benefits to be gained. People do not necessarily wash the fertilisers down to a level where a high moisture level is maintained within the root zone, and that is what efficiency is all about. If we want to talk about the Smart State, we have some smart farmers who have the capacity to latch on to this type of technology. People can get a computer 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1763 readout and they can watch how the water goes through the profile and the amount of water that is required. Those types of systems and the funding that has been provided by the government are particularly important to ensure the efficient use of water. Water easements have been mentioned in the bill. From a quick reading of it, we in the tropics probably have a different farming situation to that which is envisaged in the bill. We often have situations, particularly in the wetter times of the year, when good drainage is absolutely essential. It is a little bit of a converse situation now; normally we would be experiencing extreme wet conditions because of cyclonic influences and so on. But what we are seeing in many parts of the Wet Tropics—and only a few of them are getting decent rainfall—is that creeks are barely running at this time of the year. What we need to do to maximise crop efficiency is to maintain good water dispersal systems, and that can be achieved by improving drainage. It is something that I know at this point in time is far from the minds of many agriculture producers in this state, but it is necessary for the future. In the past we have had packages like the Sugar Industry Infrastructure Package that provided funding for water, but after 10 years nothing has happened with some of these projects. There has been planning and re-planning. It has been going on and on. These projects which were so critical during the wet years when we lost production with the sugar industry have not really come to fruition as yet. That is an indictment on the whole planning system and evidence of the difficulties that rural industries face throughout this state when they are trying to do something that is going to be of some benefit in the production of their crops. Of course, water trading is going to be a very important issue, and it is something that I know that the member for Warrego, when he was Minister for Natural Resources, was involved in. I have talked to the Victorians over a period of time. They are involved in water trading. I believe that if a person cannot use his allocation that is a very good reason why they should get involved in water trading. A person who has a licence, or whatever mechanism it might be for watering crops, has a very valuable asset. In fact, without that particular asset many properties may not be worth very much. So being allocated with a licence or a capacity to get water from a dam is extremely important to many properties in Queensland. Of course the time delay process as far as licensing is concerned is very frustrating for people who make applications for licences. I know that they can be waiting months, almost a year, and even longer than that, because there is a lack of staff within water resources to adequately carry out the application process. Many of these people have been desperate for water. In some cases they have gone ahead and planted crops. One has to always be aware that if a person is going to do this sort of thing they cannot rely on the mega resources that they might have in a dam. Therefore, they might have to look for other sources; they might have to make an application for a licence. Of course, sometimes a person makes an application for a licence, and I have experienced this with some people, at a very critical time as far as the crops are concerned and they have not allowed enough time. Having said that, in many instances it has taken years for the application process to go through, mainly because of the lack of officers to carry out processing the application. When I was in Bundaberg some months ago, I was very much aware of the plight of the sugar growing industry. This last year they had a very poor crop, mainly because they had insufficient water for the crops. Some bores were pumping salt, and of course that is very detrimental as far as the crop is concerned and not in the best interests of the soil itself. I think there was a proposal as far as the bag on the Walla Weir at Bundaberg was concerned. This had languished for a period of time, and I think many producers were really banking on the fact that the short-term process would assist them greatly in watering their crops, particularly in view of the dry season conditions we have experienced. Their investments in many cases are enormous. When one looks into those sheds and sees the amount of equipment that is involved—and in some cases the farmers just have not had the capacity to go and grow a crop on their land; they have had to move to other areas to produce crops—the government needs to take a considerable amount of notice because those investments and the employment opportunities that are presented by many of these crops are quite enormous. In fact, they are probably one of the most intensive industries as far as employment is concerned in such towns as Bundaberg. But that is the same, I suppose, for many towns that produce horticultural crops. It is extremely important that the government recognises the ability of horticultural crops to be earners of income in the first instance, as well as earners through trade with other states and international trade. They also provide jobs for many, many Queenslanders. 1764 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

I know when the picking seasons are on there is a massive influx of people into towns such as Bundaberg and Tully and up to the tablelands. I think it is important that we recognise the importance of water. Time expired. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.04 p.m.): I want to make a short comment to the minister on behalf of my own constituents. Anyone who wishes to have a look at the drought situation in the south-east should drive to beautiful Boonah and see the Moogerah Dam which at present is down to 2.2 per cent capacity. Considering the fact that you cannot get under 0.6 per cent, there is very little left in that particular dam. But the other dam is the Maroon Dam, and that is the one I wish to make a quick comment about. To look at what has happened with the Maroon Dam is to see what has happened since SunWater has come in and controlled water in Queensland. In the old days with Maroon Dam, the water boards and water advisory committees probably did not allocate any more than 60 per cent of the water in the dam, so there was always 40 per cent retained for the times of drought. That was there for agricultural viability, which I believe both of those dams were built for. However, SunWater allocated at least 100 per cent of the water. Mr Robertson: At least 100 per cent? Mr LINGARD: If the minister is sitting there, he would also realise that there are the tributaries and the creeks that flow around the dam which are also allocated. So 100 per cent of the dam and the tributaries and the creeks around the dam are being allocated. So, minister, whilst it might have seemed ridiculous, seemingly your comment is just as ridiculous. What I am trying to say is that with SunWater the allocation is 100 per cent. That is to both irrigators and to all of the industries that come down along the Logan River. In times of drought when the allocation of water is looked at and A. J. Bush is looked at, they say that we cannot take the water away from A. J. Bush because they take all the offal from south-east Queensland, and if we did not give any water to A. J. Bush, A. J. Bush would not continue. Similarly, many workers in south-east Queensland would lose their jobs. Similarly, because Davis Gelatine makes two per cent of the Australian gelatine, obviously water cannot be taken away from it. We cannot take the water away from Beaudesert town. So when the water gets down extremely low, the ones who miss out are the farmers. They are the first ones to lose water. A. J. Bush and Davis Gelatine continue on. With this continual 100 per cent of allocation of water out of a dam by SunWater, it is the farmers who are affected. The farmers are now saying that they are concerned that if water is taken from creeks like Christmas Creek and Running Creek, which provide a little bit more than 100 per cent of allocation, for Beaudesert town then quite obviously they are going to miss out in times of drought. My constituents are saying to the minister that when he is looking at allocations and looking at SunWater and looking at requests by Beaudesert shire for a pipeline to be placed from Brisbane city to Woodhill and from Woodhill to Beaudesert city, that he would look at that very generously because, quite obviously, these people are being affected by the many industries which are along the Logan River and which are taking large allocations of water from Maroon Dam, and in times of drought the ones who are missing out are the agricultural people. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.07 p.m.), in reply: Can I first of all thank the opposition for their support for this bill. But in thanking them I have to make a number of comments, or responses to comments, made by a number of opposition spokespeople. Firstly, I refer to the comments of the member for Callide. He claimed that the security and so-called property rights of Queensland's water users have been eroded by the water reform process. He was backed in this claim by many of his colleagues. The member for Callide must realise that it was the Beattie government that has created certainty in this area where there was none before. We have increased security. Water users have more security over water entitlements now than they have ever had in Queensland under any government. There are compensation mechanisms in place for the first time in Queensland's history. Before this, the government of the day could change a person's water licence at a whim and the person had to wear it. It could change the way water was allocated within a system and the system users had to wear it. The member for Callide needs to do his homework. He needs to look at the history of water management in this state under the National Party and the coalition government. The undeniable truth is that the Beattie government's water reform agenda has delivered more security to land- holders than at any time in this state's history. 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1765

We also need to remember that rights need to be balanced with responsibilities, and entitlements are balanced with government projects that exist only to help water users. For example, the Beattie government's rural water use efficiency scheme. What the member to Callide seemed most concerned about is the 10-year life of a water resource plan. This again is an area where balance is needed. We need to strike a balance between the stability for water users and the need to make adjustments as we better understand the systems. Science is always changing and our knowledge is never perfect. Indeed, New South Wales has agreed with us on this very point. The member for Callide needs to realise that this issue cuts both ways. If scientific studies and new information tell us there is less water in a system and if river health is worse, we can deal with it in a timely way. On the other hand, if there turns out to be more water available at the end of the 10-year period, we can manage that as well. Maybe people will get a bit more water in their allocations. The member for Southern Downs mentioned a potential effect of separating land and water titles citing a hypothetical situation in which a water title might be sold and attached to land 300 kilometres away. This sort of situation can be dealt with within the rules of a resource operation plan where detailed trading rules are established to manage these sorts of situations. However, I must say that to use an example of water being traded over a distance of some 300 kilometres, as in the example given by the member for Southern Downs, I think is probably stretching the bounds of credulity somewhat. Before trading a water allocation over such a distance, one would have to question whether that amount of water would in fact make it down a river over that distance given things such as evaporation, seepage and overall system losses. Nevertheless, issues about trading—how people can trade and in what areas—are functions that are assessed under the resource operation plan process. The member for Callide, backed by many of his colleagues, yet again talked about the onus of proof. In relation to this issue, I appreciate that the comments he made were not exactly the same as those he made during the vegetation management debate. I think he recognises that a different set of circumstances applies in this case. But let us cut to the quick as to what this issue is about. This is about cases where evidence suggests that water has been used outside the rules attached to the licence. If it was not the person who holds the licence who did it, who else could it in fact be? Most water users that I have come across with a pump secure their pump. They secure their pump. They or their delegate—it could be a manager, it could be a lessee or whoever—would have access to that facility. All the land-holder has to do in that case is indicate the circumstances that existed as to who was using the pump that resulted in the inappropriate or illegal taking of water. The member for Callide said that that is for a court to decide. Let us face it: we are dealing with instances in which the illegal taking of water has occurred in isolation—in absolute isolation. It would be highly unlikely that sufficient proof would exist to catch the person. Let us say it was the member for Callide. I am not suggesting that he would do it, but if he did, how would he get the necessary standard of proof that it was in fact him if no-one actually caught him in the act? Obviously he may choose to deny that it was him, but who else would it be? This is about ensuring that those who are licensed to take water take responsibility for doing so. Mr Seeney: You can make that case in a court. Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Nicklin already gave an example in this place this evening during what I thought was a very thoughtful contribution to the debate. In case members missed it, I will refresh their memories. If someone gets caught speeding in a car by a speed camera, they are responsible for it unless they can prove otherwise. That means that they can get the person who was driving their car to take responsibility for it or otherwise provide information that demonstrates that they were not driving. The same principle applies here, and it is particularly analogous. There will still need to be proof that water has been taken above an entitlement, something like the readout of a water meter. We believe it will encourage water users to be careful about who is in charge of the water, about who is using the water. Water is too precious to let it be wilfully wasted or overused without someone taking responsibility for it. It is not fair to other users in the system if someone takes more than their entitlement, leaving less water for everyone else. There has to be some accountability and the buck has to stop with the holder of the licence or the entitlement. 1766 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

As far as the Barlil Weir is concerned, I am glad that the member for Callide agrees with the member for Burnett, as I do, on its importance. The member for Callide wanted to know how we arrived at the allocation for this particular weir. This is outlined in the explanatory notes. The reservation for the Barlil was identified as part of the review of environmental factors which forms the basis of the Commonwealth and state environmental approvals. This review was subject to quite extensive public consultation and the volume of water is consistent with the Burnett water resource plan. As regards the question of reviewing this figure, the act provides a process for amending the water resource plan. The member for Callide also raised the issue of the Fitzroy ROP and questioned the timing of the introduction of this ROP. There is a simple answer to that question. It was ready and we wanted to get it to the people in the Fitzroy Basin as soon as possible. One of the problems that delayed the initial finalisation of the Fitzroy water resource plan—the member for Southern Downs mentioned it, if I recall correctly—was that whilst the Fitzroy was our first resource plan, it was actually commenced and a significant amount of work was done on it prior to the implementation of the Water Act. So a lot of the things that we are addressing are plugging that gap between when the Fitzroy plan was started and when the Water Act was finally introduced and passed in 2000. The consultation period on the draft Fitzroy ROP was extended by the director-general of my department to ensure that all users in the system felt that they had enough time to deal with it, and that has demonstrated this government's good faith with water users in the Fitzroy system. There has been extensive consultation both before and after the draft Fitzroy ROP. I must say once again that I am tiring of the slurs by the member for Callide on the hardworking members of my department. Mr Seeney: Get used to it. There'll be a lot more. Mr ROBERTSON: Every time the member does so I am more than happy to circulate his speech amongst my whole department to let them know how ill prepared the member is to assume the office of the Minister for Natural Resources. On the issue of the Fitzroy ROP, the member for Callide raised the Fairbairn Dam and the so- called erosion of the dam's viability. These amendments are all about avoiding that situation and are aimed at significantly reducing any impact on Fairbairn Dam and the users in that system. The member for Callide also raised the provisions surrounding moratoriums. The intent of this provision is to allow the government to put a hold on taking additional water while we gather information on the issue and allow our planning resources to be sensibly applied on a priority basis to best meet community needs. The 12-month review process is a protection which ensures that moratoriums will not continue unless they are appropriate. I have to say that, again, it cuts both ways. This is not a provision that is simply there for my or the minister of the day's convenience. Quite often we actually get calls by land-holders themselves in catchments for a moratorium to be put in place. That is often the case where, because of our own schedule for the roll-out of water resource plans, that may result in a catchment's planning process not starting for some years to come in some catchments. In the meantime, and again applying the precautionary principle, on occasions where there is emerging pressure in a catchment, we may want to take the opportunity to put in place a moratorium so that when we do get to that planning process we are not dealing with a system that may in fact be stressed or have more pressures put on it than are perhaps sustainable. It is a measure that is there to apply a precautionary principle. I do not treat these moratoriums lightly, because I do understand the impact they can have on people's aspirations. Over the past couple of years I have questioned my department very closely when it has come to me with recommendations to apply a moratorium at a very early stage of the planning process. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: That is right. We may not be starting a water resource planning processes for a couple of years to come. Mr Seeney: You're wrong. Mr ROBERTSON: No. That is often at the request of the users themselves who see additional people applying to take water where it may not be sustainable. Used judiciously, this is actually to the benefit of existing users in the system so that when we do get to the water 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1767 resource planning process we do not inherit a problem as a result of not taking a precautionary approach in the years preceding it. That is what is behind this issue. On the issue of resumption of land, can I say that, whilst I appreciate the comments again by the member for Callide, I think it is fair to say again, as minister responsible for dealing with resumptions, one of the things I always look for before I sign off on a resumption is whether an agreement has been reached between the land-holder and the authority, whether it be a local council or whether it be a government department. By and large, I have to say that over 90 per cent of the resumptions that come across my desk come with agreement between the land- holder and the authority. In those cases where an objection has been put in, what I look for is a detailed assessment by that authority that the concerns of that land-holder have been dealt with appropriately. I do that as a matter of course as the minister responsible. I have had experiences in my electorate with resumptions of land and I know that they can be tough. However, I also have to say that in my experience government departments have a tendency to err on the side of the land-holder. They do not take a mean-spirited approach in terms of the offer of the land that is to be resumed. Should there be continuing objection and should that matter have to go to court, the member would be aware that there is a responsibility on the government to pay for the costs associated with taking that matter to a court. Those provisions have now been in place in this state for many years. Although from time to time there may be a bit of argy-bargy between the resuming authority and the land-holder—it is never easy—by and large the experience that I have had has been that government departments and agencies act appropriately and with a proper degree of sensitivity. On the issue of SunWater, I am sure that the member for Callide is aware that the corporation is responsible to both me and the Treasurer. SunWater is responsible to its shareholders for the outcomes it delivers, that is, the Treasurer and ne. But the law says that we cannot interfere in operational matters. That is the difference between what the member was saying and the reality in terms of the legislation and what this provision is about. I assure the member that I take my responsibilities as one of the two shareholders in SunWater very seriously, which is why we are continuing with this provision. Both the member for Callide and the member for Warrego seemed somewhat puzzled by the valuation provisions of this bill. As the member for Warrego identified, the separation of land and water raises issues for valuers and local governments. When land and water are separated they become separate assets. The water reform process cannot be allowed to have an effect on council rates. That is understood. That is why we have a longstanding commitment to ensure that this process is able to be revenue neutral for councils. We have delayed the effect of new valuations to ensure stability for local councils while they sort out the best way to manage their revenue raising activities within the new system. Councils have been widely consulted on this issue and local governments acknowledge they have a broad range of tools at their disposal to achieve this. Contributions were made by the member for Tablelands and the member for Nanango about this matter. I feel obliged to address those particular comments. The separation of water from land is essential to establish a water trading regime in this state, which is a requirement of the Council of Australian Governments water reform agenda. There is no compulsion to trade. Trade is an agreement between two parties. If one party feels that they are not getting a good deal, they do not have to trade. That is the basis of the system, which hopefully the members for Tablelands and Nanango will understand and therefore will temper their remarks in the future to some extent. The member for Warrego raised concerns about the move from the Land Court to the Magistrates Court for appeals against compliance notices. This will deliver consistency in the way these matters are dealt with by the courts by moving them to the same jurisdiction as any future prosecution proceedings. On a minor issue, I inform the member for Tablelands that the land and water management plans for regular seasonal water assignments will be approved for a period of up to 10 years. In conclusion, I thank all members who contributed to this debate. Once again, I thank the opposition for its support. I thank all government members who offered their support for this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. 1768 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

