PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 22 February 2007

PETITION ...... 485 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 485 World Athletics Championships, Athletes Village ...... 485 Tabled paper: Copies of two concept sketches for the proposed Gabba Urban Village for the Brisbane bid to host the 2011 World Athletics Championships...... 485 Tabled paper: Copies of two further sketches in connection with the bid to host the 2011 World Athletics Championships...... 486 Government Air Wing, Organ Retrievals ...... 486 Purified Recycled Water ...... 486 Cyclone Larry Task Force, Transitional Arrangements ...... 486 Provision of Infrastructure ...... 487 Clean Coal Technology ...... 489 Innovation Start-Up Scheme ...... 489 Equine Exports ...... 490 Integrity and Accountability in Government ...... 490 Tabled paper: Copy of report titled ‘Investment Accountability and Integrity in the Queensland Government’ dated February 2007...... 490 Biodiesel ...... 490 Service Delivery and Performance Commission ...... 491 Tabled paper: Copy of report titled ‘Performance Management Review Framework’ by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission dated February 2007...... 491 Lewis, Mr W; Former Origin Greats ...... 491 ABC Studios, Toowong ...... 491 Coal Exports ...... 492 Bikie Gangs ...... 493 Riverside Expressway Ramps ...... 494 Tabled paper: Copies of reports on engineering evaluations of the Ann and Alice Street ramps of the Riverside Expressway dated 21 December 2006 and 19 February 2007...... 494 Multicultural Affairs Queensland, Community Relations Partnership ...... 494 Business Investment ...... 495

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Thursday, 22 February 2007

Queensland Ambulance Service, Student Paramedics ...... 495 Homeless Persons Information Queensland ...... 496 ICT Career Graduate Development Program ...... 496 Illicit Drug Strategy, Ice ...... 497 Mer Island and Badu Island Councils, Financial Position ...... 497 Cane Toads ...... 497 Queensland Arts Industry Sector Development Plans 2007-2009 ...... 498 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 499 Water ...... 499 MOTION ...... 499 Moving of Motion and Time Limit of Speeches ...... 499 LIQUOR (RESTRICTION OF SUPPLY TO MINORS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 499 First Reading ...... 499 Second Reading ...... 499 PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT ...... 500 Beattie Government ...... 500 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 500 Patel, Dr J; Compensation ...... 500 Tabled paper: Correspondence from Leean Van Loon to the Member for Burnett dated 21 February 2007 ...... 500 Coppabella Mine ...... 501 Murray-Darling Basin ...... 502 Tabled paper: Copy of an advertisement from page 5 of the 22 February 2007 edition of The Australian titled ‘Open letter to Australians’...... 502 Coppabella Mine ...... 502 Tabled paper: Copy of correspondence from Mr Bob Scheuber, CEO of Queensland Rail, to Mr Bruce Wilson, Director General of Queensland Transport, regarding Macarthur Coal dated 22 February 2007...... 503 Murray-Darling Basin ...... 503 Tabled paper: Copies of an extract from Hansard dated 28 March 1995...... 504 Tabled paper: Report titled ‘The Revised Bradfield Scheme’ dated November 1981...... 504 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Open letter to Australians’...... 504 Employment of Offenders ...... 504 Water Supply ...... 504 Ambulance Officer Hours ...... 505 Coppabella Mine ...... 506 Wondai Health Service ...... 506 Energex and Ergon ...... 507 Bundaberg Hospital ...... 507 Water Police ...... 508 Racing Industry ...... 508 Disability Services, Federal Funding ...... 509 Pinkenba Waste Transfer Station ...... 510 Comcare ...... 510 MOTION ...... 511 Water ...... 511 Tabled paper: Copy transcript, dated 20 November 2006, of 612 ABC radio interview of Dr Bruce Flegg by Madonna King...... 512 Tabled paper: Queensland Government information sheet titled ‘Securing our water future’...... 513 Tabled paper: Map of Australia from Bureau of Meteorology showing rainfall deciles 1 December 1999 to 30 November 2006...... 513 Tabled paper: Copy of biographical details of members of Queensland Water Commission expert advisory panel...... 513 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 515 MOTION ...... 516 Water ...... 516 Division: Question put—That Mr Seeney’s amendment be agreed to...... 522 Resolved in the negative...... 522 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 522 Resolved in the affirmative...... 522 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 522 SUPERANNUATION (STATE PUBLIC SECTOR) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 522 Second Reading ...... 522 Consideration in Detail ...... 524 Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 524 Clauses 4 to 26 (en bloc amendments)—...... 524 Clauses 4 to 26, as amended, agreed to...... 526 Clause 27, as read, agreed to...... 526 Deletion of clauses and insertion of new clauses—...... 526 Amendment agreed to...... 527 Table of Contents — Thursday, 22 February 2007

Third Reading ...... 527 Long Title ...... 527 Question put—That the long title of the bill, as amended, be agreed to...... 527 Motion agreed to...... 527 WILD RIVERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 528 Second Reading ...... 528 Tabled paper: Copy of an article from the Cairns Post, dated 19 February 2007, titled ‘AgForce does not back “wild rivers”’...... 531 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘WR Update 15.02.07’...... 531 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 557 Nuttall, Mr GR: Memorandum ...... 557 Tabled paper: Letter dated 22 February 2007 from Mr Beattie MP, Premier and Minister for Trade to Mr Robert Needham, Chairperson Crime and Misconduct Commission relating to Queensland Health memo...... 557 WILD RIVERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 558 Second Reading ...... 558 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 558 Resolved in the affirmative...... 558 Consideration in Detail ...... 558 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 558 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 558 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 558 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 7, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 8, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 9, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clauses 10 and 11, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 12, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 13 (Amendment of s26 (Content of wild river amendment declaration))— ...... 559 Clause 13, as amended, agreed to...... 560 Insertion of new clause— ...... 560 Amendment agreed to...... 562 Clauses 14 and 15, as read, agreed to...... 562 Insertion of new clause— ...... 562 Amendment agreed to...... 562 Clause 16, as read, agreed to...... 562 Clause 17 (Amendment of schedule (Dictionary))— ...... 562 Clause 17, as amended, agreed to...... 563 Clauses 18 to 22, as read, agreed to...... 563 Insertion of new clause— ...... 563 Amendment agreed to...... 563 Clause 23, as read, agreed to...... 563 Third Reading ...... 563 Long Title ...... 563 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 563 MOTION ...... 564 Revocation of State Forest Area ...... 564 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 566 ADJOURNMENT ...... 566 Gladstone, Rental Prices ...... 566 Park-and-Ride Station, Aspley Hypermarket ...... 567 Depression; Breast Cancer, Comments by Deputy Premier ...... 567 Breast Cancer, Comments by Deputy Premier ...... 568 Gold Coast Spit; Gold Coast City Wind Orchestra ...... 568 Ignatians Musical Society ...... 569 University of Southern Queensland, 40th Anniversary ...... 569 Gawula Aboriginal Land Trust ...... 570 Ecotourism ...... 570 AusLink 2 ...... 571 ATTENDANCE ...... 572 22 Feb 2007 Legislative Assembly 485 THURSDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2007

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PETITION

The following honourable member has lodged a paper petition for presentation—

Needle Exchange Program Mrs Stuckey from 526 petitioners requesting the House to stop plans for a proposed Needle Exchange Program to be introduced in the Palm Beach/Currumbin community and guarantee that it will not be introduced in the future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

World Athletics Championships, Athletes Village Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.31 am): Brisbane has put together an excellent bid to host the 2011 world athletics championships. We are one of three cities—along with Moscow and Daegu in Korea—which have been short-listed by the International Association of Athletics Federations. Over the past two days, an evaluation committee has been in Brisbane inspecting our facilities. The delegation, headed by the Vice-President of the International Association of Athletics Federations, Professor Helmut Digel, inspected the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre at Nathan, the proposed venue for the championships, and other sites associated with the bid. They also participated in a detailed question and answer session covering all elements of our bid, including sponsorship, ticketing, transport, security and accommodation. I am pleased to announce today a key component in our government’s bid. If successful, we will build a state-of-the-art athletes village that will be the envy of anywhere else in the world. The preferred location for an inner-city based village will be the government owned land at Woolloongabba currently occupied by the Department of Natural Resources and Water Lands Centre, Goprint and airspace over the adjacent busway and station. Specifically, the total site is approximately five hectares in area— comprising a land area of about four hectares and the air rights over a further one hectare—and bounded by Main, Vulture, Stanley and Leopold streets. It is important to note that this proposal is still at the early stages and further detailed feasibility information is yet to be provided to cabinet. However, I am excited by the proposal and on the surface it appears to have many advantages. I table for the information of the House some of the early sketches to give members an idea of what is being proposed. Tabled paper: Copies of two concept sketches for the proposed Gabba Urban Village for the Brisbane bid to host the 2011 World Athletics Championships. As you can see, Mr Speaker, in the long term this will be a significant contribution to not just the heart of the city but the wellbeing of the whole community. The style and size of the development to meet the championships requirements is compatible with the Woolloongabba area in general and the area’s future redevelopment and rejuvenation. Approximately 530 units of accommodation will be needed to meet the requirements of the anticipated 3,200 athletes and officials who would call Brisbane home for the championships. At this stage, we believe it will be possible to undertake the development of a village to accommodate these athletes and officials at no cost to taxpayers. The land at Woolloongabba is predominantly government owned and with private sector assistance we believe an accommodation village could be built in conjunction with staged residential and commercial opportunities. After the championships, accommodation used for the athletes village could be sold off as residential accommodation, including significant affordable and public housing components. Under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, the site has been identified as a future transit oriented development. In other words, it is compatible with the plan. This makes perfect sense given its proximity to the city and public transport, and it has the full support of the local member. As such, it has been recognised for some time that the future of the existing facilities on the site would need to reconsidered. This would need to occur irrespective of whether the site was to be used for the athletes village. In effect, utilising the site for the village would bring forward the government’s intent to develop the Woolloongabba site as a transit oriented development. Some of the current users may be able to be relocated into new facilities developed as part of the transit oriented development while others may need to be relocated. The athletes village is a visionary concept for the future of a key part of inner-city Brisbane. As I said earlier, there is still a lot of work to be done on the proposal but I am confident that it shows our commitment to hosting one of the biggest sporting and entertainment events in the world. 486 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

I conclude my remarks in relation to our bid for the world athletics championships by highlighting the fact that the biggest event in the world is the Olympic Games, the second biggest is the Soccer World Cup—some may argue the order of those two, but they are the top two—and the third is the world athletics championships. In other words, if we get this event, it will be the third biggest sporting and athletics event in the world. The resultant benefits for tourism and the economy are self-evident. It is one of the reasons I will be presenting our formal bid in Kenya in March, accompanied by the lord mayor and the majority leader of the council. We have tough competition from Korea. No-one should underestimate it. We believe we have a good chance and we will be doing everything we can to win it. I table some more documents in support of my statement. Tabled paper: Copies of two further sketches in connection with the bid to host the 2011 World Athletics Championships. Government Air Wing, Organ Retrievals Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 am): I would like to acknowledge today the important work of Queensland’s Government Air Wing. While it plays an essential role in allowing the government of the day to travel to far corners of the state on government business, its less publicised but priority role of organ retrieval deserves our recognition. So far this financial year I am advised that the Government Air Wing has completed 18 organ retrievals, three of them over the Christmas period. I am also advised that eight of these retrievals have occurred since January, including one retrieval from New Zealand. Over two nights this week the Government Air Wing completed two organ retrieval flights, which resulted in nine organ transplants—saving the lives of eight adults and one baby. The crew and staff deserve our recognition and I am sure all members join with me in thanking them for this very important work.

Purified Recycled Water Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 am): Today, on the eve of the states and territories meeting with the Prime Minister on the Murray-Darling—and I will have more to say about this later—I will be moving to have this House support a motion on the addition of purified recycled water to south-east Queensland’s dams. I acknowledge that the decision to utilise purified recycled water for drinking is a major step. I have heard the criticism by some members of the coalition that there should have been debate on the issue. As a result, I will move to have a debate on the floor of the parliament today. We are suffering through the worst drought on record and the addition of recycled water to our dams is part of the solution. It is clear that the vast majority of south-east Queenslanders support the decision to secure their water supplies not just for this critical period but for decades to come. Today’s debate will give all members a chance to finally put their position on the provision of purified recycled water on the public record. The people of Queensland deserve to know what the opposition believes when it comes to people drinking purified recycled water. The motion will canvass the government’s well-advanced plans for the provision of purified recycled water and the rollout of detailed public information to ensure south-east Queenslanders have all their questions answered.

Cyclone Larry Task Force, Transitional Arrangements Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 am): Yesterday I tabled the latest overview report from the head of the Cyclone Larry Operation Recovery Task Force, General Peter Cosgrove. In the report General Cosgrove recommended that the task force be dissolved on the anniversary of Cyclone Larry on 20 March 2007. The government has been working closely with General Cosgrove and his team to put in place transitional arrangements that ensure the ongoing recovery effort in the area. While the task force will disband, there will continue to be a strong network of support for people and communities affected by Cyclone Larry. They will not be abandoned; we will stick with them. All services from Emergency Services Queensland will continue and the regional director of the Far Northern Region will continue as chair of the Operation Recovery management group. That group’s activities will continue operating until June 2007 and the group will continue to meet at least monthly. The Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal aims to finalise and report on the disbursement of the appeal funds by 30 June 2007. The Building Coordination Centre, which has provided enormous support and assistance to the region in relation to rebuilding, will continue to operate until late 2007 when there will be further transition arrangements put in place with the Building Services Authority. Two independent insurance advisors currently provide an advisory service to members of the public. The advisors operate from the Building Coordination Centre in Innisfail. The current level of service, where two insurance advisors rotate fortnightly, will continue until the end of March 2007. From April 2007 there will be a one- week gap between changeovers and during that gap support will be provided from Brisbane. 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 487

There are a number of other things that we will be doing. I want to make certain people understand that our support will continue and I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The one stop shop at Innisfail will continue to function in its current form, with an increased focus on providing outreach services to the Babinda and Tully districts. The Tablelands One Stop Shop at Malanda will continue to be focused on providing outreach services to the Tablelands area with shop front opening hours gradually decreasing over time. I’m delighted to report that all major structural repairs to Government buildings are now complete with only minor tasks remaining outstanding. This is just a brief sketch of our transition arrangements but they clearly demonstrate a strong ongoing commitment to finishing the job we started and providing long term support to the communities devastated by Cyclone Larry. Provision of Infrastructure Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): There has been some debate about the provision of services in relation to infrastructure. I highlight to the House our long-term visionary plans about provision of infrastructure covering water in particular, transport and roads—major roads in particular where there is an enormous amount of work to be done—as well as public transport, health and energy. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. The Leader of the Opposition has led with his chin—again—highlighting the remarkable amount of work now underway in Queensland on infrastructure and services. Not only has he ridiculed the suggestion that we as a nation take the opportunity to investigate water plans which could secure water resources for generations of men and women on the land—he’s also ignoring the largest infrastructure plan in the nation’s history. The Queensland Government is currently implementing a massive plan which doesn’t just meet our State’s immediate needs—it is being built to provide for future generations of Queenslanders. Not just the 1500 new Queenslanders who join us each week—but for the needs of their children and grand children. We are building and planning to ensure that me meet current and future growth and maintain our enviable lifestyle. We are creating new hospitals and schools. We are building new roads and bridges—and improving public transport. The worst drought on record in Queensland’s South East has put enormous pressuring on our water resources—and we’ve responded with a far-reaching plan to secure water not just for our immediate needs but for the next half a century. We have outlined some of the major projects now being delivered across Queensland in the document ‘Building Tomorrow’s Queensland Today’—I advise the Leader of the Opposition to take the time just to peruse page 4 of the document. And of course I reported to this House just two weeks ago on the Achievements of my Government over 2006. I would commend it to members of the House as it details agency by agency the good work the Government is doing in providing services and support to Queenslanders. Let’s have a look at just some of what we’ve done and what we’re doing now: Infrastructure Water: • Paradise Dam including Eidsvold Weir • Awoonga Dam Raising • Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme—due for completion December 2008—$1.7 billion • South East Queensland (Gold Coast) Desalination Facility—due for completion November 2008—$1.12 billion • Southern Regional Water Pipeline—due for completion November 2008 • Northern SEQ pipeline interconnector—due to commence late 2008 for completion December 2008 • Eastern SEQ pipeline interconnector—due to commence late 2008 for completion December 2008 • Traveston Crossing Dam—to be developed in stages, with Stage 1 construction to commence 2008/09 for completion by December 2011 • Wyaralong Dam—construction to commence 2008/09 for completion by December 2011 • Hinze Dam Stage 3 raising—construction from 2008—December 2010 • Cedar Grove Weir—due for completion December 2007-02-21 • Bromelton Off-Stream Storage—construction to commence 2008 for completion December 2011 • State Water Grid linking the major catchments and centres between the Burdekin Falls Dam and Brisbane—a draft project brief has been prepared for consultation with other agencies and stakeholders. • Rookwood Weir and Raising of Eden Bann Weir—construction to be completed by 2011. • Burdekin to Moranbah Pipeline currently under construction worth around $300M with associated spur pipelines—the Eungella Eastern Spur Pipeline ($4M) is expected to be operational by April 2007. • Rockhampton—Gladstone Interconnector—work to size the pipeline and define the off-take point and pipeline corridor is continuing. • Rockhampton—Yeppoon Pipeline—construction of the Rockhampton to Capricorn Coast ($50m) pipeline has been approved and is being progressed by the Livingstone Shire Council. Detailed design work for the pipeline is to commence shortly. 488 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