Committee Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr SEENEY (10.28 p.m.): This clause relates to the establishment of easements for land that is temporarily covered by water around water storages. The minister dealt with this in his second reading speech and it is dealt with fairly extensively in the explanatory notes. I support the concept of having a procedure that allows an easement to be attained over this land by the administering authority of the particular water storage and to allow the ownership of that land to be retained by the land-holder and the use of it to be enjoyed by the land-holder, as opposed to the other option that would apply wherein the land would have to be purchased outright. I think that it is sensible to move towards an easement for the short period that the land may be inundated in that one-in-100-years flood event that has been mentioned in the debate so far. The issue that I would like to pursue with the minister is, once again, compensation to the land- holder. Obviously, there is going to be a difference in the value of that land, given that it will be inundated on an irregular basis that is impossible to predict. Although we could have a one-in- 100-years flood, that does not mean that we wait 100 years between flood events. It is quite possible that we could have two such floods in five years or something like that. Obviously, the chance of that event occurring is going to affect the use to which that land can be put. Therefore, that will affect the value of the land. A case in point is the Paradise Dam. Within that area of land that will be affected by these one-in-100-years flood events is quite a lot of potential to establish valuable enterprises such as orchards and intensive agriculture of that type. Obviously, such enterprises will not be able to be established in an area that is going to be flooded. So the value of that land is lessened because of that fact. The issue that needs to be addressed is what compensation is to be paid in the establishment of these easements. Is that reduction in value as an obvious consequence of that one-in-100-years flood level going to be recognised as part of the establishment of the easement and the land-holder compensated for it? Mr ROBERTSON: The simple answer is that that would be subject to an agreement with the authority. In the current case, it is Burnett Water. That will be subject to an agreement between Burnett Water and the individual land-holders. Obviously, I do not have knowledge of what those agreements may provide and, even if I did, I suspect that they would be confidential, anyway. Again, the fact that we have not had significant complaints during this process would indicate to me that Burnett Water is acting responsibly in recognising that there is clearly an impact on the productive capacity of that particular piece of land. Therefore, there is an element of compensation—or using other terms that may be more appropriate—that they would have to provide to the land-holder. Mr SEENEY: I take it, then, that it necessarily follows from what the minister says that the establishment of such an easement will be voluntary in that there will have to be an agreement reached. If that agreement cannot be reached or the land-holder believes that an easement is not accompanied by the appropriate compensation for the loss of value of that land, I take it then that the authority will need to move to an acquisition position. The land would have to be acquired either once again by negotiation or by compulsory acquisition. I accept what the minister said in his response, but the validity of what he said rests on the fact that no-one will be forced into accepting an easement unless there can be an agreement about the loss in value and the effect that that easement might have on the land. I seek the minister's confirmation of that. Mr ROBERTSON: I am advised that the easements are solely by agreement. Where agreement does not exist, we would go to the next step of acquisition. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr SEENEY (10.34 p.m.): Clause 31 deals with the establishment of moratoriums outside the planning process. This issue was dealt with fairly extensively in the second reading 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1769 contribution that I made and also in the response that the minister made at the conclusion of the second reading debate. I think that it is clear from both of those contributions that the minister and I take a different view. I certainly do not accept the explanation that the minister gave. I do not believe that the opposition is in a position to accept this clause, which allows the minister to introduce these moratoriums outside the planning process. It is critical to recognise that moratoriums have a major impact on particular individuals within a catchment. Although I accept what the minister said about the necessity to be able to impose moratoriums in particular situations where catchments are under stress, I do not accept that that moratorium provision can be removed from the planning process. By a process of logic, if a particular catchment is under such stress that a moratorium is required, it should be a high priority for the department in terms of a planning process. If there is that stress on the resource, then the department should be entering into a planning process to address the possibility or the probability that that catchment and the resources in that catchment are going to become overstressed. A moratorium is an essential part of that process, but the first step in that process has to be to recognise the stress that is either actually occurring in a particular catchment or potentially occurring in a particular catchment and call a halt to the development that is either causing that stress or has the potential to cause that stress and then enter into a planning process that identifies clearly the development that is possible and the steps that are necessary in the management of the natural resource in that catchment to ensure that that stress does not have the environmental impacts that none of us want to see happen. I suggest to the minister that he cannot separate the two. Once he does that, he removes the imperative on the department to complete the job, which is its responsibility. Given that the minister's department has been rather slow in delivering these water resource plans in the catchments to date, I suggest to the minister that if we allow a situation to progress that allows these moratoriums to be separated from the planning process and the moratoriums to be established without an imperative to complete the planning process, we are going to see fewer planning processes completed, we are going to see less progress on these water resource plans and resource operation plans that are necessary planning instruments to identify the potential uses in that particular catchment to prevent the stress on the resource about which the minister spoke. The moratorium should be an essential part of the planning process, not separate from it, as this particular clause in this bill sets out to establish. Mr ROBERTSON: I appreciate what the member for Callide is saying. Another way of looking at it is that we are not, in fact, separating a moratorium from a water resource planning process. However, we are contemplating that there may be a gap. The water resource planning process and all the catchments in which we either are conducting a water resource planning process or will in the future are pretty well known. Fundamentally, 20 of Queensland's 26 major catchments will be subject to water resource plans within the next—I would say off the top of my head—three years. Let us go back a bit. I know that I used the word 'stressed' when I mentioned this in my reply to the second reading debate. Currently we put in place an administrative hold. If the department receives an application or a number of applications in a catchment where we know a water resource planning process will be kicking off within the next couple of years, then if there is a sufficient level of concern and sufficient data that suggests that the precautionary principle applies, we actually hold those applications. They are not processed. That has been the practice for many, many years. This actually formalises and provides some legislative support for actions already taken. That is fundamentally what it is all about. There is no intention to apply this separate from a water resource planning process. As I said, the catchments that will be subject to water resource plans are pretty widely known. Everyone knows that over the next three or four years various major catchments in the state will be subject to them. It just provides us with a safety valve, if you like, to not allow a problem to eventuate which may result in the taxpayers of Queensland having to provide compensation because there was no moratorium put on the receipt of applications. What we see in some catchments in the lead-up to a water resource plan is that people start to panic and submit applications, not necessarily particularly thoughtful ones. They are taking out a bit of insurance. I understand that. It is human behaviour that people try to take out that insurance, but it does not help the water resource planning process. That is purely what we are doing here. It is not something that we contemplate using on a regular basis or in every case but 1770 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 in cases where there is sufficient data already in existence that raises a concern that we need to deal with this matter now. The member made a comment about the length of the water resource plans. The member needs to remember that on occasions the water resource planning process timetable has not been extended because of some lack of effort or lack of resources by the department but at the insistence of the community, who demand from us more time to digest information or require more consultation. I place that on record lest we start getting into a debate about the fact that the time lines for some water resource plans get extended. That is not about a lack of resources by my department but regularly at the request of communities for further information and longer consultation periods—such as in the Fitzroy ROP, as a classic example; such as in the Border Rivers; such as in the Condamine-Balonne. I could go on. Mr SEENEY: I congratulate the minister for trying to make the most out of a very thin argument. I think he did pretty well to try to rebut the issue I raised given the thinness of the argument he had to work with. The examples the minister used, at least with the Fitzroy ROP, were probably appropriate, because there has been a request from the community for an extension of the water resource planning process. However, I think using the Condamine-Balonne as an example was stretching the bounds of credibility just a little too far. The point is that these moratoriums are being separated from the planning process. Once we do that we take away any incentive the department has to complete those water resource plans. That is the crux of the issue. We have argued in the estimates committees over a number of years about the performance of the department in completing these water resource plans and the complete lack of success on the minister's part in ensuring the department is properly resourced to do that. For four years in a row the budget available to the people in the department who have to carry out this work has been reduced. Unless there is an imperative to complete these planning processes, the likelihood of having the department properly funded to do this job will be lessened. It is almost expected, I would suggest, that once this ability to impose these moratoriums is separated those moratoriums could exist almost indefinitely. I do accept that there is a provision in the bill to have them reviewed every year, but that does not in itself provide incentive to get in and complete the planning processes that we all want to see happen. It is just not logical to argue that separating that moratorium provision from the planning process in some way enhances the process or ensures that we will get to the situation of water resource plans and resource operation plans in a particular catchment any quicker than we might have done otherwise. I do not accept the arguments that the minister has put forward. Question—That clause 31, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 58—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, L. Clark, Croft, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, M. Foley, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Miller, Molloy, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wellington, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 19—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, C. Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 32 to 55, as read, agreed to. Clause 56— Mr SEENEY (10.53 p.m.): Clause 56 deals with the change to water allocations. It is one of a number of clauses that deal with this issue of changing of water allocations over time. That is the crux of the arguments that I explored in my contribution to the second reading debate about the potential loss of property rights under the water resource plans that the government has in place. While there is a potential for water allocations to change over time, there will always be that potential for a property owner's asset to be eroded over time. That is something that we have expressed concern about from the very beginning of the water reform process, from the introduction of the Water Act in 2000. I want to refute the comments made by the minister in his summation at the end of the second reading debate when he continued to repeat this tired old rhetoric about how the Labor government had somehow increased the security that was available to Queensland's water users and that the water reform process had somehow given security where there was none before. No 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1771 matter how many times that rhetoric is repeated, it still has no credibility because it is the exact opposite of the situation that exists in the field. The water reform process and the Water Act 2000 when it was introduced caused a huge loss of confidence on the part of resource users, of those who held water entitlements, and it continues to erode that security that is so important for the sustainable management of this natural resource, as it is with every other natural resource. I spoke at length about that in the second reading speech. The fact that those arguments can be so glibly dismissed by the minister with the repetition of this tired old rhetoric that somehow or other this increases security is an indication that the government is just not serious about addressing this crucial issue; this issue that is absolutely essential to achieving sustainable use of these resources and to achieving a sensible decision making process for the long term. That sensible decision making process will come only with long-term security. That long-term security is completely shattered by the fact that at the end of every 10-year period these water allocations and water entitlements can be adjusted without any compensation, and compensation is expressly ruled out in the Water Act. This particular clause seeks to make it easier to change the water allocations at those particular times, and it addresses a whole series of issues to achieve that end. Other clauses in the bill are also aimed at facilitating that change in water allocations. It is interesting to see the approach that has been taken that guarantees that a water allocation will remain in proportion with the total water that is available in the catchment, which indicates to me there is an expectation that the proportion of water identified in those water resource plans will reduce over time, and therefore the water allocations themselves will have to reduce proportionately. The minister spoke before about the fact that this can go either way, and he is right about that. I wish he could give to water users in some of these catchments where his so-called precautionary principle has been applied some sort of a reasonable expectation that in time overuse of the precautionary principle will be relaxed to ensure that more water becomes available, because there is no doubt that that can happen and there is also no doubt that it should happen. But no-one reasonably believes that that will happen under the administration of the current government. The whole process has been about restricting further development and restricting further water use as much as is possible. If we take the Burnett catchment, for example—and it is one that is dealt with specifically in this bill—the original water resource plan was so structured as to allow the government to build the infrastructure that it wanted to build and to put a stop on everything else. But then, when the political imperative forced the government to address the equity issues up and down the catchment, it found it had to construct more infrastructure upstream to address those political issues that were raised quite legitimately by those people who wanted fair access to extra water that was created in the system. They were able to change those parameters very quickly to allow them to progress that infrastructure in the way that they wanted to. So there is no question in my mind that the overall strategy and the overall thrust in every catchment across Queensland has been to reduce the amount of water that is used and to reduce the amount of water that is taken. If this parliament wants any more evidence of that, they should look again at the Anchorage court case which has been debated a number of times and has been well and truly illustrated to this House. It has been well and truly illustrated to this House in those debates how the department started off with a deliberate strategy in mind to bring about a reduction in the amount of water that is going to be used from particular catchments and to reduce that over time, and to ignore completely any science or any evidence that suggested that there was no need or no imperative to do that. This solution to this, of course, is to take on board what we have been saying ever since the Water Act was first debated in this House in the year 2000, and that is to insert into that Water Act a compensation provision that allows the holders of those assets to be compensated if they are taken away. That is an argument that I have made in this parliament many times and I will continue to make in this parliament many times in the future until it is accepted by the government. It is interesting that in the debate on the previous clause the minister mentioned the fact that if extra development was allowed to take place before he could get his moratoriums in place and expose the Queensland taxpayers to the possibility of compensation. That is the first time that I 1772 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 have actually heard the minister at least obliquely recognise that compensation should be payable if particular activities are restricted or assets are taken away. There is no doubt about the moral argument that if we as a community want to enjoy the benefit of a natural resource and to do that we are going to ask an individual to surrender the benefit of a natural resource, then we should compensate the individual. We should not expect any individual to bear the cost of something that is to the benefit of the whole community, and that is what would be the crux of the argument if these water allocations were reduced. That is what we as a community would be saying. There may well be situations in the future where the community of Queensland, represented by this parliament, needs to say to particular individuals that the community needs the resource that they own. If we are going to do that, then we should recognise the absolute moral obligation we have to say to the person who holds that property right that we are prepared to compensate them for the loss of that property right. That is essentially the argument that has been the basis of our disagreement with the Water Act 2000 and the Vegetation Management Act and a number of other pieces of regulatory regime that this government has brought into this House. That compensation principle must be recognised before we continue to do as this clause in this bill does and make the changing to water allocations even easier than it is now. I take it the minister is not going to respond. We need to place on the record that the minister is not even prepared to consider the compensatory principle that has once again been put forward as being missing from this particular piece of legislation, just as it has been missing from every other piece of natural resource legislation that this minister has brought into this House. The record needs to show that the minister is not even prepared to stand in this parliament and justify why he is not prepared to compensate individual Queenslanders who may well be asked to bear the cost of a loss of property rights for the benefit of all of us. It is symptomatic, if you like, of the arrogance of the Beattie government, with their obscene 66 seat majority, that the minister can come in here and not even stand up and explain to the people of Queensland why this compensatory principle that most fair-minded people would agree with is not even being considered by him in the introduction of this particular bill. I think that is the height of arrogance that has been characteristic of this government and this minister in particular. Mr ROBERTSON: The reason I did not respond is that I just wanted to see how much rope the honourable member needed to hang himself, because the clause under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the changes to water allocations by the state. It is purely everything about changes towards allocation by the allocation holder. That is the individual. I am not too sure where compensation has any relevance to an application by the licence holder to change their own water allocation. I remained silent only because I wanted to see how much a fool the member opposite made himself out to be. Mr SEENEY: I said at the beginning of my address that this is the first clause of a number of clauses that deal with the changes in water allocation. If the minister likes, we can debate them all. We can go through this debate for every one of these clauses that deal with the changes that are being made to the provisions that allow for changes in water allocations. I am happy to do that if the minister so chooses. The minister once again refuses to address the principles that are at stake here, and that is something that is regrettable because it is a principle that is at the heart of a debate that is going on in the community about property rights and the right of property holders to expect to be able to have the security of holding those rights. I direct the minister to the legislation, and he might like to read through the clauses that all relate to the changing of water allocations and the provisions that make the changing of those water allocations easier and facilitate the reduction in those property rights over time, because that is the issue. The minister cannot escape that issue because there is building in the community, as members would be well aware, a groundswell of concern about the extent to which the ability to change those water allocations in this case represents an erosion of individual property rights and an erosion of security. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I appreciate the minister's response in clarifying that clause 56 deals with a change in water allocation, an action taken by the holder of the water allocation. 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1773