• Water for Bowen—SunWater will progress Stage 2 of the Feasibility Assessment with detailed engineering design of the channel/pipeline and an Environmental Impact Study of the alignment. • Water for Proserpine—SunWater has prepared a scoping paper to determine water supply options for the Whitsunday area, should augmenting Peter Faust Dam be required. • Connors River Dam and Pipeline—SunWater has been engaged to undertake an analysis of the site and define the pipeline corridor to the northern Bowen Basin coalfields. • Nathan Dam—Construction is subject to obtaining Commonwealth approval under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. • Nullinga Dam—A feasibility study will be undertaken • Raising Kinchant Dam—SunWater is to investigate the feasibility of raising Kinchant Dam to increase yield from the storage. Roads and Transport Roads and transport infrastructure: • This financial year, Qld will spend a record $3.98 billion on transport infrastructure, including $1.98 billion on building Queensland roads. • That’s a boost to road spending by $727 million—or 58%—in just one year. • Our five year roads program is worth $11.55 billion, which equals $44.5million worth of road construction every week for five years. Major road projects: • Gateway Upgrade Project—$1.9 billion—Underway. Work includes bridge duplication and upgrade to 20km of motorway Biggest road transport project in Queensland history. Progressive opening mid 2007 to 2011. • Tugun Bypass $543 million—Underway and six months ahead of schedule. Federal Government paying $120 million, Queensland funding the rest. 7km Tugun Bypass link removing major bottleneck on Pacific Motorway • Centenary Highway $270 million—Underway. Extension of Centenary Highway to Ripley and Yamanto. Work will finish mid 2009 on the project which will help open up new areas to absorb population growth. • Sunshine Motorway $284 million—Upgrade to several sections underway. Includes: • Sunshine Motorway to Sippy Downs $60 million, • Mooloolaba to Maroochydore Road $35 million, • Sunshine Motorway to Pacific Paradise Interchange $85 million and • Maroochydore to David Low Way $104 million Major public transport projects: • Inner Northern Busway extension—$333 million—More than a quarter finished. Due to be completed by the end of 2008. Links existing inner northern busway to Queen St underground. It will save up to 20 minutes in peak hour and take 700 buses off existing roads every day. • Boggo Road Busway—$217million—Underway. This is a 1.5km public transport link from eastern suburbs to University of Queensland. Stage one started May 2006. Brought forward work on remaining sections to complete by end of 2009. • Eastern Busway—May have noticed that Minister for Transport released the preferred route for this 18km link between Buranda and Capalaba today. • Plus we’re building a rail line to Springfield, we’re putting new tracks on the Ipswich and Gold Coast lines and we developing a dedicated public transport corridor on the Gold Coast. Health • The Beattie Government continues to build a better public health system for Queenslanders through a $10 billion Health Action Plan. • The latest recruitment update shows we have increased our clinical workforce in public hospitals by a staggering 4,030 since June 2005. • We now employ 736 more doctors, 2,363 more nurses and 931 more allied health professionals than in June 2005. • This is translating to record numbers of patients treated and record amounts of surgery performed. • In December quarter 2006, public hospitals treated a record 482,000 people as inpatients or emergencies. • They also delivered 9,564 babies and provided outpatient services to more than two million people. • Our 13HEALTH hotline is also busier than ever taking more than 41,000 calls during the quarter. • Queensland Health staff are providing outstanding health services for Queenslanders every single day. • Every day across Queensland: • $17.81 million is spent on public health services; • 557 women are screened for breast cancer; • 1,420 people receive residential care in 21 aged care facilities; • 106 babies are born in acute public hospitals; • 25,816 non-admitted patient services, including emergency services, are provided in acute public hospitals; • 7,601 people receive admitted care in acute public hospitals including 1,029 people who receive same-day admitted care; • 2,221 adult dental appointments are administered; • 1701 child dental appointments are administered; • 714 school aged children have dental treatment; and • 10,546 hours of respite care are provided through respite centres or in people’s homes. 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 489

Energy: • Since 1998—$4.8 billion of new electricity generation capacity. Callide 2001 Swanbank 2002, Millmerran 2003, Tarong Nth 2003. • Qld NSW Interconnector. • Townsville Power Station and gas delivery project $500M. • Capital upgrades to Energex and Ergon distribution networks as a result of Somerville Report. Clean Coal Technology Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): The Queensland government is leading the way with clean coal technology investment. This investment is paving the way to ensure that Australian jobs and our strong economy are secure while showing leadership that is needed on climate change. To inform members, I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. One key development is the ZeroGen project which we have commenced in a partnership between Stanwell Corporation Limited and Shell. The ZeroGen project is an advanced feasibility study that is examining the technical and financial viability of using a coal based gasification plant integrated with carbon capture and storage to generate safe, reliable and environmentally responsible base load electricity with reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Stanwell has undertaken conceptual engineering of certain elements of the project and preliminary drilling work for the geo sequestration. The successful demonstration of clean coal technology will help preserve the value of Queensland’s extensive coal resources, sustain jobs in our regionally based coal industry and provide Queensland with a future source of reliable clean energy. The successful demonstration of the technology is also a Smart State initiative with the potential to significantly boost Australian exports of technical knowledge and expertise. Countries such as India and China have already expressed interest in the technology and its potential for reducing emissions. We are leading the world. Mr Speaker, the States and Territories also continue to lead the way on climate change and emissions trading. The Declaration on climate change signed by States and Territories at the Council for the Australian Federation meeting last week is a further demonstration of our resolve. The council meeting also identified the responsibility of Governments to invest in the prosperity of current and future generations of Australians, addressing the risks of climate change by significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A national emissions trading scheme will be important and the State and Territories have detailed the conditions upon which it should be designed. Of critical importance will be its ability to further stimulate investment in new low emissions technologies while at the same time protecting Australia’s energy intensive export industries. Having clean coal generation plants ready to roll when any emissions trading regime is up and running will be critical to ensuring we can enjoy sustainable economic growth and secure the future of our coal industry. Innovation Start-Up Scheme Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): Today I am announcing the recipients of the latest round of my government’s highly successful Innovation Start-Up Scheme. This program has provided a total of $5.2 million seed funding to 71 projects since it started in 2000. I congratulate Active Torque, River Logic, DelvTech International and CatchLog Trading Pty Ltd, all innovators from across Queensland who are joining a growing list of Smart State leaders. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. The Innovation Start-Up Scheme is an important investment in ideas, which is what the Smart State is all about—getting behind those ideas that are going to transform our industries and our economy. In this eighth funding round, the grants are $85,000 each and will greatly help our Smart State companies take their new technologies and services down the complex path of commercialisation. Active Torque, based in Brisbane, will use the funding to further develop its optimising engine performance system. The company’s flywheel torque sensor is the first product of its type and will allow its tuning technology to be retrofitted to existing vehicles. It could also increase fuel efficiency between 3 and 5%. The $85,000 grant will enable Bribie Island’s DelvTech International Pty Ltd continue testing its patented ‘First-Relief Inhaler’. This is a portable, lightweight and disposable device that enables the user to safely self-administer short-term pain relief. Then, from North Rockhampton, River Logic Pty Ltd has received the $85,000 grant to continue developing its “SNAPIT” device. This is a reusable unit that locks onto the top of glass ampoules, for example those containing intravenous drugs. The invention allows nurses to literally “snap off” the top without cutting their fingers, reducing the risk of contamination or waste. River Logic is onto a winner if the New Inventors program on the ABC is a gauge. SNAPIT won last week’s People’s Choice Award. The fourth grant winner is CatchLog Trading Pty Ltd, from Cairns. This company has developed a new electronic logbook which is tailor-made by and for the fishing industry. 490 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

Mr Speaker, the Queensland Government recognises that high-tech, innovative young firms are destined to bring great returns to our Smart State, and well into the future. The benefits are many, from developing intellectual property and earning export income, to developing solutions that improve our workplaces and our way of life. Equine Exports Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): Since 2004 Queenslanders earned approximately $13 million in equine exports with $9.1 million from Korea and $4 million from Japan. In the past three years the Queensland government and Austrade have played a pivotal role in generating this important export industry and opportunities. We have facilitated 17 trade delegations to the Magic Millions sales on the Gold Coast and worked hard to raise its international profile. This is an important new industry and I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. Queensland Trade has additionally promoted Magic Millions within Japan and Korea, which has helped attract buyers to Gold Coast sales held throughout the year. 15 Korean and 20 Japanese horse owners, trainers and buyers attended the Magic Millions Yearling Sale from 11-19 January this year. The Japanese buyers spent A$2.26 million on 12 horses. This is $447,500 more than spent by Japanese buyers at last year’s sales, and the highest Japanese sales figure to date. Korean buyers bought 10 thoroughbreds valued at $239,000. These thoroughbreds will be trained in Queensland for 9 months, adding another $120,000 in export earnings. The Queensland Government’s trade office in Korea also facilitated visits to the Magic Million sales in September and December 2006 which resulted in sales of $543,000 and $145,500 respectively. The increasing demand for our quality bloodstock and related services is testimony to the high regard in which Queensland’s equine industry is held internationally. Integrity and Accountability in Government Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): As I said yesterday, my government has set high standards when it comes to integrity and accountability and invested heavily to support an integrity framework to oversee Queensland’s public institutions. In line with this history of openness and accountability, I now table a document providing the 2005-06 estimated costs of the external integrity and accountability structures and measures. The document details almost $50 million expenditure for Queensland’s independent integrity bodies, including the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Queensland Audit Office. This compares with an estimated $42 million for these external activities in 2004-05. Tabled paper: Copy of report titled ‘Investment Accountability and Integrity in the Queensland Government’ dated February 2007 Of course there are other accountability measures we have introduced which cannot be quantified in dollar terms but which make the functions and activities of government more available and more accountable to the community. These include e-petitions which we have introduced to allow the public greater access to the petitioning process, regional sittings of parliament and our ongoing commitment to the community cabinet process. These initiatives all reinforce my government’s commitment to openness, integrity and honesty, and its dedication to fair, ethical, reasonable and appropriate decision making. Biodiesel Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): I want to highlight that biodiesel is now available in Brisbane. The climate change debate has generated a lot of interest in low-emission renewable fuels. Now, for the first time, Brisbane diesel owners have easy access to biodiesel, with a 20 per cent biodiesel blend available at the bowser. The 20 per cent biodiesel blend, marketed as Elite Diesel, is presently available at nine of Freedom Fuels’ 34 outlets—six in Brisbane and three in regional areas. It is another important incremental step in meeting the challenge of climate change and reducing emissions and I seek leave to incorporate the locations in Hansard for the information of members. Leave granted. Acacia Ridge—Learoyd Road, Acacia Ridge Brisbane Markets—Sherwood Road, Rocklea Markets Dalby—Drayton & Nicholson Streets, Dalby Goondiwindi—Marshall Street, Goondiwindi Granard Road—113 Granard Road, Rocklea Hattonvale—Warrego Highway, Hattonvale Inala—Rudd & Freeman Streets, Inala Rocklea—46 Sherwood Road, Rocklea Willawong—Sherbrooke Road, Willawong. 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 491

Service Delivery and Performance Commission Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): I am pleased to announce to my parliamentary colleagues that I wish to table the Service Delivery and Performance Commission’s major management review framework. This framework looks at how the commission will conduct performance management reviews across all departments over the next four years. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Copy of report titled ‘Performance Management Review Framework’ by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission dated February 2007 These reviews will form an important component in ensuring the government delivers services that are responsive to community needs and requirements by independently assessing the performance and services delivered by Queensland government departments and agencies. The reviews will improve the accountability of government and over time will ensure all government agencies establish effective performance and reporting processes that align with both government policy and community expectations. The first review using this framework is currently being finalised and will be considered by the Commissioners of the Service Delivery and Performance Commission on 5 March 2007. The areas examined in this first instance were the Department of Communities, Disability Services Queensland, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships formerly known as the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. The Framework can be obtained by accessing the Service Delivery and Performance Commission’s website. Mr Speaker, I commend the Framework to our colleagues and wish to highlight that government departments can commence immediately a self-assessment process utilising the Framework prior to being reviewed by Service Delivery and Performance Commission. The Chairman of the Service Delivery and Performance Commission has advised that three reviews of government agencies will commence prior to 30 June 2007 utilising the Framework with the balance of agencies being examined over the next four years.

Lewis, Mr W; Former Origin Greats Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): I am sure all members are pleased with reports this morning that it appears Wally Lewis is recovering well from his operation yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with him with for a full and speedy recovery. The ability of Wally on the football field is known by all Queenslanders but many people may not know that he is also a member of the Former Origin Greats, and I want to make special mention of this terrific organisation today. Former Origin Greats, or FOGS, is a non-profit organisation committed to helping Rugby League and other communities and charities throughout Queensland. They are a very important group and I seek leave to incorporate a tribute in Hansard. Leave granted. The Members are a very special group. They are the elite group of 160 players who have represented Queensland in State of Origin since its inception in 1980. Terry Mackenroth is the patron and the board is chaired by ‘Tosser’ Turner with Gene Miles as Executive Director, Secretary Alan Graham and directors Mal Meninga, Wally, Chris Close, Greg Oliphant, Trevor Gillmeister and Gavin Allen. I should mention last week that I was extremely proud to receive a framed picture of Queensland’s State of Origin heroes from the FOGS in recognition of our Governments support for rugby league. The FOGs do a great job and deserve a huge pat on the back for their charity work and support for the development of rugby league. The picture now takes pride of place in my office so interstate and international visitors can appreciate the quality of our Smart State sporting champions.

ABC Studios, Toowong Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.46 am): All of us know the value and the important role of an independent media in a democracy. All sides in this House know and understand the importance of prompt, accurate and balanced reporting—especially when it comes to the national broadcaster. Like many women in Queensland, I was alarmed when I heard that there had been 11 women detected with breast cancer since 1994 who have worked at the ABC Studios at Toowong, some these women shockingly young. It is an unusually high number and of great concern; naturally to those 11, but also to all of the other women who have worked at the studios and who are still with the ABC. It is also a deeply concerning matter for their families and friends. To put it bluntly, the federal government’s response to the health and safety of local ABC staff has been tardy, uncaring and verging on callousness. Despite the alarming number of cancer cases and the ongoing questions marks over the safety of the staff, the ABC will only pay for mammograms and initial screening. If staff need a biopsy or further treatment they have to pay for it themselves. 492 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

However, as members know, such was the ABC’s own view of the problem that it finally and belatedly chose in late December to evacuate its Toowong site. This was done without forewarning and obviously without any proper planning. Despite this being an ongoing issue there was no contingency. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Moggill, I would ask you to desist interjecting on this very important topic. Ms BLIGH: I note the interjections from the member for Moggill. I would have thought that this was something in which all sides of the House had an interest. I do not entirely blame local management but squarely lay the blame on its executives, its board, and, ultimately, the federal communications minister, Helen Coonan. The ABC is proudly independent, and so it should be, but it is funded by the taxpayer and has a minister who must accept responsibility. This issue is not about broadcasting independence; it is about the health of staff and their workplace. It does not get more fundamental than that. Many of us here have in recent times been dealing with the ABC staff in our roles as members of parliament on all sides of the House. Since their change of addresses—and I use the plural because they are now spread over many locations, including caravans—the staff have been under the most intense pressure. If they possibly can, they have been virtually asked to forget about the dark cloud of breast cancer and forced to work in substandard and unsafe conditions. I give one example, which is just one of many experiences that I have had over the past few weeks, and I am sure that people across the chamber could relate experiences of their own. One recent Saturday, ABC Radio sought my comment on an issue. I rang them to oblige. After four or five failed attempts on three separate phone numbers, I was able to contact the very distressed reporter, who apologised and said that she was sorry but she simply could not get the equipment in the premises to work. I know it must not be easy to relocate modern broadcast radio and television studios, but this has been going on for far too long. This week, a male staff member resigned after 17 years with the ABC, stating that he felt victimised for being the person who spoke up on behalf of his female colleagues. Just before Christmas, without warning the staff were told that they were to be shifted out, although they wanted some staff to remain in the building until the end of January. TV and radio journalists have been shifted to Channel 10. Their crews are at West End, several suburbs away. The ABC online staff are at QUT. Australian Story and Landline staff are based at the University of Queensland. The administration and library staff are at Milton and the news readers are in Sydney. Radio and TV staff have been told that they could be at Channel 10 for between six months and three years. The site is effectively a construction site. There are actually signs that state ‘danger: construction site’. Workmen are drilling and hammering. They get to wear earmuffs and hard hats, but not the ABC staff. I am advised that in December the camera operators were told that they were going to be at ABC Mount Coot-tha, but had no access to toilets. Management said to them that that was not a concern and told them that it is a big site and there are plenty of trees. Thankfully, that did not eventuate, but it reflects an unacceptable attitude. In January, a workplace health and safety report identified more than 100 issues. To the credit of local management they have begun to fix many of them, but it is not good enough. In our roles, each and every one of us works and deals with the ABC every day. For most Queenslanders, they are the voices or the faces that bring them news, information and entertainment. I would think that I speak for everybody when I say that it is a great credit to the professionalism of our local ABC staff that they have continued to bring us the news and their regular programs despite these very trying circumstances. However, we should not forget that behind those friendly smiles and voices are real people—great professionals—with a dark cloud hanging over them, and someone has to fix it. Today I call on the federal minister, Helen Coonan, to accept responsibility for this situation. I call on her to come and see the circumstances for herself and to put in place a clear plan to deal with it. As the Minister for Infrastructure, I can say to her that the Queensland government stands ready to work in partnership with the federal government to resolve the issues of location and to help find a suitable and safe location for ABC staff as soon as possible. Coal Exports Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.53 am): Today I am pleased to officially report that business is booming in Queensland’s coal industry. In 2005-06, sales revenue reached an all-time record of more than $17 billion, which is over $6 billion more than the previous year. Revenues were boosted by higher prices. This year the average price of coal increased by more than $44 a tonne, to over $125 a tonne. Total coal sales, including to the domestic market, reached almost 170 million tonnes. Metallurgical coals, which are used in the world’s iron and steel 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 493 industries, again dominated exports. Japan continued as our largest customer, taking more than 54 million tonnes for the year. Other significant customers included Korea, India, Europe, China, South America and Taiwan. In 2005-06, the state received more than $1.1 billion in royalties from the coal industry, which is around 80 per cent of the $1.45 billion in total royalties received. Those royalties help to build our schools and hospitals, they put police on the beat and teachers in our classrooms. As well as the royalties, the state receives rail freight charges and rentals on mining tenures. Jobs in the Queensland coal industry have also grown. At the end of June last year, more than 18,600 people were employed in the industry, which is around 2,800 more than last year. Coal exports are expected to grow even more this year, with seven new projects kicking off production. Last month, Rio Tinto and its joint venture partners committed to the immediate development of the $950 million Clermont coalmine. All this export and development activity has had a tremendous impact on our economy. The resources boom is a magnet for jobs and job security. To back this booming industry, the state government is investing $300 million through the Queensland Future Growth Fund on clean coal technology projects. By investing in our billion dollar coal industry, we are investing in the workers at the coal face. We are investing in their future. Contrary to recent interstate attacks, we are standing up for the Queensland coal industry.