However, I just put on the record my support for the principle that if the government takes steps to reduce a water allocation, particularly without the holder's agreement, that compensation for that loss of water and its subsequent impact on the property is a principle that should be adhered to. Property owners pay in a variety of ways, not only monetarily, for water allocations and should be compensated when that allocation changes. I do thank the minister for clarifying the intent of clause 56, but the principle of compensation is valid. Clause 56, as read, agreed to. Clauses 57 to 111, as read, agreed to. Clause 112— Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (11.09 p.m.): We have seen on a repeated basis now the inclusion of this power for criminal history checks to be requested of the Commissioner for Police by a chief executive officer, a minister or a responsible person in an organisation. In some of the instances the power for that investigation is clear and reasonable. However, there was one instance that we debated last sitting that was understandable but perhaps not acceptable—that is, the incident of an inspector having to attend a property and issue notices or take action on that property and the officer had the power to seek a criminal history check prior to taking that action. There was another bill earlier today where criminal history checks were proposed for office holders of an administrative type, and this appears to be another one of those situations where the power of criminal history checks is being included as a new power in the bill with regard to the appointment of the water board or the composition of the board for water authorities. My understanding of the principal legislation is that a number of those individuals are appointed or elected by the respective stakeholder groups. One could query, and this is my query to the minister, why this power has been included. It is an intrusive power. It acknowledges that the criminal history material is of a sensitive nature, because it has been enshrouded in confidentiality. I would seek clarification from the minister as to why he and the department feel it is necessary for the criminal history checks to be available upon request for the composition of the board of four water authorities. Mr ROBERTSON: Can I draw the honourable member's attention to the existing provision of the act—that is, section 603—which provides eligibility for appointment as a director. Subsection (1)(c) states— A person is not eligible to be elected or nominated for appointment, as a director if the person— ... (c) has been convicted of an indictable offence, whether in Queensland or elsewhere, and the rehabilitation period for the offence has not expired or has been revived under the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act ... In terms of reading the amendment together with that provision in order to discover whether a person has been convicted for an indictable offence and that the rehabilitation period has not been exhausted, one actually needs to do a criminal history check. When talking about directors of water authorities or water boards, let us take the member's own case of Gladstone. Obviously in dealing with a business of that significance it is important that we ensure that the most appropriately qualified people are appointed or indeed elected to that board. If a person has convictions of perhaps corporate fraud, et cetera, they are not the kind of people we would want to be sticking on the board of a business of that significance. The safeguards are in there in terms of confidentiality. This is being broadly applied across government to ensure that, in terms of government appointments or appointments to authorities which the government has some interest in, we do not unwittingly appoint people who have an undesirable past in terms of, in this case, their own corporate behaviours. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I appreciate what the minister says. In the past I take it that we have always relied on the integrity of the people nominated. There is a condition that they should not have been convicted of an indictable offence in Queensland or anywhere else and the rehabilitation period for the offence has not expired or been revived under the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act, but in the past prior to the inclusion of this new provision we have relied on the integrity of the person proposed to be appointed to the board that they would disclose in some form or another whether or not they had been subject to a court process. What this clause is saying is that that past process has in some way let people through the loophole—that is, that people who are of an inappropriate background have not disclosed that 1774 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003 information and therefore the power that is conferred in clause 112 is necessary. I take it that that is the explanation for the need for this clause. The other issue I want to clarify—I believe the answer is no—is that there is going to be reference only to those offences that have been committed and the person has been found guilty of within the period nominated under the rehabilitation of offenders act. So if it is prior to that it will not be disclosed either in the police check or in any documentation that the proposed board member would have to fill in. Mr ROBERTSON: The answer is yes. Mr SEENEY: I, too, want to place on record my concerns about the frequency with which we are seeing these criminal history checks made as part and parcel of legislation. It seems that we are approaching a situation where criminal history checks will be almost routine for any dealings that anybody might have with the Department of Natural Resources. That may be something of an exaggeration, but that seems to be the impression that legislation brought to this House by this minister is giving to people in Queensland. I appreciate the response that the minister gave to the member for Gladstone with regard to the provision that is already in the act, but I would direct the minister's attention to the earlier provisions in the act that allow for those directors to be elected by their peers, and that is what happens in a number of instances. I guess the question that comes to mind is this: at what point is this criminal history check going to be done and at what point are these people going to be excluded from the process? There is in most cases that I am aware of a nomination process that a potential candidate goes through and then if there are a number of candidates there is an election carried out amongst the water users in a particular area. If it is that criminal history checks are going to be done with the view to excluding people who have a criminal record, when is it that those checks are going to be done? Will it be before that ballot is taken? Are all candidates going to be subjected to a criminal history check when they nominate or how is that going to work in that process of election? That is, as far as I am aware, a fairly common one in the constitution of these water boards. Mr ROBERTSON: The first matter is that it is not mandatory. The word 'may' appears in most of these clauses to that amending section. In terms of the first issue, if someone was seeking to be elected to a board or an authority one would expect that they would read the act which would automatically exclude them. Once they read that provision they would know that they are not able to be elected. So one would decline the nomination or not pursue their own nomination anyway. One would assume that in cases where we are talking about, for example, the Gladstone Water Board or the Mount Isa Water Board—those major ones—the chief executive may have an interest in pursuing that matter. One does not expect it to be used in the vast majority of cases where the size of the authority is of no particular significance. The reasonableness test would apply, as it always does. In cases like Gladstone, we need this provision. With due respect, if someone got onto the Gladstone Area Water Board who had, for example, been a former director of HIH, I assume the member for Callide would be alerting that appointment to this House and asking why the government would appoint such a person who had been part of perhaps the biggest case of corporate fraud in Australia's history, and rightfully so, too. It is in order to protect the people of Queensland from the inadvertent appointment of such characters that we would want to use this type of section. Clause 112, as read, agreed to. Clauses 113 to 121, as read, agreed to. Clause 122— Mr SEENEY (11.20 p.m.): Clause 122 deals with the reversal of the onus of proof provision referred to in the second reading debate by me and a number of other speakers on this side of the House. It was also referred to by the minister in his summing up of the second reading debate. I did say to the minister when he was summing up the second reading debate that we would debate this issue during the committee stage of the bill, and this is the clause in respect of which we get the opportunity to do that. As was pointed out by a number of speakers in the second reading debate, this clause effectively reverses the onus of proof. It has it that a holder of a water entitlement is taken to have had physical control over or responsibility for the 'works associated with the contravention at the time the contravention happened'. It is not a case that the department has to prove that a holder of a water licence had deliberately committed an offence, set out to commit an offence or had the 13 May 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1775 intent to commit an offence; it is taken as a given that the offence was committed by the entitlement holder. That is something that, once again, is becoming characteristic of natural resource legislation. It appears that we will have the same argument tonight that we had last time the minister introduced a piece of legislation into this House, namely, a bill that sought to amend the Vegetation Management Act and introduce this type of provision into that act. In the minister's rebuttal to the arguments put by a number of members during the second reading debate he used the example of the Traffic Act and speed cameras, which allows for the traffic authorities to assume that the owner of a car is driving a car if it is photographed exceeding the speed limit. The minister somehow suggested that that justified the inclusion of this provision in this bill. The minister also used the example of me as a water user and asked how on earth the case would be made. My reply to that suggestion would be to state the obvious and to say that the administering authority needs to make the case that the minister made in trying to rebut the arguments in the court and convince it that there was no other option than for the particular person the minister is holding responsible for the contravention to have been responsible for the contravention. Unless the administering authority can do that, there is no case to be made. What this bill does is excuse the administering authority from its responsibility to make that case. It does not have to make the case. It means that the person being accused has to make the case. They have to make the case that it was not them, that it possibly was not them or that the intent was not there. That is without doubt a reversal of the onus of proof that is at the basis of so many of our other statutes. It is disturbing to see this reversal of the onus of proof becoming something of a commonplace feature in legislation. I believe this deserves a detailed explanation to the parliament as to why it was considered necessary to go to these lengths to tip the scales in favour of the prosecutors, in this case the department. That is what this clause does. It gives an advantage to the prosecutor in any alleged contravention of the act. It makes it easier to achieve prosecutions. It makes it easier for the department to prosecute people. During the second reading debate I spoke at length about the way that trust has been destroyed between land-holders and the department. If we combine that destruction of trust and the climate of suspicion that already exists because of the department's and this government's actions with this provision, we have a situation that I believe should not be accepted by this parliament and it will not be accepted by the water users to whom it will be applied. Question—That clause 122, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the committee divided— AYES, 55—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, M. Foley, Hayward, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Miller, Molloy, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 20—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, C. Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 123 to 130, as read, agreed to. Clause 131— Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (11.33 p.m.): I want to raise with the minister the issue of the power being conferred on installers and meter readers to enter places for stated purposes—and they are the obvious ones that their job designation indicates. I want an assurance from the minister that steps will be taken to ensure that that reasonably broad cross-section of people will be made aware—if they are not already aware—of their obligations in relation to the transfer of noxious weeds. Not everyone who does this work will be in close proximity to a wash-down facility. Wash- down facilities are not very close to all properties that would have water meters installed. Therefore, I would like the minister to clarify how these officers will ensure that noxious weeds are not transferred on their vehicles in the absence of those wash-down facilities. Mr ROBERTSON: The concerns expressed by the member for Gladstone are reasonable. I am informed that this particular issue is covered by the Land Protection Act in that the taking onto properties of weeds et cetera is prohibited and appropriate obligations are imposed on those meter readers. As to the details of what training goes on, I obviously do not know. But they have an obligation. So there is an expectation that they will abide by that obligation. Clause 131, as read, agreed to. 1776 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 May 2003

Clauses 132 to 137, as read, agreed to. Clause 138— Mr SEENEY (11.35 p.m.): This clause allows for the water allocation for the Barlil Weir. It inserts a new section 1045A into the Burnett Basin final draft water resource operations plan. At the outset, obviously, as the member representing that area, I certainly support the construction of the Barlil Weir. As I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate, I support the allocation of this 4,250 megalitres. That allocation will be well received and well used by the water users in the area. But as I said during the second reading debate, it certainly will not go anywhere near satisfying the demand for extra water in that particular area of the Burnett—and I think the member for Nanango reinforced that issue in her contribution to the second reading debate. I am interested to explore with the minister the process by which this water allocation was identified, simply because I do not believe that it will satisfy the water needs in that area and I believe that there will be a need in the future to make more water available in the South Burnett area if those South Burnett communities are to grow and prosper and achieve their economic potential. There is 4,250 megalitres being made available. New section 1045A(2) states— Subsection (1)— which is the section that allows for the inclusion of that water allocation— applies even though the reservation was not included in the draft resource operations plan made available under section 100. So even though this allocation was not in the draft resource operations plan, the minister was able to find the 4,250 megalitres to make the construction of that weir possible. I note that the explanatory notes refer to the Barlil review of environmental factors as forming the basis of the Commonwealth and state environmental approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 respectively. I do not understand the process by which this 4,250 megalitres was arrived at. I hasten to say that I welcome the fact that the minister has found the 4,250 megalitres. I also hasten to reinforce that I certainly support the construction of the weir and I support the fact that this water has been made available. But as was identified by the member for Nanango and me, there is going to be an increasing demand for extra water in that area. I would like an explanation as to the process by which this particular water allocation was identified with a view to some time in the future using that process to meet the emerging water needs that are obvious to both the member for Nanango and me, as members representing the area. Mr ROBERTSON: I am not sure that I am going to be able to assist the member too much tonight in relation to the process that went on because, as the member is aware, it was caught up in the whole Burnett Water project scheme of which I did not have an intimate role to play as I would in other water resource plans because it was organised through the Coordinator-General as a project of state significance. So I cannot help the member tonight as to how it came about that an extra allocation was identified in the system beyond that report that satisfied both the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act and, importantly, the Commonwealth's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I am happy to look into that and provide some advice to the member subsequent to this debate. Mr SEENEY: I accept the minister's offer. I look forward to receiving that advice, because it is important that we understand the process that has produced this result which, once again, I reinforce that I certainly welcome. It is because there are a number of elements of this bill that I welcome that the opposition will be supporting the passage of the bill through the committee stage. As this will be the last clause I will be speaking on, I make the point that, even though we have disagreed with a number of clauses—we certainly made clear why we disagreed with them and we divided on those clauses at the appropriate opportunity—the general thrust of this bill does have our support. Certainly elements such as the provision of this water allocation for the Barlil Weir have my personal support, as the member responsible for that area, and certainly has the support of the opposition. It is worth putting on record that, even though we will be not opposing the passage of the legislation, we certainly have opposed those elements that we disagreed with. I recommend to the minister that he take account of the growing concern in the community that I have tried to 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1777 point out to him tonight with regard to those issues contained within the clauses we opposed. We will not be opposing the passage of the legislation. Clause 138, as read, agreed to. Clauses 139 to 147, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 April (see p. 1363). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.44 p.m.): I rise to make a contribution to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003. As set out in the explanatory notes, this bill was a result of the national competition policy review of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The legislation we have before the House is in response to that review. The bill sets out to repeal the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 and to provide new legislation to provide for the separate delivery and regulation of the workers compensation scheme. I think that is the most important element of what is a considerably large piece of legislation. The explanatory notes suggest that the object of the government is to maintain WorkCover as a fully commercial statutory body, to provide for the establishment of a statutory authority to regulate the scheme, and to achieve the aim of centralising policy and legislative development functions within the Department of Industrial Relations. It is particularly important that Queensland does have a workers compensation scheme that Queensland workers can be confident protects their interests and ensures they are properly compensated if they are hurt at work. I think everybody agrees with that. Irrespective of on which side of the House any member in this place sits, I think everyone would agree with the concept that there needs to be an umbrella of safety for Queensland workers. I think the scheme we have in place, in comparison with schemes that operate in other parts of Australia, is something Queenslanders can have confidence in. We as Queenslanders can take some pride in the fact that we do have a workers compensation scheme that provides that umbrella of safety for Queensland workers. The first element of the consideration of this bill is whether that umbrella of safety provided to Queensland workers will be diminished or enhanced. As each of us decides how we will respond to the bill before the House, that is the first test that has to be applied to the bill the minister has introduced. Will it make the workers compensation scheme better or does it have the potential to detract from the protection that is available to Queensland workers today? If we use that measure to look at what is being proposed, I suggest that it is difficult to see how this proposal will make things better for Queensland workers or, for that matter, for Queensland employers, who are the people who pay the premiums. It is sometimes forgotten that there are two major groups of stakeholders in this workers compensation issue. There are the workers, who obviously need the protection of an insurance scheme, and there are the employers, whose responsibility it is to pay the premiums and to ensure that their workers are covered by an adequate level of insurance. We need to look at what is being proposed in this legislation from the viewpoint of both of those groups of stakeholders. If one of those groups of stakeholders suffers, they both suffer. If one of those groups of stakeholders is impacted upon by this legislation—if it detracts from the benefits that either of those groups of stakeholders receive from Queensland's WorkCover system—then both groups of stakeholders are worse off. So what does this legislation propose? It seeks to separate the regulatory function from the insurance function. It seeks to separate within the current system the regulation making function that the government quite rightly has from the provision of insurance, which I guess is the eventual aim of the whole workers compensation process. Unfortunately, what that separation does—and some of the comments in the explanatory notes indicate this is the long-term intent, 1778 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003 even though it is not clearly spelt out—is make it more likely that the provision part of the workplace insurance cover scheme is going to be made into a government owned corporation. I think the term that is used in the explanatory notes is that it is a candidate government owned corporation, a candidate GOC. It appears that there is a move in that direction, that is, to take the insurance function of WorkCover and set it up as a government owned corporation, which I think is referred to in this bill as Q-Comp, which stands for Queensland compensation, I presume. I acknowledge before the minister madly scribbles some notes over there that this legislation does not set up a government owned corporation, but it appears to be an inevitable step in that direction. That should be of some concern to anybody who has a genuine concern about the issues that I referred to at the start of this contribution—that is, concern about maintaining the umbrella of safety that is available for Queensland workers and maintaining the workers compensation scheme that is available to Queensland employers who have the responsibility to pay those premiums. There is no benefit that I can see to either of those stakeholders in progressing these changes to the Queensland workers compensation scheme towards setting up a government owned corporation. To ascertain what effect that is going to have, we need to look at the operation of the other government owned corporations that already exist and how they have affected the service that is available to the people whom they directly administer. No better example exists than that of SunWater, which was well and truly explored in the debate on the previous legislation in this House. SunWater is a government owned corporation, and there can be no doubt that the services that were available to the customers of that government owned corporation—in that case it was water users—have suffered and have been eroded substantially since the implementation of this government owned corporation structure. I spoke in that debate about the increasing tendency of ministers to separate themselves from their responsibilities and their decision-making role by using the government owned corporation structure as some sort of a buffer between them as ministers, as elected representatives, and the people who receive the service from the government owned corporation that they set up. So the government owned corporation becomes a barrier to people who want access to their elected representatives who are ultimately responsible for the administration in these particular areas. Suncorp is a great example. Queensland Racing is another great example, and we saw that in the House this morning when the Minister for Racing basically said that she is not the Minister for Racing. She does not have a role. It is all the government owned corporation. It is all Queensland Racing's fault. If we allow these changes to progress down the track towards making Q-Comp a government owned corporation, why would we expect it to be any different from the other government owned corporations? Why would we expect Q-Comp, when it becomes a government owned corporation, to be any different from SunWater or Queensland Racing or Ergon or Energex? We have no reason to expect it to be any different. We have to look at those government owned corporations as an example of what to expect if we as a parliament allow this bill to progress and allow the progression of the workers compensation scheme into a government owned corporation. Another example that should be very clearly noted is the extent to which the government relies on GOCs as an income stream. For a number of years government owned corporations in the electricity industry have provided successive governments with a very substantial income stream. Due to a number of factors in the electricity industry— Mr Purcell interjected. Mr SEENEY: None of us did when we were in government, and the previous government did not when it was in government either. But due to a number of factors, such as the privatisation of the electricity industry, the entry of private players, the setting up of a national electricity market and that big powerline they built down to New South Wales, those government owned corporations were not able to provide that flow of income that state governments had become addicted to. So what is happening now? Pressure is being applied to other government owned corporations to fill that gap, to take up the slack. That is why government owned corporations like SunWater are suddenly being required and expected to produce a dividend for the government. This year, for the first time, we saw SunWater generate a dividend for the government. Where did that dividend come from? It came from the users of the service that the government owned corporation provides that was previously provided by a government department before this government owned corporation was set up. So the water users in the SunWater case are suddenly contributing more than they would have done 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1779 before the establishment of a government owned corporation so that that government owned corporation can pay a dividend to the government. That is what we can expect to happen if we see the establishment of Q-Comp as a government owned corporation. Members should ask themselves how that will be achieved. If we allow this to progress and Q-Comp becomes a government owned corporation, it is inevitable that it will be required to pay a dividend. How will Q-Comp generate a dividend? There are only two ways that Q-Comp will be able to generate a dividend. One is that it will pay less compensation to workers who are injured at work. I am sure the member for Bulimba would not be supporting that, because it would mean that payments to workers would be restricted and the requirements to qualify for those payments would be tougher. I am sure the member for Bulimba would not be supporting that, and nor should he. The only other way is to increase the premiums that employers pay, and the member for Bulimba should not be supporting that either because that means those businesses that those employers run are weakened and they are less able to provide employment and less able to provide the economic benefits that they do for Queensland. When Q-Comp becomes a government owned corporation—because it is when and not if—and it is required to pay a dividend to the government, it can only mean a detraction from the service or from the benefits that are available to those two stakeholder groups. There is no possibility that this progression of Q-Comp to a government owned corporation can do anything else but detract from the benefits that are enjoyed by those two stakeholder groups. For that reason I believe that this parliament should reject this legislation. We should not progress down the path towards a government owned corporation that has the responsibility for workers compensation. Workers compensation insurance is not something that the government should endeavour to make money out of, because if it seeks to make money out of it it will mean a detraction from those two major stakeholders. The member for Keppel will speak later in this debate. He was formerly a minister responsible for this area. He will be outlining how, in years gone by, when the workers compensation scheme generated a profit that profit was returned to the scheme in the form of incentives and rewards for employers who were able to achieve safe workplaces and low accident rates. Is that not the way it should be? Is that not the way to achieve what we all want to achieve in seeing fewer workplace accidents, fewer workers hurt in accidents and more employers take greater responsibility for safety in their workplace? If there is to be a surplus generated by the operation of the workers compensation scheme, that is a much better use for it than to have it paid to the government as a dividend, as an income stream, so that whichever government is in power will very quickly become reliant upon it, just as governments became reliant upon the dividend streams from the government owned corporations in the electricity industry. There is nothing that I can ascertain in the way that this legislation has been presented to this House that should convince the parliament to support it. There is certainly nothing in the minister's second reading speech that should convince the parliament to support it. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is the first step down the path to the establishment of a government owned corporation that will be called Q-Comp. Unless there are substantial arguments advanced as to why that will be of particular benefit to the people for whom workers compensation is important, then this parliament certainly should not even consider passing this legislation. There is an argument that can be made about separating the regulatory function from the provision of insurance. That is the point that was identified by the national competition review, that is, that there needs to be a separation of the regulatory function from the provision of insurance. The validity of that argument is somewhat recognisable in a range of different areas of government administration and in a range of different areas of government activity where there is a regulatory role in a service provision role. The benefits that can be achieved by that separation can be achieved without proceeding down this path towards a government owned corporation. The two are not mutually exclusive. I would be suggesting to the minister that a better course of action would be to protect the interests of Queensland workers and Queensland employers by ensuring that the workers compensation scheme continues to provide the benefits that it currently does to both of those groups. This can be done by ensuring that the scheme does not become a money making enterprise for the government and by ensuring that that separation is carried out within the departmental structure. That can be done. It can be done within the departmental structure without exposing 1780 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003 the stakeholders to the danger of a reduction in service and in benefit that I believe would inevitably flow from the establishment of Q-Comp as a government owned corporation. We will be looking forward to hearing in the debate how this is to benefit those stakeholders. There has been no evidence put forward in that regard as yet, and I struggle to see what arguments can be put forward to illustrate the benefits to those stakeholders that would justify the passage of this legislation in its current form. I think there is a responsibility incumbent on every member of this House to ensure that those stakeholders' interests are protected in any changes we make to the WorkCover system. It is probably worth while noting that the title of this bill has been changed. It says in the explanatory notes that it has been deliberately done to better reflect the approach that the government wants to take towards this whole area, and the bill has been named the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill. I think, too, that is something that would have the support of every member of the House. I cannot see that there would be any argument mounted against the approach that the explanatory notes set out to explain that change in name. There is no disagreement about that, that is, that any workers compensation scheme needs to be focused on rehabilitation and ensuring that workers who are unfortunately hurt are very quickly rehabilitated and returned to work. There is not much in this legislation that I can see that would assist in that regard. There is not a lot that I can see in this legislation that makes any great change or improvement in the prospect of workers being rehabilitated should they be injured. I would be looking for some response from the minister when he sums up the second reading debate. He may be able to point out something that I have missed that deals specifically with that rehabilitation question, because it is important to do more than just recognise the need for it and change the title. It is important to do a whole lot more than that and to ensure that what is conveyed in the title is reflected in the bill. We will be looking for some sort of an explanation from the minister on that when he sums up this second reading debate. Other than that, there are a large number of clauses in the bill. Many of them relate to the renumbering of clauses and the rearrangement of clauses from the old act, and the majority of them do not constitute a change in legislative approach from the one that existed in the old act. There are a couple there that are possibly best dealt with in the committee stages of the legislation, and I will certainly be pursuing those with the minister. I conclude by reinforcing the point that any bill that is introduced into this House that suggests a change to the workers compensation scheme needs to clearly identify how those two major stakeholder groups are to be better off under the change that is proposed. The change that is proposed in this bill seems to me to be moving the whole workers compensation process closer to being a government owned corporation. The examples of the other government owned corporations that we have become familiar with show that this cannot possibly deliver benefits to those two stakeholder groups. For that reason the opposition will be opposing this legislation. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (12.09 a.m.): I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 as contained in the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill which are to give full effect to the operation and enforcement of the Queensland minimum wage. Given the time this morning, I will focus my comments in this second reading debate particularly on the Queensland minimum wage. When it was first elected, the Beattie government gave a commitment to improve the position of the most disadvantaged workers in our community, many of whom are women. I am proud that this government has kept its promise. The Beattie Labor government has put in place the most progressive industrial legislation in Australia, introduced measures to improve pay equity between men and women workers and improve the protection and security of workers with family responsibilities. More recently, the government applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for a safety net minimum wage for all Queensland workers. The application was part of a wider government strategy to address the problems of the labour market's lowest paid and most vulnerable workers. These workers were noted in the report to the government of the pay equity inquiry in March 2001 which certainly made interesting reading. The report noted that there were still some workers operating outside the award system who did not even have access to a safety net minimum wage. Estimates at the time of the report indicated that between 1.3 per cent and 2.1 per cent of the Queensland work force might fall into this category. This category includes many occupations which the constituents of Albert are employed in. They include dairy farm workers, letterbox deliverers and some people in personal service industries such as house cleaners and nannies. 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1781

The inquiry recommended that a full bench of the commission establish a minimum wage to protect these workers so that the safety net would be there for everyone. As a result, the government amended the Industrial Relations Act 1999 in December 2001 requiring the commission to set a minimum wage for all Queensland employees with the ability to receive that minimum wage at least once every year. In July 2002 the Industrial Relations Minister, Gordon Nuttall, applied to the commission for the establishment of that minimum wage. The result of the government's application was that on 18 December 2002 the commission ordered that full-time permanent employees, both award and non-award, be paid a minimum of $431.40 per week. This amount was the minimum wage already applicable to award employees both federally and in Queensland. Casual and part-time employees who have no award will receive an hourly rate of the minimum wage divided by 40. Junior rates for young employees not covered by an award have also been established by the commission. Speaking of pay rates, the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released some shocking statistics. The ABS found in April of this year the pay differential between union members and non-union members rose from 14.9 per cent to 16.9 per cent. The data shows that union members on average now earn $111 per week more than non-members, up from $99 last year. The pay advantage is even higher for the increasing number of part-time workers at $154 per week, up from $129 last year, and casuals at $101 per week, up from $64 last year. Clearly, it pays to belong to a union. Mr Purcell: Hear, hear! Well spoken. Ms KEECH: Thank you, and I take the interjection. The real benefit of the Queensland minimum wage is that for the first time it applies to workers who are not covered by an award. Thanks to the efforts of this government and to the minister and his department on behalf of low paid and disadvantaged workers, they now have a guaranteed minimum wage. It gives me great pleasure to support the government's initiatives. The Queensland minimum wage and the raft of other progressive reforms introduced by the minister and the Queensland Labor government ensure that Queensland and Queenslanders enjoy an industrial relations system which balances economic and social objectives, reflects community standards and responds to changes in the workplace and the community. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.14 a.m.): I rise to participate in debate on the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003. In speaking to this bill, I listened with a great degree of interest to the contribution made by the shadow minister, the member for Callide, in relation to his reasons as to why the opposition will be opposing this bill. Before finalising my view on whether I will be supporting or opposing this bill, I certainly will be listening with interest to the minister's response and also to the minister's response to questions that I understand some other members of the opposition and Independents will be raising with the minister during this debate. Notwithstanding that, I do understand that, whilst this bill is over 351 pages long and the explanatory notes cover over 185 pages, in substance the bill revolves around two important issues. The first is that this bill effectively separates the regulatory functions from the insurance functions which has basically occurred as a result of a review of the workers compensation scheme as required under national competition requirements. I note that in the minister's second reading speech he referred to the intent behind the inclusion of the words 'workers compensation and rehabilitation' in the title of the bill. This was as a genuine attempt to acknowledge the importance of rehabilitation in the recovery process of workers injured. I am firmly of the belief and the view that the sooner we can get a person back to work after the person has suffered an injury the better it is for that injured person when coping with the injury if this is at all possible. I understand that there are numerous reports and studies available which indicate that the longer an injured person is away from the work force the more difficult it is to rehabilitate that person back into the work force. I certainly do believe it is important that we need to maintain the work ethic and the responsibility of people working, if at all possible, wherever possible. I also note in the minister's second reading speech the minister advised that, notwithstanding the changes contained in this bill, WorkCover will continue to deliver insurance and service delivery functions throughout its metropolitan and regional office network in Queensland. In this regard, only last week I had the privilege of meeting with Ian Brusasco, the Chairman of WorkCover, together with his chief executive officer. During our meeting we discussed a range of issues including the reasons behind the need to introduce this bill and a comparison between Queensland and other states involving WorkCover premium levels, workers entitlements and the financial status of Queensland WorkCover in comparison to the other states. There can be no 1782 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003 doubt that Ian Brusasco has played a very pivotal role in ensuring that WorkCover Queensland is in such a strong position today with premium rates the lowest in comparison with other Australian states. On the issue of service delivery, I thank the chairman for his assurance to me and to my constituents that WorkCover will continue to maintain an office presence in Nambour in the form of a satellite office. I reflect and recall that when the chairman visited Nambour a number of years ago at the opening of the new WorkCover office at that time the chairman said, 'Peter, if you have any concerns don't hesitate to pick up the phone and ring me.' Over recent months there certainly have been concerns and rumours about WorkCover leaving Nambour because of the opening of the new regional centre in Kawana. The rumours have been running rife. Notwithstanding attempts to get the issue clarified by raising it with WorkCover staff, in due course I had to pick up the phone and make contact with Ian Brusasco. He made it quite clear to me last week that there was no intention whatsoever to remove this service from Nambour, the hinterland town of the Sunshine Coast, and I thank him for that commitment. I note also that a further matter contained in this bill relates to amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999. I understand this amendment is as a result of a recent order from the full bench of the Industrial Commission which clarifies that the minimum wage came into operation on 1 April 2003, and that is a retrospective issue. In relation to the minimum wage, it was only last week that I was talking to my local shoe repair man in the plaza. He was talking to me about the difficulty he is experiencing in trying to employ a junior. He informed me that he understood he had to employ an apprentice at the appropriate rate. He simply said, 'Peter, I can't afford to employ an apprentice and I am not legally permitted to employ a junior because it contravenes the award.' He asked me to raise this with the minister. As we are talking about the minister's bill, I thought I would raise this matter with him during my contribution, and I will take up the matter with the minister or his departmental staff at a later date. The shoe repairer, the cobbler, is a family man working from a small counter in the plaza. He does not have a qualification or a recognised trade, but he has been working all his life repairing shoes. He has quite a good business, but I understand he has difficulties trying to employ a junior despite the fact that he is more than happy to do so. I thank the minister for introducing this bill. As I have indicated, I listened to the contribution of the shadow minister and I will be listening to the minister's response to my questions and to those that other members of the opposition and Independents will be raising with him. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I rise to a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. Quorum formed. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (12.24 a.m.): I rise to support the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill. Despite the lateness of the hour, I am pleased to be on my feet to support this legislation. The minister indicated in his second reading speech that this bill delivers on the government's commitments under the national competition policy as they relate to the Queensland workers compensation scheme. I would like to outline for members the nature of these undertakings and their history. At a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in 1994 all governments agreed on the need to accelerate the process of micro-economic reform to foster greater economic efficiency and improve the overall competitiveness of the Australian economy. This resulted in the establishment of the National Competition Council and the development of the national competition policy. In its purest form, national competition policy requires that all legislation at the three levels of government be reviewed to identify restrictions on competition. Unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs or that the objectives of the legislation can be achieved only by restricting competition, all such legislation is to be reformed. Financial penalties in the form of reduced Commonwealth funding grants apply for non-compliance. This rigid interpretation of national competition policy received criticism from many sectors of the community because of its focus on economic outcomes at the expense of social and community values. To address such concerns the Queensland government developed a new set of guidelines for the conduct of the public benefit tests associated with NCP reviews in Queensland. As a result of these guidelines, which were released in November 1999, the onus of proof of a need to reform is placed on analysis of the benefits and costs of alternative options 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1783 rather than on the need to defend existing restrictions. The analysis must take full account of employment, regional development and social, consumer and environmental effects. The application of national competition policy principles to WorkCover legislation identified a number of provisions that were potentially anticompetitive. The primary matters identified were the monopoly status of WorkCover as a provider of workplace injury accident insurance and the potential conflict between the roles of insurance underwriting and the delivery of regulatory functions. These issues were examined through a public benefit test conducted independently of WorkCover and the government. An interdepartmental review committee, as approved by the National Competition Council, then used the results of this public benefit test as the basis of review and response. This committee canvassed further stakeholder submissions as part of the review. Its report recommended the retention of WorkCover's monopoly insurer status and the separation of the regulatory division of WorkCover. The success of WorkCover in managing the scheme in Queensland will be highlighted by many other speakers in this debate. It is sufficient to say that when considered against the NCP guidelines significant benefit to the Queensland community could not be demonstrated in support of privatisation of the market or changes to the single insurer status of WorkCover. The review did, however, conclude that a demonstrable benefit was proven for a move to separate the regulatory functions of the scheme from WorkCover. The benefits were identified as enhanced competition by providing for the more independent, accountable and transparent regulation of the scheme. This bill gives effect to these findings and continues the fair and balanced development of the workers compensation scheme by the Queensland Labor government. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.27 a.m.): I rise to support the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2002. As members should by now be aware, Queensland's workers compensation scheme is the best performing and lowest cost scheme in the country. At the time of the tabling of recent amendments to the WorkCover legislation, members heard the minister outline WorkCover's excellent financial performance as detailed in its 2001-02 annual report. WorkCover continued to maintain full solvency through prudent management of administration and service delivery costs and also through its strategic approach to funds management in what can only be described as the most difficult of investment environments. The continuing global downturn in equity markets means an uncertain outlook for institutional investors such as WorkCover. It was the prospect of these circumstances, following on from record investment returns in 1999 and 2000, which prompted WorkCover to establish an investment in fluctuation reserve to ensure solvency in times of negative investment return. This reserve has significantly lessened the impact of the poor investment climate. By the application of these reserve funds, WorkCover has been able to provide ongoing certainty and stability of premiums for all employers. Not only have premiums remained stable; I remind members that Queensland employers also enjoy the lowest average premium rates applying in any state in Australia. In fact, the minister recently announced the continuation of the $1.55 rate for the third successive year when other states have announced increases of up to 30 per cent and the continuation of surcharges on premiums. That outcome, however, contributed to by excellent financial and operational management ultimately results from sound government policy on workers compensation. We have heard the minister and others detail the improvements made to the scheme by the Queensland Labor government since coming to office in 1988. These include removing the premium surcharge and leading the country on the implementation of cross-border arrangements, increasing benefit levels, broadening coverage to include more classes of workers, and streamlining the processes governing access to damages. In every case the government has commissioned full actuarial analysis of the implications of the changes proposed and undertaken comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. Workers compensation is of vital importance for the simple reason that it is about people. It is about the economic survival of workers and their families. It affects the ability of businesses to compete, which in turn impacts on the livelihood of employers and their families. It is in the knowledge of this government's balanced and well researched approach to changes in workers compensation arrangements that I am pleased to support the latest changes to the scheme. The separation of the scheme into the regulation delivery and policy components in the model contained in the bill will see a more accountable and independent scheme without disruption to service delivery for employers and injured workers. 1784 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003