Bikie Gangs Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (9.56 am): I applaud our police on their involvement in a major operation yesterday involving police from Queensland and New South Wales, the Australian Crime Commission and the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Those officers raided more than 50 homes in Tweed Heads, Byron Bay, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Logan, Ipswich and Redcliffe. Thirty-nine people were arrested for offences alleged to be part of a sophisticated amphetamine trafficking syndicate, and further arrests are expected. The alleged syndicate includes members and associates of the Gold Coast, Ipswich and Byron Bay chapters of the Nomads motorcycle gang. The raids were the culmination of an 18-month investigation. Queensland police are playing a vital role in detecting and shutting down illegal activities by outlaw motorcycle gangs. Last year, we made an election commitment to set up Queensland’s first outlaw motorcycle gang squad within our police service. We have provided $2 million to set up this squad and just this week I approved more than $300,000 to equip the squad with a fleet of 10 vehicles to further assist the officers in cracking down on those crimes and shutting down those gangs. An outlaw motorcycle gang is a group of motorcycle enthusiasts who have voluntarily made a commitment to band together and abide by their club’s rules, which are enforced by violence, and who engage in activities that bring them and their club into serious conflict with the public and the law. Last year, Queensland police conducted eight operations targeting outlaw motorcycle gangs. A total of 332 charges were laid as a result of those operations. Offences included attempted murder, extortion, robbery with violence, and possession of dangerous drugs, firearms and explosive devices, as well as deprivation of liberty and common assault. The outlaw motorcycle gangs like to portray themselves as ageing motorcycle enthusiasts who deliver soft toys to sick children in hospital. Last year, we even had the situation where former National Party member of parliament Alex Douglas and his Gold Coast City Councillor wife Susie Douglas saw nothing wrong with their teenage son and another 100 TSS students partying at an outlaw motorbike gang clubhouse. The former member of parliament was quoted as saying that the matter was just ‘storm in a teacup stuff’ and that he thought it was a good idea and was prepared to give people like bikies the benefit of the doubt. That is a shocking message to give to our young people. The truth is that those gangs contain dangerous criminals and they are subject to increasing targeted police operations in Queensland. The new outlaw motorcycle gang squad within the Police Service is coordinating the statewide management of intelligence holdings on the gangs to investigate incidents that involve gang members. The squad has been and will continue to work closely with the CMC, the Australian Crime Commission and the NSW Police Force. The Beattie government will continue to give our police the resources and the laws that they need to enable them to do their jobs. We still wait for the federal government to respond to Queensland’s request to change its telecommunications act to allow us to introduce the PIM to be part of telephone intercept powers. I call on the federal government to look at this example today and respond to this request. 494 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

Riverside Expressway Ramps Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (9.58 am): I am pleased to announce that speed restrictions on two key ramps of the Riverside Expressway are about to be lifted. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, can I ask you to stop for a moment. This morning, about three mobile phones have rung. I know you are all keen to get home tonight, so can I ask everyone to turn off their phones please. Mr LUCAS: I am pleased to announce that speed restrictions on two key ramps of the Riverside Expressway are about to be lifted. From next Monday, speed limits on the Ann and Alice Street ramps will return to 60 kilometres on hour, while the Elizabeth and Alice street structures will reopen to heavy vehicles. Load restrictions on the Ann Street ramp were lifted before Christmas. I reassure the House that at all times Main Roads has acted with safety as its number one priority. I have repeatedly stressed to Main Roads that safety was the primary concern and at each stage its actions must be prudent and cautious and keep the welfare of the travelling public at the fore. The Riverside Expressway was closed by Main Roads on 17 October last year to allow a team of expert engineers to thoroughly investigate a hairline crack on the Ann Street ramp which, along with the Alice Street ramp, had also developed rotation issues. Since then there have been many inspections, an exhaustive program of load testing and the installation of specialist instrumentation to accurately assess the structural integrity of the Riverside Expressway. Main Roads advises that, although the Ann and Alice Street ramps continue to rotate slightly in response to temperature variations between the bottom and top surfaces of the girders, they are safe and show no signs of deterioration. Main Roads engineers assure me that the Riverside Expressway can return to normal operation as it is structurally sound. Expert modelling and testing undertaken by Main Roads have been independently assessed and verified by Professor Peter Dux from the University of Queensland. Engineers are working on longer- term solutions and expect to provide details by the end of April. Monitoring equipment will remain in place for the time being. The member for Gregory asked a question on this yesterday. This will deal with most of those issues. Earlier there was a concern heavy vehicles may have accelerated wear and tear of the fingerplates at the joint where rotation was causing bearing separation. Inspections show the fingerplates are still performing well after 35 years. It is a simple maintenance task to replace the plates if necessary but the expectation is that it will not be needed for many years. The lifting of speed and load restrictions will require a temporary six-hour closure of the Alice and Ann Street ramps from 10 pm this Sunday. Road workers will apply new line markings to channel traffic and minimise any ongoing wear and tear of the fingerplates. Over the spans there will be a single lane. I want to assure the House that safety remains our first priority. I thank motorists for their patience and pay tribute to the professionalism and expertise of the Main Roads engineering team. I table the December and February reports. There is a slight deletion of two telephone numbers for privacy reasons. Tabled paper: Copies of reports on engineering evaluations of the Ann and Alice Street ramps of the Riverside Expressway dated 21 December 2006 and 19 February 2007. Multicultural Affairs Queensland, Community Relations Partnership Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (10.02 am): The state government, through Multicultural Affairs Queensland, is embarking on an exciting partnership with the Queensland Roar Football Club. Tonight I will join club officials in announcing a three-year partnership—Queensland Roars against Racism—which is aimed at fostering community harmony and dealing with racism and discrimination. I am sure all members agree that racism is abhorrent and should never be tolerated. Queensland Roar’s coach, Frank Farina, and the footballers, who are positive role models from diverse backgrounds, will work with MAQ to impart antiracism messages to fans, schoolchildren and the community in general. The message will be that we are all part of the one community and are all valued, irrespective of where we come from. The state government is committed to building a cohesive society that accepts and respects cultural diversity. Given the global insecurity as a result of terrorism, it is timely to send a message of acceptance and respect. What better way than via a partnership with one of the best teams in the Australian competition of the world game—perhaps the only sport truly representative of people from all corners of the globe. 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 495

This partnership is one of a range of state government projects that promote positive community relations and counter racism. Others include: the Queensland Multicultural Festival, which brings together people from all cultures to celebrate our differences and the things we share in common; the Premier’s Multicultural Photographic Awards, which encourages entries that reflect our diverse state; and Queensland government funding of $100,000 a year for three years to the Centre for Multicultural Pastoral Care to educate the community and research the issues associated with racism. Multicultural Affairs Queensland is working on a community relations plan to consolidate all this work and more to ensure Queensland remains a friendly and welcoming place for all. The Beattie government values the enormous contribution people from ethnic communities have made to our state and acknowledges that multiculturalism has benefits for all Queenslanders.

Business Investment Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.03 am): The Department of State Development continues to aggressively attract new investment in Queensland. I am pleased to report that Raytheon Australia, Ludowici and the Greenmountain Group have recently decided to establish headquarters or significant operations in our state. Last Thursday I went to Raytheon Australia’s avionics site at Amberley RAAF base to announce that the company, a global aviation technology provider for the Australian Defence Force, will set up its new national aerospace headquarters in Brisbane. Raytheon Australia’s Aerospace Centre of Excellence will be central to the management, development and growth of its aerospace programs across Australia. The company’s current aerospace work includes technology support for F18 aircrew flight training simulators near Newcastle and electronics support for F111s at Amberley. The investment, adding to Raytheon’s Queensland operations, including a logistics site at Murarrie, will bring new business opportunities and jobs to the Smart State. Another global company, Ludowici, has recently decided to relocate its corporate headquarters to Queensland. The Sydney based company designs, manufactures and markets mineral processing equipment for the global mining industry. Ludowici will base its head office at Pinkenba following the completion of a new $30 million manufacturing facility which will house four existing Brisbane plants under one roof. This will attract 21 executive jobs to Queensland. My department has also just announced the reopening of the Coominya Abattoir in the Esk Shire. One of Australia’s biggest veal traders, the Greenmountain Group has purchased and refurbished the abattoir which will reopen, I am advised, by early March. This is expected to create more than 250 new jobs over five years. The New South Wales based group chose the location ahead of sites in New South Wales and Victoria, with support and encouragement from the Department of State Development. The investment will benefit Queensland’s primary producers and boost export revenue for the state. Securing these big firms again proves that the Queensland government’s strategy to promote the state as Australia’s superior investment location is clearly working. Last financial year was the 10th consecutive year our economic growth has outstripped the rest of the nation. That is why this state remains the envy of all other states of the Commonwealth.

Queensland Ambulance Service, Student Paramedics Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.06 am): I am pleased to inform the House that 43 new Queensland Ambulance Service student paramedics will hit the road right around the state next week to begin their on-road training. The first-year student paramedics have completed the first block of class based tuition and will now undergo 10 months practical on-road training as they begin their careers in the field, going to the aid of Queenslanders. They will perform the role of second officers at their new stations, assisting qualified paramedics in the assessment and treatment of the patients. Over the coming months, they will experience the full range of tasks that a paramedic can expect to encounter from major trauma in motor vehicle accidents to delivering babies. On that note, I would like to congratulate Steve Zsombok, our QAS area director in Mackay, who recently delivered his own baby. I met the baby on the weekend. His wife and the baby are doing very well. The baby already has to have her hair combed. She has a real head of hair, as the member for Mackay has said. During their training period, student paramedics will be taught basic life support skills that include defibrillator usage and medication administration for conditions such as asthma and chest pain. At the end of their 10-month practical session the student paramedics will return to Brisbane for more theory before once again heading back to their home base for further on-the-job experience. 496 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

I would also like to thank our experienced paramedics for their mentoring skills and great patience and expertise in training our student paramedics. With the number of students paramedics we have in Queensland that role will continue for sometime. I want to reiterate that our experienced paramedics have been great mentors. I thank them for the great job they do. When they graduate the students will be qualified with a Diploma of Paramedical Science (Ambulance) and will return to their regions to begin their role as fully qualified paramedics, ensuring their communities continue to receive a first-class ambulance service. Members of the House will be aware that the group of 43 new student paramedics is part of a state government commitment to provide an additional 350 paramedics over four years, helping boost prehospital medical care throughout Queensland. Since being elected the Beattie government has more than doubled the QAS budget and we will continue to make sure they have the resources they need to care for all Queenslanders.

Homeless Persons Information Queensland Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services Queensland, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Seniors and Youth) (10.09 am): Last financial year this government made a substantial commitment to dealing with the issue of homelessness, allocating more than $235 million to our responding to homelessness package. As part of this package, $4 million was committed to establish and operate a call centre for homeless people. This free telephone service, called Homeless Persons Information Queensland, offers help to homeless people as well as vulnerable people at high risk of becoming homeless 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This service, which operates in south-east Queensland, is a real success story, with more than 5,000 callers receiving help and advice since it was launched. The number of calls each week has steadily increased, with the call centre now averaging about 200 inquiries a week. However, during the Christmas-new year period the service received 339 calls in early January, highlighting the need for this sort of accessible centralised service. Access to accommodation is of course a critical issue for callers—and for the Queensland government—but the information that people seek from this new telephone information service is not always just about accommodation. It might be that a person has a health issue, a financial crisis or a legal situation that is putting them at risk of becoming homeless. Those people can now be directed to support services that may stop them from becoming homeless in the first place. When callers contact Homeless Persons Information Queensland on 1800474753 they will also get practical advice such as where to get a shower, a hot meal and a bed for the night. I expect statewide coverage of this information service will be available by July this year. Having a central point of contact like this 1800 number will have many benefits for homeless people. In particular, they will not have to ring different organisations time after time to find a bed or a meal. Service providers will also be freed up to spend more time with clients. These figures show that the introduction of this service in Queensland is a great step forward in dealing with homelessness.

ICT Career Graduate Development Program Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.11 am): In today’s competitive job market, the Queensland government is actively encouraging IT graduates to pursue a successful career with the state government. Last year the Department of Public Works started promoting and recruiting for the new Queensland Government ICT Career Graduate Development Program. It is an ambitious cross- government initiative designed to recruit graduates for Queensland government careers in information and communication technology. The work based learning and development program sets out to manage the government’s demand for ICT skills in a fiercely competitive labour market. Last year’s recruitment campaign proved highly effective, attracting more than 500 applications for the first year of the program in 2007. This keen interest enabled us to open up the applicant pool to other Queensland government agencies recruiting for ICT positions. Today I am pleased to announce that 35 graduates have started work as the first intake in the new program. Across nine government agencies and the Brisbane City Council, the graduates have been placed in a range of ICT roles such as business analysis, enterprise architecture and network and server support. Mentoring and coaching have also been arranged. Among the agencies involved are the Queensland Government Chief Information Office, CITEC and the Department of Public Works. The graduates started their employment with a five-day induction program in early February. They have now begun a work based learning and development program featuring a range of professional development opportunities over the next two years. The first professional development session will take place in late February when I will meet with graduates at Parliament House to speak to them about parliamentary processes and the importance of ICT to the Queensland government. Applications have closed for this year but we are already looking at next year’s intake, with the Queensland Government Chief Information Office promoting the program at careers fairs and universities in March this year. 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 497

Illicit Drug Strategy, Ice Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.13 am): I rise to speak as acting health minister. The Beattie government is stepping up the fight against the illicit drug ice with a campaign targeting university students. There are claims that ice is now the second most commonly taken illegal drug after marijuana, with an estimated 73,000 users nationally. University orientation sessions get underway at some campuses this week and Queensland Health officers will be there to educate students about the high dangers associated with methamphetamines. Uni students are particularly vulnerable as 21 is the average age for first-time methamphetamine users. The danger is that occasional weekend use can rapidly turn to regular dependence with devastating impacts on the mind and body. Queensland Health is setting up ice information stalls at 16 university campuses around the state as part of our government’s ICE-Breaker Strategy. A range of resources will be provided to students including an ice information flyer, a brochure about amphetamines and other drug counselling information. Queensland Health will also link with university health and other services that are able to provide drug information and ongoing support to students on campus. Queensland Health is sending the following key messages about crystal methamphetamine: ice is made from a range of toxic industrial chemicals; ice can be powerfully addictive; it can trigger psychotic symptoms such as paranoia, bizarre beliefs and hallucinations; and ice impairs memory and concentration and can make you anxious, depressed, irritable or extremely aggressive. Queensland Health is also developing a statewide education campaign aimed at pubs and clubs and other licensed venues to warn people about the grave dangers of the drug. Phil Jamieson, the frontman of popular Australian band Grinspoon, has entered rehab for ice addiction. His courage and public honesty have sent a very serious warning about ice to young adults and also sends the message loudly: if you have an ice problem, seek help. Anyone who needs help with ice or any other drug can call the 24-hour Alcohol and Drug Information Service free-call number on 1800177833. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the minister for local government and planning, I again say that there is far too much audible conversation. I ask those of you who are talking to please desist because it is very hard to hear the speakers. Mer Island and Badu Island Councils, Financial Position Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (10.15 am): The financial position of Mer Island Council located in the Torres Strait has been a cause of concern for over 12 months. The Auditor-General has furnished me with a qualified audit for Mer Island for 2004-05 and a number of high-risk issues involving accountability and asset control were revealed. The state government through the department of local government and planning has for a long time provided advice and assistance to improve the governance and administration of island councils and indeed all local governments. After consultation, Mer Island Council has agreed that the appointment of a financial controller is in the community’s best interests. A financial controller with extensive qualifications has been appointed and is now working constructively with the council to, in the first instance, ensure that it adheres to a sound budget. The appointment is for a period of six months, with the provision for an extension. Attendant to the appointment of a financial controller, the council must negotiate a new performance development plan, implement a performance planning and review system and implement a set of governance performance targets. I am also advised that Badu Island Council is experiencing a critical cash flow situation. In fact, an authorised inspection of council records shows a council that is very close to financial collapse. Compounding the situation is the council’s poor documentation of its financial position. Badu Island is 40 kilometres north of Thursday Island and, like Mer Island, the local community requires accountable and sustainable government. Badu Island Council has recently approached the department seeking assistance in turning around its financial situation. The likely outcome will be the appointment there, too, of a financial controller to help Badu Island Council address such issues as debts owed to the Australian Taxation Office and the need for a sound 2006-07 budget. These actions will assist in providing for sustainable local government in both these communities. Cane Toads Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.17 am): Mr Speaker, as you know, a policy battle of heroic proportions has recently occurred in the state’s north. Opposing lines have been formed over the quintessential Queensland issue—cane toads. The member for Charters Towers began the debate. He proposed that Queensland cane toad numbers could be reduced by offering a 40c bounty on each toad. He said that children could earn extra pocket money by collecting the animals and delivering them for destruction. The federal members for Herbert and Kennedy support his policy. The member for Kennedy told the Townsville Bulletin— I am sure there is a lot of kids out there today with an entrepreneurial spirit who will get stuck into it. 498 Ministerial Statements 22 Feb 2007