The changes also satisfy the government's national competition policy undertakings and WorkCover retains responsibility for claims, premiums and funds management. As all other aspects of the scheme are being preserved, the future prospects for the funding and solvency of the scheme will not be affected. In 1916, the Labor T. J. Ryan government introduced the first state workers compensation insurance scheme. Since that time, Queensland has seen enormous change in workplaces. It is important that this scheme benefits the whole community and is fair and equitable. The Queensland Labor government has a proven record in providing a balance in the workers compensation scheme between workers and employers. The reforms contained in the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003 continue this commitment. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (12.31 a.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003. The bill gives effect to separating WorkCover's insurance and regulatory functions—actions resulting from the national competition policy review of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. There are four key features of the bill: firstly, the repeal of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 and new legislation providing for separate delivery and regulation of the workers compensation scheme; secondly, keeping WorkCover as a fully commercialised statutory body; thirdly, establishing a statutory authority to regulate the scheme; and, fourthly, functions such as policy and legislative matters being centralised within the Department of Industrial Relations. The bill also contains some technical amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999. It is pleasing to note that the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003 has received support from all major stakeholder groups, including employer associations, trade unions, legal and insurance professional bodies and state government departments. Workers compensation is so important to the workers of my electorate of Bundamba. The workers in my electorate are generally not high income earners and if they are injured at work, that injury can have catastrophic effects on their family, their income and their quality of life. A work injury for any family member affects the entire family. I recall one constituent in my electorate who was badly injured in a workplace accident. He had to undergo many operations at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. Only now, several years later, is he back to his old self. Even though his physical injuries were very severe, this man also suffered trauma from the accident and the psychological effects on him and his wife were devastating. However, throughout this man's recovery and rehabilitation his family spoke very highly of the workers compensation scheme and also of the care that they received in the hospitals. This man is a survivor and I am very proud of him and his family. Although he will never return to his original job, he is now back at work full time in an administrative role. He and his wife are getting on with their lives. So medical miracles do happen. The commitment and love of this man's family went together to pull him through his rehabilitation years. Over those years, I was very impressed by the efforts that were put into this man's rehabilitation. I am very pleased that the word 'rehabilitation' is in the title of the bill. Chapter 1, part 4, division 7 of the bill contains the clauses that relate to rehabilitation. They include clauses that set out the meaning of the term 'rehabilitation', the meaning of the term 'rehabilitation coordinator', the meaning of the term 'suitable duties', the meaning of the term 'workplace rehabilitation', the meaning of the term 'workplace rehabilitation policy and procedures', and the meaning of the term 'accredited workplace'. Rehabilitation is an important part of an injured worker's road to recovery. It is also pleasing to note that the development of industry based rehabilitation arrangements have been finalised and that supportive rehabilitation models are being implemented across a range of high-risk industry sectors. I have said in this House before that one worker injured is one worker too many. We all need to support this bill as Queensland workers need to know that they have a fair workers compensation system—indeed, the best in Australia. I would like to congratulate the minister and his department on this great piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (12.35 a.m.): This Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003 is very important. Two things are important when looking after people who work in the public sector or the private sector, and that is the care that must be taken with people's superannuation, which is put aside for their future retirement, and the care that must be given to the workers compensation system. If people are, unfortunately, injured in the course of their work, it is absolutely essential that they have adequate compensation and that the workers compensation scheme is sound and is always well run so that the premiums that are charged to 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1785 businesses are affordable. Premiums are one of a whole raft of costs that businesses have to pay and allow for within their business costs. I believe that all employers, and all small business employers in particular, are quite willing and happy to pay workers compensation premiums provided that they have the confidence that the WorkCover system is providing their employees with good and fair cover and that the scheme is run on good financial grounds so that the premium that is being charged to the employer is at the absolute minimum that is possible. For many years—perhaps decades—in Queensland we have had a very sound workers compensation system of which we can be proud. I understand that it had its genesis in the time of the National-Liberal governments a few decades back. It hit some real rocky troublesome times in the mid-1990s under the Labor government, particularly under the stewardship of the then minister, Mr Matt Foley, who, in the 1995 election, quietly slithered away without letting people know that the debt that we thought at that time was somewhere in the order of $120 million was, we were to find out when we came into government some six months later, somewhere in the order of $300 million. It was disgraceful financial management of the very important workers compensation scheme and, as usual, it was left to the coalition government to fix up that financial mess and to put in place a rescue plan that, ultimately, meant that businesses had to pay more and that some of the compensation payments had to be restricted so that we could bring that system back once again to a sound system that was not running into hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. It was a disgrace and a blot on the Labor government that it allowed the very important workers compensation scheme to slide into that deteriorated state. At times in this parliament a lot of criticism has been heaped on Santo Santoro, but he brought that system back from very difficult times into financial soundness. The benefits that we see now in the workers compensation scheme is the result of the work done by him and the coalition government at the time to bring that scheme back to financial soundness. It is absolutely essential that the workers compensation scheme is financially sound, has good bookkeeping to ensure that the scheme always has the funds to be able to pay workers when they are injured, and is actuarially sound. I do not think that any member of this House would disagree with that. This bill splits the regulation and the insurance aspects of the workers compensation scheme into two. It makes WorkCover Queensland a candidate to become a government owned corporation. What will happen if this parliament passes this bill tonight? We will be going through the process of making a government owned corporation so that there is only the next step to make it a government owned corporation. Why would the government want to do that when, with the exception of a couple of years under Minister Foley, we have had a successful workers compensation scheme? Members of the government have stood up and talked about the success of the scheme and compared it with the system that operates in other states. Why is this going to happen? No doubt it is because we have a broke government—a government that has made commitments it does not have the money to pay for. It wants another cash cow. It wants another hollow log. It wants another organisation that can be paying not only a dividend to the government but also tax alternatives to paying tax to the federal government. They are the two things that come from a government owned corporation. Once an organisation becomes a government owned corporation it has to pay tax equivalents and pay a dividend. The riding instructions will be given, like they are with so many other government owned corporations such as SunWater and some of the electricity organisations, which are not putting in the money that should go into repairs, maintenance and capital reinvestment in plant because of the demands for tax equivalents and for a dividend to be paid to the government. When this process goes the next step from what the government is trying to do tonight, there will be additional demand on the workers compensation scheme to pay tax equivalents to the government of the day and to pay a dividend. When we have a broke government such as this government, which lost around $900 million two years ago—it had $2 billion combined losses last financial year and $740 million is already racked up in debt just on the government accounts, let alone what may happen with some of the government owned corporations—it will look for any way to move to the corporatisation of the organisation. The member for Bulimba would probably agree with me that workers compensation should remain a government function so that the hands remain on the levers—not be moved off to become a government owned corporation that can then possibly be privatised. We have seen some of the results of the New South Wales workers compensation scheme. It is essential that this scheme remain a government owned and operated scheme so that we can provide financial management and put as much as possible into repayments to workers who are tragically injured 1786 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003 and at the same time ensure that the premiums paid by small business and other business operators in Queensland are as low as possible. If this scheme is made a government owned corporation there will be pressure to increase premiums, so once again the government becomes anti small business. Businesses have already been hit by the ambulance levy because the government is broke. On top of that they will face an increase in premiums if this scheme is administered by a government owned corporation. Members might not think it is too much, but when we add together all of the costs and charges and one after another is levied, this increase will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. We then move from being a state that has business-friendly premiums to being a state that has premiums jacked up just so that at the other end the GOC can pay the dividend and tax equivalents to the government. This is one of the dangers of this bill. Why would we want to take a scheme that is currently successful—many people on the other side have said that it is successful—and philosophically make it a candidate to become a government owned corporation? The government is doing that for only one reason: that is the next step. The government will make it a government owned corporation. Once that is the case, it will have these two payments to make and will be in a position such that it can be privatised. When we have the worst unemployment figures in mainland Australia, the government should start to realise that if it wants to get unemployment figures down it has to have low business costs. Today the government is moving away from that and providing a very real potential for business costs to be jacked up so that the government owned corporation can meet the demands of the government of the day—pay the tax equivalents and pay the dividend. I think the people of Queensland—the member for Nicklin wanted to know some of the things we had to say about this—are starting to get a little sick of government owned corporations which result in the ministers saying, 'Not me. I have no responsibility for that.' With the Thoroughbred Racing Board having been put in place and eventually being made into a private company, today we heard the Racing Minister stand up and say, 'It has nothing to do with me. I am only the Racing Minister.' What is she the minister for? Fresh air? What is the point in having a Racing Minister if she takes no responsibility, if she does not have her hands on the levers? We are seeing too much of that in government. Ministers say, 'It is nothing to do with us.' If the light poles fall over, the minister says, 'That is Ergon or Energex, but not us.' If this scheme is made into a government owned corporation and the premiums for business go up, we cannot afford to provide reasonable levels of compensation for people or compensation levels have to be brought down because of the tax equivalents and dividends that have to be paid to the government. It will be too late. Once again another minister in this House will stand up and say, 'Not me. I am only the minister. That is a government owned corporation. They run that up in Adelaide Street or something. That is nothing to do with me. I am only the shareholding minister. Don't ask me a question about lack of payments to workers or slow processing of accounts or premiums for small business being jacked up. It is nothing to do with me.' That is the trend that is worrying people all around this state and this nation, as more and more governments turn their back on real responsibility and the elected people are not there to respond to the pressure. That is how parliamentary democracy and being people's representatives was supposed to work. People are frustrated that they elect members to parliament and then they are not responsible. Members can imagine how all of those people involved in racing in central Queensland and north Queensland feel. I know that about 11 mayors will come to Brisbane. How would they feel? People elect representatives to parliament, yet when they come down here the members of parliament say, 'It is nothing to do with us. We have formed this other board. It does it. The Racing Minister has no responsibility. The Racing Minister actually has nothing to do with it.' There will be a similar sort of trend in relation to workers compensation. There are two very important principles here tonight. First, more and more we are walking away from parliamentary responsibility, from ministerial responsibility and from our responsibility to the people in our electorates. We are divorcing ourselves from real responsibility. Let us look at some of the speeches Tom Barton made a few years ago when he was Minister for Police and Corrective Services. He said that he wanted to bring Q-Corr back to being a department. He said that he wanted to have his hands on the levers, that he wanted to have some responsibility. I commended him in the parliament for that, because I thought that was the right and proper way to go about it. 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1787

Tonight we are looking at providing some potential here—split up the organisation, make it a candidate to become a government owned corporation and then these other prospects will emerge. I say that the principle of proper parliamentary representation is being lost. Second, this broke government is moving towards creating a cash cow so that it can get its hands on a bit more money. The end result will be a lesser service for workers and a lesser service for small business and those who have to pay the premiums. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (12.48 a.m.): I found it a bit hard to listen to the speech of the member for Toowoomba South, who gave all of the credit for the turnaround of the financial issues facing WorkCover to former Liberal minister Santo Santoro. It is rewriting history. The Labor government reversed a lot of the decisions implemented by that former minister, and the financial situation of the fund improved even with those reversals. So to give all the credit to the former member for Clayfield is a little rich and is just rewriting history. As I have indicated, the Labor government has delivered a raft of improvements to the workers compensation scheme since we came into office in 1998. The minister's second reading speech outlines an impressive list of changes which I will mention briefly in a moment. As I indicated earlier, prior to 1998 the coalition government under Liberal minister Santo Santoro removed a lot of workers entitlements to workers compensation, particularly to legitimate injuries, which we reversed. Again, I found the contribution of the member for Callide quite fascinating. He put a proposition that, in order to determine whether a member should support a bill, the test should be whether the legislation improved the benefits to either employers or employees. On that test, he would have had to vote against every single amendment put by the former member for Clayfield when he ripped the guts out of entitlements to workers during his term as a minister from 1996 to 1998. Mr Horan interjected. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: What I said was that some of the changes that were made were reversed and the financial position continued to improve despite those reversals. The member for Callide said that his test as to whether a member ought to support a bill is whether it improves benefits. On that test he would have had to vote against everything that Santo Santoro did to the act. I will list just a few of the improvements that we have put in place. We amended the definition of 'injury' to allow compensation where work was a significant contributing factor. That was something that Santo Santoro amended to the detriment of workers in this state. We returned the right to compensation for people employed on contract and service arrangements. We reduced the premiums paid by employers and we have maintained those reduced levels of premiums, as I understand it, for the lowest average for the last three years. Recently the minister made another significant improvement by clarifying the cross-border arrangements for Queensland workers to ensure that they were protected. This bill proposes further improvements, essentially improvements which arise out of national competition policy reviews of the WorkCover Act. As has been indicated, it essentially separates the commercial and regulatory functions of WorkCover into the new WorkCover authority—which will have responsibility for premium setting, funds management, insurance underwriting and service delivery—and the new Q-Comp authority, which will have responsibility for the licensing of self-insurers, operation of the review panels, administration of medical assessment tribunals, et cetera. The separation of Q-Comp into an autonomous authority will ensure independent and impartial decision making in relation to matters affecting insurers and WorkCover. In terms of the member for Callide's test as to whether this bill will introduce improvements, I think that will be a noticeable improvement in the decision-making processes of that particular body. Q-Comp will be funded from annual licence fees from self-insurers and revenue from its own operations, and WorkCover will contribute to the balance of its operating requirements. The minister mentioned another important change in his second reading speech, and that is the inclusion of the word 'rehabilitation' in the title. It is not only a cosmetic change but also an important signal that the government is serious about ensuring that rehabilitation is an essential element and component of our workers compensation system. As I have indicated, this is a further step forward in the improvements that we have made to this bill since we came back into office in 1998, and accordingly I commend the bill to the House. 1788 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (12.53 a.m.): It is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak in support of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003. In doing so, I congratulate the minister on bringing this bill to the House. He continues a fine tradition in recent Australian history in the Labor movement in terms of instituting micro-economic reform in Australia. This is significant because it has been the Australian Labor Party that has been at the forefront of furthering micro-economic reform throughout this country, and history will show this. History already shows this and we are continuing to show this here in Queensland. If we go back through recent history and compare the epoch of Labor versus conservative government at the federal level leading up to the start of the Hawke-Keating years—the Fraser years, that is—we see that nothing happened. Micro-economic reform was happening around the world, and in places like New Zealand it was already very well advanced. Major changes were already occurring throughout the New Zealand economy. They had woken up very early to the fact that micro-economic reform was essential to establishing a competitive foundation for Australia, and they had progressed far down the road before the Fraser government could even comprehend what was going on. If we look at Australia's history, the Hawke-Keating years in particular, we see a revolution in micro-economic reform. That stands as a monument to the bravery and the foresight of those governments. Today we see the Howard government standing on the foundation built through those years, very consciously reaping the benefits of those foundations laid in previous Labor years without giving any credit to it, relying very much on the gains, the returns and the capacity of Australia to compete in the international marketplace. Those returns are being shown many fold in terms of the economic position of Australia. Much of the sound economic position that Australia now finds itself in internationally is directly accountable to those micro-economic reforms that were put in place over those years. Queensland's history is exactly the same as Australia's when comparing Labor's record to the conservative record in terms of instituting micro-economic reform. Nothing happened in Queensland prior to 1989. Nothing happened in the conservative period from 1996 to 1998 in Queensland in terms of micro-economic reform—nothing whatsoever. It has been Labor governments at the federal level and the state level that have led the way in micro-economic reform. It is a very clear historical record. This piece of legislation is important because it establishes another chapter in micro- economic reform in this industry. It arises from deliberations through the national competition policy at a federal level filtering through to the states. So it is with a staggering level of hypocrisy that we saw the member for Toowoomba South tonight come into this place and deliver a One Nation speech with the typical antics of the Queensland National Party. Those opposite have the luxury of being in opposition, the pathos of being in opposition—forever obviously—to be able to go out with one breath and speak on the fence of sale yards out in their electorates about how terrible these micro-economic reforms are. They can go out with one breath and make their One Nation speeches to try to placate their weak backyard against the National Party and even have the cheek to come into this House and make One Nation style speeches and knock the fundamentals of micro-economic reform that are instituted essentially from their own counterparts at a federal level. Those opposite can forget about that conveniently; forget that many of these reforms have a genesis at the federal level with their political counterparts and come here with such hypocrisy as to knock those reforms and seek to escape reality. They therefore have no credibility in this House to enter into this debate. They have no capacity to deal with these issues. Their policies are certainly redundant in Queensland, and it is no wonder that they are so vulnerable in their electorates, so vulnerable to attacks from the One Nation party, because they are trying to be One Nation but they really cannot cut the grade because everybody can see in Queensland that they cannot sustain it. They cannot sustain it because their federal counterparts are really the foundation of these cooperative arrangements now throughout Australia. This particular bill undertakes these reforms by starting to separate the regulatory functions from the insurance functions. As we have heard in this debate, the workers compensation area will be a candidate for a government owned corporation in the future. We heard in this debate tonight from the member for Toowoomba South, in particular the suggestion that this is some sort of a bogey, this is something that is undesirable and cannot be tolerated, in typical One Nation tones. It is an outrageous claim. If we avoid the prospects of government owned corporations developing on a competitive basis in Queensland, then we are throwing out the window all of our advances in micro-economic reform. 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1789

The approach that we are seeing under this bill is a very sound one in that it treats the customers, the clients, of this system in a very holistic manner. It puts an emphasis on the rehabilitation of workers who have had accidents, and it is therefore very proactive rather than reactive. It takes the client as a whole and it seeks to ensure one of the most important things that we can seek as a government, and that is to ensure that our workers are sustained in work. There is no replacement for a working person having a viable wage rather than any other arrangement, such as being on workers compensation and living in a debilitated condition for an extended period of time. It is indeed a sound piece of legislation, and I also commend the minister for bringing within this bill further refinements to the minimum wage provisions under Queensland industrial law. This is a very important principle that has been enshrined in Queensland industrial relations law and practices for a very long time, and I commend the minister for treating this particular provision in this manner. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (1.02 a.m.): In rising to speak to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill, I would like to put on the record my disappointment that we are debating the bill prior to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee reporting on the bill. Their work, particularly in the area of fundamental legislative principles, is an important tool to highlight changes in the legislation that may have a negative impact on members of our community. The issue of work cover has always been, for all of us, but I know for myself, one of the most difficult and compelling issues to debate in this House. Other members have referred to previous debates that we have had where some quite significant changes were made. It was a bill over which I spent, as many others did, a lot of time trying to get to an understanding of the balance between impact on employers and workers and the ability for the state government to retain a workers compensation scheme in a viable format. It has been stated by a number of speakers that there are two purposes for this bill. One is to separate the insurance arm from the regulatory arm, and then another small matter that is addressed later on in the bill. I would be interested in the minister's response to a question that will probably decide whether I vote for or against the bill. Concerns have been expressed about Q-Corr being created or transferred into a GOC and the very real possibility that, some time down the track, whether it is with this government or a subsequent government, ministers will feel that they have to separate themselves from functions of work cover or Q-Corr. My concern about that is that it is an area of government policy that fundamentally and intrinsically affects people when they are at their most vulnerable, so I would be interested in the minister's response. I heard him respond across the chamber that it currently could be a candidate to become a GOC. Mr Nuttall: It has for a couple of years. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is not Q-Corr, though, because that is a new entity, and whether he could see, in any change in structure, a diminution of the ability for elected members like himself and others to have influence on the direction that WorkCover or Q-Corr could take. This is because there have been incidents, both recently and in the past, where structures have changed to be government owned corporations, and ministers have subsequently felt disempowered to be involved in the day-to-day operation or the significant decision making of that board, and it has been to the detriment of our community. So I would be interested in the minister's summing-up on that. This bill continues to cover those excellent areas that the previous WorkCover bill covered, people like our volunteers, the rural fire brigade people, honorary ambulance officers, people who work for not-for-profit organisations, people performing community service or unpaid duties. It also covers, in a continuing sense, students, particularly those I want to refer to in the pre-vocational training area. It also allows for cover for young people doing apprenticeships. It is a growing area under the Minister for Education and the Minister for Training and Development that we have this melding of the two educational streams versus training schemes. That has proven over the last couple of years to be very, very productive and very, very successful for students who have their eyes set on a career in a trade or trade profession. It gives them the opportunity to actually enter full-time apprenticeships with a significant degree of training having already been undertaken while they were in the final year, or the last two years, of school. 1790 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003

It means that an employer is looking at the spectre of having a young person join the work force who is very capable of contributing positively to that work force. So the continuing inclusion of pre-vocational training under this scheme is commendable. I also remember a lot of controversy. It was an issue that I spent a number of hours arguing with one of the previous ministers for industrial relations—about the prospect of removing workcover for journeys taken by workers. The compromise that was agreed to at that time was the journey only covered from the worker's boundary back to the boundary. I see that that has been retained in this piece of legislation. The rationale behind that when it was changed, whenever it was changed, in 1996 was that a lot of work related injuries occurred on the back steps of the home where there was no opportunity for witnesses or for the observance of the incident, and it was felt that boundary to boundary at least allowed for any incidents that did occur to occur in a public space where it was more probable that witnesses to the event would be able to be found. Because the bill has matured for this sitting week, I have to say that I have not had the time to get a briefing and I certainly have not had time to do all of the work on the bill that I would have liked. There is in proposed section 61 a matter regarding additional premiums. I just wanted clarification as to whether this is a new segment or not, where the proposed section states— An employer must pay WorkCover an additional premium calculated as prescribed under a regulation if— (a) the employer is given a premium notice; and (b) the employer does not pay WorkCover the amount specified in the notice on or before the due date. It sounds very similar to the registration late payment fee, and I am just wondering whether that is a new fee or not. Mr Nuttall: I will answer that in my response. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Thanks. What sort of level will that fee be? Will it be a percentage of the premium? How high will it be? Mr Nuttall: I will cover that in my response. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Thanks. The retention of self-insurance options is good. The member for Fitzroy is not in the chamber, but I remember that he stood in this chamber several years ago now and spoke very strongly and successfully, as it turned out, against a doctor whom WorkCover was using on a regular basis. Mr Purcell: I remember the debate and I know the doctor well. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: So do I. Ironically, QR, which is a self-insurer, is using the same doctor and we are running into the same problems with his diagnosis of patients and the material that he is providing to QR for purposes of assessment. Workers with QR are being—my words—equally disadvantaged because of that same doctor's assessment process. I am intending to speak with the minister about those concerns and perhaps refer him to the member for Fitzroy's speech from some time ago. An honourable member interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is him, yes. That is how the air turns sometimes when the workers talk about him. Whilst the retention of self-insurance is important, I would caution some of those organisations, particularly QR, on the use of doctors and to perhaps check some of the previous history of the doctors, because that assessment can in great measure disadvantage workers. I would certainly encourage caution on behalf of that gentleman. I want a clarification on a matter of workers on ships. One of the concerns and complications that I have run into is that deckhands do not realise—and that is what I want to clarify, and that is whether this has changed under this bill—that if they are paid a percentage of the catch they are not covered under workers comp. This bill is unclear. It talks about workers who sustain injuries while employed on a ship. Compensation is not payable for the death of a worker who leaves no dependents if the owner or charterer of the ship on which the worker was employed is liable to pay the expenses of the worker's funeral. It goes through three conditions of payment of compensation to workers on ships. But I just wondered whether deckhands are covered by workers compensation in the general sense of the word if they are not paid a wage but are paid a percentage of the catch. Most deckhands are really young. They do not know. It does not even come to light until they are actually injured and it is too late. I also welcome as would most hardworking businesses and contributors to government the continued inclusion of what used to be called contributory negligence. If a worker acts foolishly on 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1791 a work site and sustains an injury they are also going to be required to carry some of the burden as far as the injury is concerned rather than the employer carrying the full cost of the workers comp. The other issue—and in part I guess this answers my question about the GOC—is that I notice that the minister is retaining a reserve power to give directions where he or she believes the direction the board is taking is contrary to the public interest and those directions are obligated on the minister to be tabled. That is a very transparent process. If the GOC prospect is a very real one, it could be an avenue available to the minister to ensure that community and constituent concerns are adequately addressed. It is very difficult to know what parts of this bill are new as opposed to an amalgamation of the previous WorkCover bill and rehabilitation obligations. I believe every single one of us here wants to see workers rehabilitated and back on the job with the least amount of lingering disability or impairment. One of the matters that I have to raise in terms of rehabilitation is that in my electorate—and I do not think that this is exceptional to my electorate—we have a situation where injured parties do not get to see physios for up to six and 12 months after their injury and that is counterproductive to good rehabilitation. Mr Purcell: Or chiropractors. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is right. An older lady came to my office 12 months after she had sustained an injury. It was not WorkCover, but she still had not seen a hospital physio and any chance of remediation and improvement in her mobility had long gone. Completely in tangent with the spirit of the minister and the government to see rehabilitation achieved and achieved well is the need for injured workers to be able to access physiotherapists, chiropractors and others in a very quick fashion to ensure that rehabilitation starts as soon as possible after their mobility recommences. On the basis of the minister's response to some of those issues—I am assuming that there will be a division—I will certainly be making a decision, but I believe that every single one of us in this House wants to see workers protected and given adequate payments to ensure that their families can continue financially, emotionally and also to ensure that they can resume work as well as possible as quickly as possible. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (1.15 a.m.): I rise to speak very briefly on the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill. Mr Fenlon: Hear, hear! Mr SHINE: As I do normally on similar legislation. I cannot, however, let the occasion pass without commenting on the contribution made by my colleague in Toowoomba, the member for Toowoomba South. The member for Toowoomba South demonstrated tonight that he was indeed a great historian of convenience when it came to his recollection of the events of the mid- 1990s in Queensland so far as legislation relating to workers compensation is concerned. The fact of the matter is that the reforms brought in during 1995-96 by the Goss-Edmond legislation, strident though they were, are recognised by those with actuarial experience as being the cause of the recovery of the workers compensation fund. We all know that the subsequent legislation brought in by the Borbidge-Santoro group was totally unnecessary. In fact, it was shortly after the return of the Labor government under the Beattie-Braddy scheme that that legislation was reversed and of course we now have this splendid situation today where we have the best workers compensation scheme in Australia. The Beattie government has been re-elected five years now and this has been the case during that entire period of time. I was at a public liability forum last week which was also attended by my friend the member for Toowoomba South. All persons there acknowledged, including myself and the member for Toowoomba South, that Queensland does in fact have the best workers compensation scheme in Australia. In fairness I was hoping that he and other members opposite might acknowledge the good management of the current minister and his forebear in that role as Minister for Industrial Relations as sharing part of the credit for that. The other concern raised by the member for Toowoomba South was the conspiracy theory concerning the splitting of Q-Comp from WorkCover type functions. As I understand it, both the explanatory notes and the second reading speech of the minister clearly indicate that this is being done simply because it is a requirement of national competition policy. I do not think that there is any great mystery about that. It is being done for that particular reason. There is nothing that will happen as a result of that, as the minister indicated by way of interjection, which would remove or change the character of WorkCover from what it is now in terms of its saleability or whatever. I make these comments because I am a member of the minister's backbench committee. I have had some experience in terms of practising the common law side of the legislation when it 1792 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003 comes to claims by workers on the fund, both statutory claims and also common law claims. The draconian, as I saw them, measures brought in by the Goss-Edmond team at that time was the reason I joined the Labor Party. I felt they were contrary to what I thought was good policy and that the way to change them was to try to change them from within. I am very pleased that under Minister Braddy those changes were made subsequently in or about 1998. With respect to the legislation itself, it is true that this is a bill containing 350 pages. Normally, we would want to deal with such a bill in great detail. However, as has been indicated by other speakers tonight, this is to a large extent a rehashing of the existing legislation. One of the notable changes is the change of name to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill. At the time of the debates in the mid-nineties I remember reading the Hansard and noting that when the former member for Clayfield introduced the legislation one of the sore points was the change of name from workers compensation to WorkCover. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the principal legislation with respect to workers compensation will now be referred to by its correct and historic title, taking it back in a sense to the days when Ryan first brought in this type of legislation in around 1915. Mr Purcell: Just a bit of history brought into it. Mr SHINE: I brought in a bit of history to liven up proceedings at this hour of the morning. I wish to mention some misconceptions in the public mind about people who claim workers compensation, particularly in relation to common law matters. There is a perception amongst some people that people put on or exaggerate their injuries and get a windfall from the courts. Based on my years of experience, I know that it would be very unlikely, though not impossible, for that to happen. The amount of screening that claimants have to go through from their own doctors let alone the doctors engaged by WorkCover tends to ensure that that does not happen. The other thing is that most lawyers who act for claimants these days do so on a no-win, no-fee basis. If the case is not won, in other words, if a fraud is proved, the lawyers are left holding the baby in terms of costs. When I was active in this area over a period of about 10 years, there was only one case where we felt that a person was acting fraudulently. The other minor point that I wish to mention, as raised by the member for Gladstone, was the guarantee in the legislation for private insurers or self-insurers. Nowadays we all have to be concerned, because of what happened to HIH, that those who self-insure, for example, large companies, have the wherewithal to cover claims and will have money set aside in the event that a claim is made some years later. What happens if they go broke? We see in the legislation that there has to be protection by way of cash deposits and proper reinsurance arrangements. I am glad to see that that still applies. I think it is very important bearing in mind the current insurance climate. Finally, I note the major point of the bill is the separation of Q-Comp from the traditional WorkCover activities. I will not go into those; other speakers have done so. I reaffirm that the reason for that is that it is an NCP requirement. I commend the minister, his department and his advisers for the bill. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (1.24 a.m.): I rise to add my support to the bill. I wish to focus primarily on the rehabilitation aspect of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003 and then make some comments in regard to other parts of the bill. The Minister for Industrial Relations has outlined a range of reforms introduced by the Queensland Labor government since it came to office in 1998 to restore balance and equity into the Queensland workers compensation scheme. All of these reforms have been improvements in the legislative model for the regulation and delivery of workers compensation, benefiting both workers and employers. However, I wish to bring to the attention of members the issue of rehabilitation, to which the minister referred. Rehabilitation is a vital component in any successful workers compensation outcome, whether viewed from the worker's or the employer's perspective. The benefit to workers is direct and immediate in reducing the duration and severity of incapacity and resulting in an opportunity for early return to work and the activities of day-to-day life. For the employer the early return of a productive worker to the workplace after injury reduces the costs associated with the loss of expertise and capacity in the workplace. This in turn mitigates the effects of ongoing claims on workers compensation premiums through experience based rating. An important development of the concept is the move to industry based rehabilitation referred to by the minister. This approach builds on existing robust rehabilitation arrangements and requires industry-wide commitment and a significant coordination and facilitation role by the insurer. Industry based rehabilitation involves early identification of a job in jeopardy, that is, the 13 May 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1793 likelihood that an injured worker will be unable to return to his or her vocation or employment following injury, the delivery of specialist programs with rehabilitation retaining a future employability focus, and cooperative partnerships within and across industry sectors to get injured workers back into the work force. Examples include the development of a statewide network of host employers as well as training in other interested organisations' delivery of return-to-work programs. I understand the implementation of these arrangements is well advanced across a wide range of industries as a result of an extensive and widely supported government initiative sponsored by WorkCover. I congratulate both industry stakeholders and WorkCover on the implementation of these arrangements. We need to keep both eyes on the ball in terms of rehabilitation. Some previous rehabilitation practices were not really in the workers' interests. These served only to have the worker back in the workplace largely unproductively for a period, with their later being dismissed because there was no work for them. We need to make sure that this scheme works and that people who are injured through no fault of their own are properly rehabilitated and brought back into the workplace as productive workers. I acknowledge the importance of the inclusion of the word 'rehabilitation' in the title of the bill. This citation highlights the fundamental and vital role of rehabilitation in achieving an equitable and cost-effective workers compensation scheme. The responsibility for rehabilitation is shared among workers, employers and insurers. This bill provides the necessary framework to support these outcomes. Earlier the member for Gladstone said that if people leave injuries for too long without getting medical treatment, time can beat them. I urge this minister, as I have other ministers, to allow chiropractors to treat injured workers without their having to be referred by doctors. I believe some doctors are reluctant to refer workers to chiropractors. In my experience and based on anecdotal evidence from a lot of workers, once they get to a chiropractor they are able to get back to work because their injury has been sorted out. I think it is very important that we make use of that treatment for and on behalf of workers. I would like to take up what the minister said earlier across the chamber about WorkCover and the concerns that some people have in relation to the characteristics of WorkCover. I do not think it would matter what side of the House members sat on; they would have concerns if any government was going to put its fingers in the bickie barrel and take money out of a fund that is contributed to by employers on behalf of workers to look after those workers when they are injured and to help them in their rehabilitation. The minister stated in his second reading speech— While the bill when enacted will repeal the existing WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, the essential characteristics of Queensland's workers compensation scheme have been retained. The Workcover Queensland Authority is retained as a candidate government owned corporation— and has been for some period— with a focus on premium setting and funds management rather than on regulation of the scheme. WorkCover will continue to deliver insurance underwriting and service delivery functions through its metropolitan and regional office network. There will be a smaller board consisting of seven directors, reflective of WorkCover's more focused role, and all current corporate governance requirements will continue to apply. This bill does not change anything that is happening currently. So if members have concerns about what this bill is doing, they should have had concerns a couple of years ago when that happened. The minister stated further— The bill creates the Workers Compensation Regulatory Authority, which is charged with the regulation of those elements of the scheme previously administered by WorkCover through its Regulatory Division, Q-COMP. These include the licensing of self-insurers, operation of the review and appeals processes, the oversight and administration of medical assessment tribunals and ensuring employers' and insurers' compliance with rehabilitation provision and other legislated requirements. I for one think that it is a good thing to separate that. It should have been done some time ago. As a practitioner in this area for a long period as a union official, I had some problems going in front of tribunals that were set up and controlled by the people who provided the insurance cover. I think that the tribunals should be fully independent and well away from the insurers. They should be independent. I am not saying that they were not, but the member for Gladstone has mentioned an instance, as has my colleague the member for Fitzroy. From time to time we have all come across people who worked for WorkCover who were overzealous. Because of their appointment—and their continued appointment—they wanted to stay in that position. Therefore, their judgment was affected. I will not go into that any further, because I might defame the bloke. I have never had any time for him. He is not much chop. Another matter that I had concerns about and was never happy about was allowing private insuring through large companies—and it was under one of our governments. I saw that as a step 1794 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 13 May 2003 backwards. Companies would often self-insure. I think that with what is happening with insurance companies now, as other speakers have said, there are concerns about who picks up the tab if those companies fall over. Those workers who are not covered pick up the tab. They do not get their compensation and their injuries fixed. They usually carry the can. I think that, if those companies do not put the funds where they should be put, and, as the member for Toowoomba North said, they do not have actuaries run a ruler over their figures, they ought to be taken back into the scheme and not allowed to operate on their own. I would like the minister to make a comment about just one other item. Members from both sides of this place—and I know that the member for Gladstone mentioned this matter—referred to the definition of 'worker' in schedule 2, titled 'Who is a worker'. I have received advice on this issue as late as today in relation to persons who are workers. We put this in place a couple of weeks ago and I have had a chance to have a pretty good look at it. I have some concerns about it. One of my concerns is that I received advice that it has yet to be tested in a court. I would like the minister to put on record that what we are really saying in schedule 2 on page 330 of the bill is that workers are covered and will continue to be covered as we will not allow shonks. They are the ones who get down to the lowest common denominator. Everybody else tries to compete with them, because we live in a very competitive world, and the lowest price wins the job. Then we get down to a very low level in relation to protecting workers. I refer also to schedule 3, titled 'Who is an employer'. I point out to the member for Nicklin that that schedule appears at page 333 of the bill. That schedule refers to labour hire companies. In my previous employment, I had a lot to do with labour hire companies. I did not have a lot of problems with good labour hire companies. They were like any other subcontractors. If they paid their people properly, if those people worked in a safe environment, if workers were given the conditions that they were entitled to receive under the act and so forth, I never had a problem with them. But there are a lot of shonks in the industry who have been allowed to flourish by a federal government that encourages people to be self-employed under single contracts and so forth. I would be very concerned if that area of employment is not covered adequately by that schedule, which sets out who is an employer. I know it is getting late, but there were a couple of things that I just wanted to say very briefly because other members have commented on them. I agree with the comments of my colleague the member for Toowoomba North, who set out the history of workers compensation. I will not go through that, because I have put it on the record of this place before. I lived through that process, because I was a member at the time. I know that the member for Gladstone will agree with me, because she was vital in the pegging back of at least eight or nine parts of the changes that Santoro brought in that affected workers. We called a division and did him over on the first one. He backed off on the others, because he knew that he did not have the support of the member for Gladstone. Those changes related to vital parts of the WorkCover scheme that related to looking after workers. The first amendment that we called a division on related to the fact that a worker, going to and from work, was not going to be covered; the worker would be covered only from the work gate. That would leave the families of 28 people who I know worked on one government job—the building of the Tarong Power Station—not covered. Twenty-eight people died on that job going to and from work. If we reform a workers compensation act so that nobody is covered, the scheme is going to run marvellously, but nobody will be able to receive the benefits. The other thing I would like to say is that in the building industry, workers compensation cover for 80 per cent of the employers was taken out by the Santoro reforms. Eighty per cent of the employers who contributed money into the scheme for their employees were no longer able to get access to that scheme because of the definition of 'worker' and 'injury' and how they were taxed—a taxation, as I said before, that was brought in by 'little, honest' John Howard, because he could not collect the taxes in the building industry on the Gold Coast. We notified him about that, because nobody was paying tax on the Gold Coast. He changed the system because he did not have the guts to make the taxation system work. He fell foul of the builders in this state and he buckled. During that Santoro period the building industry had to bring in its own scheme, called Cap, to cover workers in the building industry. So Santoro fixed this scheme—or supposedly fixed it, as some members have said—and people were paying two insurance covers. They were paying twice. That is not very smart. Certainly, the employers did not want that to happen. They woke up to that situation very quick smart because I and others made it known that workers compensation is a two-way street. It protects employers as well as employees, because under common law if a person could not sue 13 May 2003 Adjournment 1795 under WorkCover, that person could sue the employer personally. That person could get the employer's house, his assets, his missus' car and he would end up on the street. Common law says that a worker can go to the Supreme Court and if it is found that the employer caused the worker's injury, he has all the employer's money. So if a worker does not come within the definition of 'worker', he is entitled to sue under common law. Some crazy, crazy stupid things were allowed to happen then. I am pleased that this government and this minister have wound them back and will continue to get benefits for workers. I support the bill. Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (1.39 a.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members from both sides of the House for their contributions. A number of questions have been raised by honourable members with regard to certain clauses within the bill. Given the hour of the sitting, I will endeavour to respond to those in greater detail tomorrow. I hope to be able to do that before the committee stage so we can consider the clauses. I will try to respond tomorrow morning and answer the questions that people have asked. I am a little disappointed that the opposition has chosen to oppose the bill given that page 5 of the explanatory notes set out the consultation that has occurred and the support that has been received by all major stakeholders in the workers compensation area, including employer associations, unions, legal and insurance professional bodies and, of course, relevant state government departments. Given that the legislation has bipartisan support from employers, unions and legal and insurance professional bodies, I would have thought that, while the opposition may have some concerns regarding certain clauses of the bill, it may have seen fit to support the bill. It is disappointing that it has chosen not to do that. Debate, on motion of Mr Nuttall, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (1.41 a.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Gladstone Harbour Festival Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (1.41 a.m.): All of us have groups in our electorates that are deserving of praise and congratulations. The Gladstone Harbour Festival, which occurs over the Easter break, is run by a very small committee and a dedicated executive. Judy Wicker is a permanent employee in an events and festivals office. She is extremely successful and extremely efficient in the manner in which she organises this harbour festival and indeed a number of other events from year to year. I certainly congratulate her. A festival committee works throughout the year to ensure that the festival is bigger and better each year. One of the culminating events is the Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race. I can assure members that the yachties have a wonderful time at the yacht club when they finally get to shore. The success of the festival results from the work of a lot of volunteer groups. The committee volunteers in a number of food handling stores. Lions, Rotary, Apex and high school students volunteer in a number of those stalls. The St John Ambulance is in attendance day and night to ensure the health and safety of the patrons. The SES carries out a role of monitoring and managing the car parking for a gold coin fee—it is a voluntary contribution—and ensures that access to parking exit and entry is gained in a safe and controlled manner. The festival includes children's activities, young adults activities and seniors activities, with entertainment as well as physically involving activities for all of those groups. Associated with that are a number of activities external to the marina, where the festival is held. I would have to say that the marina facilities suit the festival and its manner of festivities. At another time I will speak specifically about the QR museum and heritage show. Suffice it to say, that was open to the public for the first time and it was excellent. Every year the orchid society has a display. A very large dog show is carried on over that weekend. Patchwork and other special interest groups hold special functions. The extended weekend is successful because of the voluntary contribution of the many people who are involved in their own organisations and who pool their resources and help towards the goal of seeing the Gladstone-Calliope area enjoy a time of great festivity, fellowship and camaraderie. 1796 Adjournment 13 May 2003

Coombabah State High School Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (1.45 a.m.): Coombabah State High School is setting the standard and the pace for the Beattie government's education and training reforms. This is proof that the government is listening to the teachers and students about what is good for the young people of Queensland. With 10,000 school students aged between 15 and 17 either out of work or out of study, the challenge has been set to establish programs and partnerships that will direct young people to engage in learning, whether it be in the classroom or in the workplace. I am proud to inform the House that Coombabah High School, in one of the trial districts for the training reforms, is excelling in all aspects of the newly discovered pathway for young Queenslanders. In 2002 Coombabah High School had 50 school based trainees. Already this year the school has linked up over 40 students as school based trainees with local businesses. It is this link and the support from local businesses that underpins the success of programs such as this. It is a credit to all the keen managers and staff at all of the local businesses that have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to take students on board and commit to traineeship partnerships. Target at Runaway Bay has taken on 12 students on retail traineeships, five students have chosen to do aged care at the Ritz aged care centre and Coles Myer has five students doing retail. A high number of students are visiting local child-care centres at least once a week. There are students doing traineeships at Sea World and Riviera Marine, and smaller local businesses at Harbour Town such as Fasta Pasta and the Nike outlet store have also taken on a school based trainee or two. Coombabah has recognised that not all students fit into the square box of curriculum studies. As such, a group of at-risk students are currently completing traineeships at the Gold Coast Institute of TAFE in hairdressing, automotive and engineering. The school has also introduced training modules in retail and aged care to enable the traineeship completion to go towards the student's senior certificate. While visiting the school recently I had the opportunity to talk with year 12 students Steven Gaziler and Carley Cerni about their traineeship experience, and the future ahead of these two is most impressive. Steven is an IT buff who works at a computing firm at Harbour Town on an IT traineeship, and Carley has already completed a certificate 2 in retail at McDonald's and has recently started a certificate 3 in hospitality at Sea World Nara. Both students explained that the opportunity given to them at the Coombabah High School has certainly helped them make the important decisions about what career path they wish to take. By combining working experience with a vocational study and their school commitments, the students at Coombabah High are in fact not earning or learning but earning and learning. I take this opportunity to commend the principal of the school, Mr Ray Styles, and his deputies, Paul Bevan and Kim Stewart, for leading the way in school based traineeships and flexible learning. I understand that Jan Voges has just returned to her original role as industry liaison. We welcome her back to this exciting role. Traineeships and apprenticeships are leading young Queenslanders to bright careers— Time expired.

Egg Production Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (1.48 a.m.): The Queensland egg industry is one of the most important livestock product industries in our state. The gross value of egg production in Queensland last year was in excess of $64 million. The Darling Downs is Queensland's largest egg producing region. I am very pleased to say that much of this production is concentrated in my electorate. The industry on the downs is made up of a mix of large and small scale producers operating caged, barn and free range poultry farms. However, caged birds represent the bulk of egg production in the region. The DA Hall Company of Millmerran and McLean Farms of Pittsworth are the region's largest operations and among Australia's top three egg producers. They are both local family operations that started from scratch and are now leading our nation in providing egg products to diverse domestic and international markets. These two companies are significant local employers and together they have invested an incredible amount of money and goodwill into the region. The two companies are currently putting the finishing touches on a massive new pulp factory between 13 May 2003 Adjournment 1797

Millmerran and Pittsworth. This factory will mean more local jobs and a further boost for the local economy. I have great respect for what these two families have achieved for our region and the high level of animal welfare and quality assurances that they have maintained in their operations. The many smaller egg producing poultry farms on the Darling Downs also play a very important role in the egg industry and contribute strongly to local employment and the local economy. These producers have an equally high level of commitment to animal welfare and quality assurance and are actively advancing the industry in our state. However, these egg producers now find themselves confronting arguably the greatest crisis in the industry's history. In August of 2000, the Agricultural and Resources Ministerial Council of Australia and New Zealand agreed to adopt a policy for the phasing out of older style egg cages by January 2008. This means that egg producers have until 2008 to discard the now outdated cages and construct cages that comply with the new standard of 550 square centimetres per bird. This restructuring will cost individual farmers in the industry a crippling amount of money. Despite this, a recent governmental response working group advised producers that there would be no compensation for this forced industry restructuring. The Minister for Primary Industries has admitted that to subsidise egg producers to undertake these cage changes would be well beyond the state government's budget capabilities. This is a significant statement because if the state government has no hope of footing the bill how can the individual egg producers even hope to cover the costs? There is a real concern in my electorate and across the industry amongst not only the small operators but also the large operators that this industry restructuring will force many producers out of business and, as a result, shed countless jobs. The egg industry is committed to animal welfare and has proven to be cooperative in consultation with government and welfare groups. However, forcing these changes on the industry in such a short time frame with absolutely no assistance will be disastrous. Time expired.

Cedar Creek State Preschool Outdoor Learning Centre Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (1.51 a.m.): As an educator, I know there are huge benefits in providing our students with the very best in state-of-the-art learning facilities. This morning I am delighted to inform honourable members of the opening of one such facility for the children at Cedar Creek State Preschool, officially opened last month by the Minister for Education, the Hon. Anna Bligh. Saturday, 12 April was the day many Cedar Creek residents both big and small had been waiting for, as the brand new outdoor learning centre was unveiled at Cedar Creek State Preschool. This new playground is a great example of what can be achieved when the P&C, teachers and the whole community work together to reach a common goal. The new playground has been a long time coming, with five years of hard work and planning going in to achieve this fantastic outcome. The delegation that I led with local residents and members of the P&C to community cabinet in 2000 proved a great success. The opening was an opportunity to celebrate this great achievement. We may have been just a small group, but we certainly scored a huge win for all of the 160 families of the Cedar Creek State School. Congratulations to everyone involved and an extra special thanks to those who gave up their precious time and labour to secure this facility for our children. Special mention goes to Don Paxman, who generously did earthmoving at no cost, and Colin Cole, who put in a lot of personal time and effort to ensure the success of the project. I thank principal Sharon Millar, past principal Chris McMillan and preschool teacher in charge Brenda Payne for their excellent leadership at Cedar Creek State School. Thank you also to Lesley Englert, Executive Director (Schools) Gold Coast North District, for her tireless work in all of Albert's schools. Present and past members of Cedar Creek State School's P&C played a huge role in securing this learning centre. To president Lesley Nicol and everyone from the P&C: congratulations and well done. Your hard work has paid off. Honourable members will be happy to know that the children of Cedar Creek State Preschool and the scarecrow gave their seal of approval to the new outdoor learning centre. I thank the Hon. Anna Bligh, Minister for Education, for her ongoing commitment to the children of Albert and Queensland. On behalf of a grateful 1798 Adjournment 13 May 2003

Cedar Creek community, thank you, Minister, for visiting the preschool to see first-hand how the Smart State vision is fast becoming a reality in Albert.

North Queensland Local Government Association Conference Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (1.54 a.m.): I rise briefly to speak about the North Queensland Local Government Association Conference held recently at Nebo. It was hosted by the Nebo Shire Council and it ran from the evening of Thursday, 8 May through to lunchtime on Sunday, 10 May. Delegates from 34 north Queensland local government authorities attended the conference. It began with a meet and greet barbecue at Illawong Beach after delegates booked into their accommodation on Thursday evening. On Friday morning delegates departed with their partners by bus to Nebo, where they stopped off at Wot Island at the Nebo junction for morning tea. Then separate buses departed for tours of the Coppabella and South Walker mines, returning to the Marley Accommodation Centre—or the Mac Centre as it is known locally—where owner Kevin Maloney provided a magnificent buffet luncheon. In the afternoon partners took a guided bus tour of the historic Mount Britton, an old mining settlement, and the Mac Centre art gallery and the Nebo museum while the delegates attended the official opening by the Local Government and Planning Minister, Nita Cunningham, and the first business session of the conference. On the Friday evening delegates, partners and guests attended the annual conference dinner dance at the Ocean International Resort, where everybody enjoyed a great evening wining, dining and dancing till very late. Saturday morning saw an excellent attendance considering that the Friday evening was such a late night for most, where I had the honour of being the first of several guest speakers to address the conference prior to the final business session. The conference concluded with a lunch prior to the delegates departing for home. I must congratulate NQLGA president, Councillor Jim Chapman; secretary, Philip Stark; and, most importantly, the Nebo Shire Council, a very small council in my electorate, the enthusiastic mayor, Bob Oakes, and councillors Wendy Western, Pat Snowden, Ian Fry, John Stuart, Rosslyn Hanrahan, Pixie McFadzen and Danny Comerford, under the guidance of chief executive Ron Moffat and the Nebo Shire Council staff. It was a well-organised conference and the program was innovative. It showcased a diverse shire and surrounding region. It had an interesting and varied presentation by guest speakers which also included the Queensland Ombudsman, David Bevan; Executive Director, Local Government Association of Queensland, Greg Hallam; Executive Director, Main Roads, Paul Smith; Business Development Manager, James Cook University, Marc Shannon; Mayor of the Herbert Shire Council, Councillor Anne Portess; Client Relations Coordinator of Local Buy, Eleanor Jackson; and Networking the Nation Program Manager from the Local Government Association of Queensland, Catherine Anderson. It was an excellent venue for the conference and I must again congratulate the Nebo shire on the very innovative way in which it was able to present a conference in a very small shire and showcase the great attraction that small shire has put together over a very short period of time. Time expired.

Sir Sydney Williams Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (1.57 a.m.): I will leave parliament on Thursday to fly home to Cairns where, as the Premier's parliamentary secretary in far-north Queensland, I will represent him and farewell a great Australian and a favourite son of far-north Queensland who dedicated his life to his family and to his community. I have been privileged during the 22 years I have lived in Cairns to witness at first-hand some of the remarkable contributions that this man of vision has made to our community. But Sir Sydney, who died on Sunday at age 83, began his career of service to far-north Queensland long before my arrival in Cairns. In fact, it was 1948—the year I was born—that he came back home with his new bride after the war to take up the reins of the Williams estate motor business and then later his own company, Willtrac Corporation. It was during this time that he became involved in founding Bush Pilots Airways, one of the earliest aviation companies in Australia. For the next 50 years or so Sir Sydney was heavily involved in the fabric of life in Cairns and the far-north region, including his many board positions and directorships of government bodies 13 May 2003 Adjournment 1799 such as the Cairns Port Authority, the Queensland Film Commission and the Australian Tourism Commission, and business entities such as the Reef Trust Casino, Lizard Island and Cape York Wilderness Lodge, Captain Cook Cruises, Carlton United Breweries, local radio stations, numerous local and state based community organisations such as Legacy, the Association for the Blind, the Far North Queensland Youth Assistance Fund and the World Wildlife Fund of Australia. He was also patron of many sporting groups and had an extensive involvement with various Queensland universities, art galleries and cooperative research centres for Barrier Reef research and sustainable tourism. The list goes on. Sir Sydney was knighted in 1983, having already received an Order of the British Empire in 1977. Amongst the various awards and recognitions he received for his amazing list of accomplishments and life-long dedication to community service, in 2001 he was awarded the World Tourism Conference Award for outstanding contribution by an Australian individual. However, his lasting memory to those of us from the far-north Queensland will undoubtedly be his founding of the Cairns Amateurs, our equivalent of the Melbourne Cup and Australia's richest regional racing event, attracting thousands of visitors and locals alike to enjoy our own annual spring carnival. It was only two years ago, at age 81, that he gave up the role of President of the Far North Queensland Amateur Turf Club after 41 years. He is survived by wife Joyce, his four sons, 11 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. To them, I send my sincere condolences, knowing that the Cairns community has lost a great friend and a major contributor to the way of life we enjoy in far-north Queensland. He was, above all, a humble man of great personal integrity, a gentleman in every sense of the word, and we will miss him greatly.

Island Industries Board Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (2.00 a.m.): About seven weeks ago I advised the Minister for Families and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy that stores in the Torres Strait Islands which were providing essential items for families were closing and I asked what the minister is doing about it. These stores were being run by IBIS. The minister replied— The Island Industries Board, generally referred to as IBIS, is a statutory body established under the Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984. The Board, which includes Torres Strait representatives, makes all decisions concerning IBIS' operations. The minister agreed that both Badu Island and Stephen Island would be losing their stores. Anyone who has been to Badu knows that there is an excellent private store at Badu Island so that probably is not a great concern. But certainly the closing of the store at Stephen Island is a great concern. Stephen Island is a magnificent island with about 50 people living on it. Therefore there was absolutely no way that any family could receive any fresh fruit or commercial goods. The minister said— The board recently informed me a decision has been made to close the store on Stephen Island. I have written to the Board seeking assurances that suitable alternative arrangements be made to allow the Stephen Island community to access supplies. I have asked that the arrangements be implemented before the store is closed. I understand that the Stephen Island store is being operated by IBIS until 2 May 2003 and in the interim IBIS and the Ugar Island (which is Stephen Island council) are negotiating suitable alternative arrangements. Therefore I was disappointed to pick up the paper last weekend and see an article which says that nothing has been done, and that— Ugar Island chairman Rocky Stephen has accused the Beattie government of leaving his people to starve through the monsoon season, of making their standard of living the lowest in Queensland and causing a humanitarian crisis. 'Politicians in Brisbane may not be familiar with the Torres Strait because this is a monsoon season where we have strong winds most of the time and the waters are very rough.' Mr Stephen says that no-one can ever expect that people from Stephen Island to go across to Darnley Island, which is about 15 kilometres away in open water, to receive goods. How could one ever expect any family to go and get their commercial goods? That is what he says. He continues— IBIS is a State Government enterprise and, considering our isolation, the government has a community obligation to help us. 1800 Adjournment 13 May 2003

The article continues— Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Minister Judy Spence said legislation did not enable the government to interfere in the board's decision-making or to direct the board to undertake or refrain from undertaking any specific activity. So here we have a government, with boards like IBIS, and a community like Stephen Island, with 50 people on that particular island, where the minister has known for seven weeks that this is a problem. I excuse her for Badu Island, but certainly there is no excuse for an island like Stephen Island to have absolutely no commercial store, to have absolutely no access to fresh goods— Time expired.

Narangba Police Beat Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (2.03 a.m.): Previously in this House I have raised the issue of the need for a police beat at Narangba. Narangba is a district in the Caboolture shire and part of the electorate of Kallangur. I am pleased to see that it has now occurred. Recently I had the opportunity to meet Senior Constable Christian Ferguson and welcome him to our community. He will live and work from the neighbourhood police beat at 2 Bendel Court, Narangba. Last Thursday, 8 May, Minister Tony McGrady officially opened the Narangba police beat, accompanied by the Police Commissioner, Bob Atkinson. It was very big day for the Narangba community. Senior Constable Ferguson will provide a visible police presence that will act as a deterrent to crime in the local area. Importantly, I think, a service vehicle has been provided for Senior Constable Ferguson to cover that beat area. I also understand that, in a fast growing area like Narangba, one of the local developers has also kindly donated a bike to Chris Ferguson so that he can also get about the area on two wheels. Senior Constable Ferguson has moved into his premises and the facility has become fully operational. Make no mistake, the police beat program is vital because it has the effect of bringing the police and, in this case I think, the Narangba community closer together. P o l i c e have the opportunity through the police beat procedure to develop local knowledge of any criminal activity or hot spots so that they can work to address those problems. Most importantly, Chris Ferguson has made a great impression with the local community. He has taken the opportunity to introduce himself to local people. You can imagine the pleasant surprise when a local police officer comes into your business premises and introduces himself as the officer on the Narangba police beat and asks whether there are any issues that you think that he should be addressing. Local people have spoken to me very positively about the experience and were very impressed. Some have said to me it is something that they have never seen or had happen to them before. The whole Narangba community welcomes the establishment of the police beat. That community looks forward to meeting Senior Constable Chris Ferguson, and I know from the opening that they also look forward to meeting his family. Narangba is a strong, community- minded and growing part of the electorate of Kallangur. Time expired.

Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.06 a.m.): I rise to speak about a wonderful facility based in Nambour, which provides the Sunshine Coast district's disabled children with a full range of therapies. The Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre was created in 1988 by a group of dedicated parents who had children with special needs. By 1997 the centre had established a secure premises in Nambour thanks to a long-term lease from the education department for the land, community support and success with several grant applications. The centre is staffed by a full-time office administrator, a part-time financial coordinator and the equivalent of one full-time physiotherapist, occupational therapist, speech pathologist and a part-time psychologist. The therapy centre management committee gratefully acknowledges the state and federal government funding which currently funds 60 per cent of funding, and the state health department HACC program. The 40 per cent balance must be sought from the community and business through fundraising and donations. None of this can be achieved without a 13 May 2003 Adjournment 1801 voluntary parent management committee. This becomes increasingly difficult, given that these families have moderate to severely disabled children and other children and commitments. While the fundraising workloads fall on a couple of people, the committee has praised the 'spectacular support' of the Reed Property Group, local consultants and the community in making this achievable. The aim is that over time the children become more self-sufficient and more able to provide for themselves so that they can live more independently within the wider community. I am in constant admiration of the dedication of centre staff and the volunteers. The centre currently caters to the needs of 62 young clients, and there is a waiting list. The management committee has advised me of two issues of difficulty for the centre. The first of these is insurance costs, which have risen by 55 per cent this year to $10,000, an incredible burden for a non-profit care organisation. The second area of concern is in gaining funding for everyday office items like photocopiers and essential items relating to administration, neither of which are funded by government agencies or are very exciting to sponsors from the community or business viewpoint. It would be beneficial if these operational essentials could be incorporated into the government funding process, as many additional hours must be spent in submissions to fund these items. One other area which this committee struggles with on top of the everyday management of the centre is the paperwork requirement of the Health Department. They inform me that for a small organisation like theirs the paperwork involved in achieving basic funding is 'onerous'. It includes strategic and operational plans, client and financial reports, quality audits, quarterly statistics and others. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short letter detailed 'Jonathan's Story' on behalf of the Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre. This story gives a brief glimpse into the life of one family living with disability and reflects on the miracles which can happen through the dedication of staff in centres like the Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre. Leave granted. Jonathan's Story Two years ago, my husband, Harold, and I were concerned about our son, Jonathan's deteriorating mobility. He had been receiving physical therapy on a monthly basis through the Cerebral Palsy League, but we did not feel this was adequately addressing his extensive needs. We respected the League's physical therapist, but knew they were not funded well enough and were struggling to offer an appropriate number of appointments for their large client base. Jonathan needed more. He had been involved in a horrific car accident and had spent two months in the Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital fighting for his life through five different surgeries. He was very weak and he needed help to return to the level of mobility that he possessed prior to the accident. We were very concerned that more than six months after the accident, Jonathan was still unsteady in his walking, seemed to be getting weaker and weaker and walking up on his toes more and more. Jonathan attended RDA in Palmwoods and Sailability in Mooloolaba on Saturdays and one Saturday we found ourselves chatting to Therese Ellis, a parent on the Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre Board. We were excited when she told us about the high level of services provided at SCCTC and followed up on the lead. We had to wait for what seemed like an eternity since the Therapy Centre had such a long waiting list, however, we finally were called in for an interview and the rest is history. In the past two years, Margie, Madonna and Bernice have all worked with Jonathan on a regular weekly or fortnightly basis. They are all exceptional in their respective specialties and we feel so fortunate to have Jonathan receiving the benefits of their services. In addition to excellent skills, all of the staff (including Michelle) have an amazing nature that provides kind, empathetic understanding of parents' needs as well as providing for the needs of the children attending the centre. Thanks to Bernice, Jonathan is now enunciating his words, and he speaks clearer and with more confidence. Madonna has organised an Alpha Smart for Jonathan to use in school and it has enabled him to keep up with writing assignments and other work rather than falling behind. She has also assisted him with his fine motor skills, and he now uses his left hand to a greater extent in a whole range of activities. Margie has provided hours and hours of physical therapy, has completed a plaster series in the hopes that Jonathan would not require surgery, has been instrumental in providing us with additional information and has supported us in our decision making process concerning Jonathan's surgery to lengthen his Achilles tendon. She has also assisted us by liaising with specialists, provided ideas for motivating Jonathan, and put in countless extra hours to get Jonathan back up and walking well after his surgery. Due to all of this hard work and the extremely dedicated and competent staff at the Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre, Jonathan has gone from using a wheelchair and walking stick to get around when we first started at the Therapy Centre to impressing us all with running around without the aid of any supports except his AFO's (in his own unique style of course), biking around on his large three wheeler all over Tanawha, Chancellor Park, Mooloolaba and Caloundra with his daddy and brother, and doing a "mean" run UPHILL on Margie's treadmill. The most amazing thing, though, that has happened to our family as of late was that just two weeks ago Jonathan was able to WALK ON HIS OWN IN BARE FEET! He has not been able to do that for over five years (since receiving intensive therapy at Conductive Education in Hamilton, New Zealand as a toddler). We had tears in our eyes when he proudly showed us this feat. 1802 Adjournment 13 May 2003

Thank you Bernice, Madonna, Margie, Michelle and all of those dedicated parents and people who serve on the SCCTC Board and to the wonderful donors who help make this all possible. We feel so very fortunate that our son is able to receive the services provided at the Therapy Centre and rejoice at his tremendous improvements in speech, mobility, and fine motor skills. The Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre is a Godsend for those of us who need that extra help to enable our children to be the best that they can be! Our deepest appreciation, Kathy and Harold Richins Mr WELLINGTON: I invite the Minister for Health to take some of these comments back to her staff in the hope that the load on this committee and others like it can be lightened. I commend the committee and the supporters for the great work they do in the Sunshine Coast region.

Milton Clarke House, Murarrie Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (2.09 a.m.): On 29 March this year I had the honour of officially opening the Milton Clark House at Murarrie. The property was purchased last year by the Queensland Asbestos Disease Society and many long hours of hard work were spent in fully refurbishing the house. The purpose of the house is to provide a temporary home for asbestos sufferers and their families whilst they are in Brisbane. Many sufferers of asbestosis and mesothelioma live outside the Brisbane metropolitan area and are required to travel here for many reasons. Whilst in Brisbane they are now able to stay in the comfortable and home-like atmosphere of the Milton Clarke House. Milton Clarke is a very special person. He is a member of the Queensland Asbestos Disease Society and is 84 years of age. He was a self-employed, self- funded retiree who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. After he received a settlement for his claim he very generously donated a six-figure sum to the Queensland Asbestos Disease Society to thank it for its assistance and to support his fellow members. Country members have always encountered problems with accommodation for their spouses whilst they were in the Prince Charles Hospital awaiting their prognosis reports. At a time like that, most people would wish for their nearest and dearest to be close by. Thanks to Milton Clarke House, spouses now have a nice place to stay which is close to transport and are able to support their partners during their hospital stay with the support of the Murarrie community. Although Milton was the major financial contributor to the house, there are many others whom I would also like to thank. With their assistance, the Milton Clarke House has been transformed from a run- down house to a lovely comfortable home. I want to thank Bunnings at Cannon Hill and Brian Menke who provided a wheelbarrow, garden tools, garden shed, garden seats, fire extinguisher, fire blankets, first-aid kit and bird bath. Metroplex and John Smallwood contributed a vacuum cleaner and cash donation. Fisher and Paykel and Tony Sweeney contributed a washing machine, dryer, fridge and the promise to supply a raffle prize at a later date. WorkCover contributed two special beds, oxygen concentrator, special lifting chair with a remote control, airconditioning and a master lift up the front stairs. Sheets and lambswool underlay were a gift from a bed manufacturer. Pillow Talk at Cannon Hill supplied all the bed linen, pillows and manchester at a special 40 per cent discount. Gordon Welters RetraVision at Morningside provided all of the electrical appliances also at a special 40 per cent discount. Fern Moffatt and Pam Newmaun-Costin each give the society an annual donation of $2,000. Both ladies lost their husbands to this insidious disease. Sharon Hester, in memory of her mother, donated all the equipment needed to furnish a disabled room to be added under the house. For the past three years Tom O'Brien has donated the raffle prizes which have successfully raised $10,000 for the society as well as a TV for the lounge along with a jug and toaster. Joan and Kieron Green donated all the kitchen crockery, cutlery, pots, pans, et cetera. Alex and Pat Scott and Chaplain George Taylor gave donations towards the costs of the carpet and lino. Last but not least I want to thank the Queensland state government, in particular ministers Robert Schwarten and Gordon Nuttall, who have been totally supportive of the Queensland Asbestos Disease Society and its members and who have provided huge assistance in ensuring that the Milton Clarke House did become a reality. I also commend Shirley White and her husband Reg who have been a driving force in the Queensland asbestos organisation and who have continued to make that society work for asbestos sufferers. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 2.12 a.m. (Wednesday).