We take a different view. Cane toads are poisonous. They secrete a toxic substance from the parotid glands in their neck. The risk is serious and my department recommends that people handling toads wear gloves and goggles. Indeed, a cousin of mine has been taken to hospital after getting cane toad poison in his eye. When I was a kid a dog of mine died after it ate a cane toad. So as members can see they are very dangerous. Yesterday the University of Queensland’s Professor Rob Capon made some decisive comments. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr WALLACE: A golf club is better! He said that a bounty could worsen the cane toad problem. Professor Capon said children would catch larger cane toads that usually prey upon smaller toads. The result would be that more toadlets are likely to survive. With an adult female able to lay up to 30,000 eggs in one sitting, we could be looking at a substantial increase in numbers. Mr Greg Calvert of Annandale told the Townsville Bulletin—

Removing cane toads a few at a time would be like emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon. The Beattie government is looking at real solutions to the cane toad problem, not nonsense. We are working with the University of Queensland by contributing $1 million to identify a toxin that will kill cane toads but not our native frogs. Indeed, it should not be a surprise to members that the member for Charters Towers has some unorthodox views. We all remember his brother, the former member for Burdekin, who wanted to paint the Burdekin Bridge pink. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I believe in playing the ball rather than the person as well, but I have not heard anything from the minister. The minister mentioned someone’s brother. Let us hear the minister. Mr WALLACE: Perhaps the members opposite did not hear it. The brother of the member for Charters Towers, the former member for Burdekin, wanted to paint the iconic silver link of the Burdekin Bridge pink. There is a possible explanation for the member for Charter Towers’ strange foray into cane toad eradication policy: he has not heeded the advice about wearing both goggles and gloves while handling toads.

Queensland Arts Industry Sector Development Plans 2007-2009

Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.20 am): Today is the start of a new era for artists and artworkers in our state with the release of a new blueprint for Queensland’s arts sector. This three-year blueprint will provide more professional and economic opportunities for the state’s established and emerging artists while at the same time ensuring that the sector is more sustainable and marketable both nationally and internationally. Now is an exciting time for the arts in Queensland, particularly following the government’s recent investment of more than $320 million in upgrading and expanding arts and cultural facilities throughout the state. We have a world-class arts and cultural precinct on the other side of the river with the Gallery of Modern Art and the refurbished State Library of Queensland. Now is the perfect time to establish new goals and actions to take the Queensland arts industry forward. The Queensland Arts Industry Sector Development Plans 2007-2009 are the result of extensive industry and community consultation across the state over the past two years. I will be releasing them today. The plans aim to capitalise on Queensland’s unique cultural strengths and characteristics by encouraging creative Queensland art that can be promoted to national and international audiences. We want to create a stronger and more viable arts sector, improve support for artists and artworkers, develop career paths for emerging artists, and strengthen regional arts. The plans clearly articulate the role of the government in the sector, refocusing on strengthening partnerships and collaborating within the sector to invest in the development of the arts as a true industry. Arts Queensland will focus more on brokering and building strategic alliances and networks to benefit the state’s established and emerging artists. The plans also include more flexible funding models and a new funding framework to assist the industry. I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the arts industry and community members during the consultation process for the plans. While we were unable to adopt every proposal put forward, I believe that these plans will ultimately provide a richer cultural experience for all of us by encouraging Queenslanders to tell their own stories through art. I look forward to seeing our arts industry continue to grow and flourish over the next three years under the guidance of this blueprint. 22 Feb 2007 Liquor (Restriction of Supply to Minors) Amendment Bill 499

NOTICE OF MOTION

Water Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.22 am): I give notice that the Premier will move— That this House— 1. recognises the current drought in south-east Queensland is the worst on record, with inflows into the Wivenhoe-Somerset dam system currently 20 per cent lower than the worst on record; 2. endorses the addition of purified recycled water into south-east Queensland’s water storages for industrial, domestic and agricultural consumption; 3. recognises that a large body of scientific research finds that purified recycled water is safe for human consumption as well as for use in industry, agriculture and food production; 4. acknowledges the expertise of the scientific panel assembled to advise the government on the use of purified recycled water, which has confirmed previous research into its safety; and 5. notes that purified recycled water has been used safely in many international cities for periods of up to 40 years.

MOTION

Moving of Motion and Time Limit of Speeches Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.23 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, the Premier be permitted to move at 11.30 am today the motion of which I have just given notice, with time limits for speeches and debates as follows— Premier—10 minutes; Leader of the Opposition, or nominee—10 minutes; All other members—five minutes; and Total debate time before question to be put—one hour. Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR (RESTRICTION OF SUPPLY TO MINORS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (10.24 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Liquor Act 1992 to increase the restriction on supply of liquor to minors. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (10.24 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Liquor (Restriction of Supply to Minors) Amendment Bill 2007 seeks to amend the Liquor Act 1992 by making it illegal for anyone except a ‘responsible adult’ to supply alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 in private residences. A fundamental tenet of this legislation is that the responsible adult must be present should alcohol be consumed. ‘Responsible adult’ is defined in the legislation as being an adult who is the minor’s parent, step-parent or guardian or who has parental rights and responsibilities for the minor. For a number of years at schoolies festivals it has become obvious to authorities that parents are stocking and restocking their young school leavers’ units with alcohol throughout the festivals and effectively relinquishing any responsibility. Although Queensland licensing laws restrict the sale of alcohol to people under 18, there are limited controls on supplying alcohol to minors following its purchase. While it is illegal to supply a minor with alcohol in a licensed premise or public place, there are no existing laws in Queensland relating to the supply of alcohol to minors in private residences, such as holiday units. 500 Questions Without Notice 22 Feb 2007

The lack of controls effectively enables third-party sales, or what the 2005 ministerial forum to discuss schoolies alcohol issues labelled ‘secondary supply’. Secondary supply is where adults, such as parents, older siblings and even strangers on the street, legally supply alcohol to underage teens, such as at teen parties. The 2005 forum suggested secondary supply of alcohol to minors from either an immediate relative or a friend’s parent accounted for 64 per cent of supply to minors. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have the rest of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I recognise that there needs to be a delicate balance struck. I support the rights of parents and guardians to make decisions on sensible alcohol consumption within their families, for example having a glass of wine at home to cautiously introduce a youngster to alcohol. However, schoolies and underage teen parties have caused a high level of concern in the community. Parties of this kind encourage teens to consume dangerously high levels of alcohol. This piece of legislation is similar to one that currently exists in New South Wales and has the support of the Australian Drug and Alcohol Foundation (QLD) and the Gold Coast Licensed Venues Association. The trends at Schoolies Week and the circumstances where teenagers attend parties with supplied alcohol is a concern to me as a parent. This piece of legislation is an important step to protect our youth from the dangers of excessive alcohol use. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Ms Keech, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT

Beattie Government Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.27 am): Again this morning we have seen the Beattie government’s policy of divert and distract continue unabated. Is it any wonder that the Premier has something to be ashamed and embarrassed about? He has brought everything in the arsenal to try to distract attention. This morning, the moving of a motion to debate recycled water was simply a distraction. We will get to that later. But the doozey of them all is the full-page advertisement in the Australian this morning. This is all that the Beattie government can do about building infrastructure: draw lines on maps. The government gets out a red felt pen and draws a line. How much did this ad cost? The government is trying to divert attention away from the dams that have not been built in south-east Queensland; it is trying to divert attention away from the pipelines that are behind schedule. This red line on a map, which depicts a line running 1,000 kilometres through semidesert, is complete nonsense and the government knows that it is nonsense. This is all about diverting attention. The real question is: what is the Premier trying to hide? The real question is: what is the government frightened of? What is the Premier so frightened of? What are the revelations that we know are coming and from which the Premier is so desperate to divert attention? This week the Premier has done pretty well in redefining the definition of ‘loan’. The Beattie government has a whole new definition of ‘loan’ in a whole range of circumstances. A loan is not a loan is not a loan when Peter Beattie makes the loan. The government has loans in all sorts of circumstances. There are many more revelations to come from that issue and from the string of court cases that we are not allowed to talk about. They are the issues that the Premier is desperately to divert attention from, but eventually they will be exposed. The Premier’s embarrassment and shame will be seen by all of Queensland.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Patel, Dr J; Compensation Mr SEENEY (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney-General to the Patel victim compensation scheme. In particular, I refer him to the case of Mrs Leean van Loon, a Patel victim who was left grievously injured and received as compensation only $5,200 from this government. I table a letter that we received from Mrs van Loon. Tabled paper: Correspondence from Leean Van Loon to the Member for Burnett dated 21 February 2007 It points out that last night she was contacted by her lawyers, Brisbane law firm Carter Capner, who warned and threatened that, because she spoke to her local member of parliament and went public with the amount of compensation she received, the government could take all moneys paid to her. Ms Bligh: What rubbish! Mr SEENEY: That was the threat that was made. Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, keep going with the question, please. 22 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 501

Mr SEENEY: That was the threat that was made. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Desist with the interjections. Leader of the Opposition, keep asking your questions, please. I am giving you the right to keep on asking your question. Mr SEENEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are very serious issues and I resent— Mr SPEAKER: Keep asking your question. Mr SEENEY: Does the Attorney-General think it is acceptable for victims of Dr Patel to be threatened in this manner? Does he think it is acceptable for victims to be threatened to keep the compensation amounts secret? Will he guarantee that no Patel victim will lose compensation by speaking out about any concerns they may have? Mr SHINE: Of course I believe that no person should be threatened under any circumstances and particularly as it relates to the Bundaberg Hospital issues— Mr Welford: Or by their own lawyers. Mr SHINE: Or, as the minister for education says, by their own lawyers. I do not know the truth or otherwise of those allegations. I have not seen the letter. These matters are matters of some confidence between the parties who are undertaking this process. I did hear Mrs van Loon apparently speaking on ABC Radio yesterday or the day before. As I understood it, in essence, this was a claimant who was dissatisfied with the amount that she agreed to accept under the special process and she was also concerned about the amount that her lawyer was to receive. All I can say is that nobody is forced to accept any settlement under the process. They have the alternative of proceeding according to the normal common law claims that exist. The process of course is, on balance, a generous one and has been well received. Around half the number of claimants have taken advantage of it. I believe from my experience that it is a most successful process and one that I commend. Not everyone can be entirely satisfied for a whole range of reasons. But I do believe that the process that has been adopted is achieving its design to provide the ability for people to receive early compensation, early settlement of their claim, if they choose to utilise it. Coppabella Mine Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. The Treasurer claimed yesterday that the $28 million provided to the Coppabella project was a loan to the company, even though the executive minute tabled by the Premier clearly shows that the loan was made to the department of state development, which then paid the money to the company as an ‘investment’. The only mention of payback in the minute was an infrastructure charge, which presumably means rail freights to Queensland Rail. If this $28 million was a loan to the company, why is it not being repaid as an annual capital and interest repayment rather than a tax deductible infrastructure user charge? Can the Treasurer confirm that this structure was deliberately designed to give the company an $8 million tax refund? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I can only repeat what I said yesterday. There was a financial arrangement reached with this company to ensure that the coal resource could in fact be exploited. That has brought many benefits to the Queensland taxpayer, including through royalties and through freight charges through Queensland Rail. I do not know what definition the opposition works off when it wants to talk about a loan. But in my experience and in my book, if somebody gives you money and you are required to pay it back with interest it is a loan. I do not know what else you would call it. I do not why the opposition continues to be confused about it. The company is paying back the $26 point whatever it was million with interest. When you get money and you pay it back with interest, and interest above the government concessional rate, that is a loan. That is how my mortgage works. I do not know how the member’s works. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seeney: Have you got a mortgage like this? Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you continue to defy my authority when I ask you to stop, which you have a habit of doing and I think you know that. When I ask for order I want order. Ms BLIGH: I understand from the question that the member is also confused about the repayments being made on these funds and any other charges that the company may be responsible for or liable for in terms of freight. Can I assure the House that the repayments being made on this financial arrangement, as with any other loan, are for the money that it was provided with. It is being repaid with interest and it is entirely separate—entirely separate—to any charges it might be paying to Queensland Rail as any other coal company does to carry its freight. 502 Questions Without Notice 22 Feb 2007

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Barron River, I welcome teachers and students from the Burpengary State School in the electorate of Kallangur, which is represented in this place by the Hon. Ken Hayward. Murray-Darling Basin Mr WETTENHALL: My question is to the Premier and Minister for Trade. Can the Premier explain to the House why he has taken out a full-page newspaper advertisement in today’s edition of the Australian? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Barron River. The answer is yes, I can—absolutely. We are at a turning point in our nation’s history. The decisions taken by the Commonwealth and state and territory leaders— Mr Nicholls: For the third time this week! Mr BEATTIE: What? Opposition members do not think meeting with the Prime Minister is important? He is their Liberal Prime Minister. If they think he is a joke, that is fine. I will tell the Prime Minister that tomorrow. If the Liberal Party thinks he is a joke, they join a lot of other people I have to say. But I will tell him they said that. The Liberal Party in Queensland laughed at their Prime Minister. I will tell the Prime Minister that tomorrow. We are at a turning point in our history. The decisions taken by the Commonwealth and state and territory leaders tomorrow and in the weeks to come will have a major impact on the lives of generations of Australians not just now but for generations to come. The livelihoods of farming families in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are potentially brought into question, including those significant communities and towns upon which they depend. The potential of huge swathes of underdeveloped regional Queensland is also in the balance. Climate change, as we know, and its immediate symptoms—the ongoing, ever-deepening drought on the east coast—create huge challenges to our way of life not just in terms of agriculture but for industry and families. That is why tomorrow’s meeting with the Prime Minister should be more than just an immediate fix for the Murray-Darling. It provides us with an opportunity to look at the wider picture. That is why the government has spent $25,000 today to call on Australians to raise their voices to ask the Prime Minister to make a real commitment to exploring large, long-term solutions to our nation’s water problems. We have put forward two options. The first would see waters from the rivers in Queensland’s north and west diverted to not only help local industry—in terms of jobs, primary industries, mining, you name it—but also recharge the Murray-Darling. This ambitious scheme, if proved feasible, would guarantee water for Queensland irrigators and allow us to open up new areas to industry and development. The second smaller-scale option, which has not received much attention—and this is one of the reasons we placed this advertisement—involves accessing water from rivers in the north of New South Wales to recharge the Murray-Darling system. This scheme, while presenting fewer engineering and economic challenges, would supply less water. We owe it to ourselves to explore all the possibilities. Water is becoming even more valuable as a resource. The success of these schemes would of course rely upon there being an economic return on the costs. Engineers tell me that the advances in their knowledge and technique may well overcome the engineering challenges which previously made these schemes unviable. Just as my government is committed to exploring the feasibility of moving water from the north to south-east Queensland, the Commonwealth must commit to investigating these schemes as a priority, and that was contained in my letter to the Prime Minister yesterday. I table a copy of this advertisement for the information of all members—an ‘Open letter to Australians’—because it is about time we had long-term solutions for Australia’s water needs. Tabled paper: Copy of an advertisement from page 5 of the 22 February 2007 edition of The Australian titled ‘Open letter to Australians’. Coppabella Mine Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier, who continues to claim that the $28 million provided to Coppabella was a loan and that repayments are being made. Are those repayments being made to the Queensland Treasury Corporation, which supplied the money, or to the department of state development, which made the so-called investment? In short, can the Deputy Premier tell this parliament how much money is being repaid and who it is being repaid to? The challenge to the Deputy Premier is to table in this parliament the schedule of repayments for the principal and interest of this $28 million loan? Mr Mickel: This is the bulk-biller. Ms BLIGH: Yes, the bulk-biller. I thank the member for the question. I think I outlined fully in my previous answer— Mr Horan: No! 22 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 503

Ms BLIGH: In my previous answer and in answers yesterday, I outlined fully my views in relation to the loan. In terms of whom the funds are being repaid to, it is my understanding that it is the department of state development but I am happy to double-check that for you. I sought advice yesterday and confirmed that the payments are up to date. The company has met all of the scheduled payments; its repayments are on time and on track and there is no concern about that. I am happy, however, to have the opportunity to advise the House further in relation to another matter associated with the question that was raised yesterday, and in this question in a peripheral way, by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to rail freight charges, and the member for Gregory may be interested to know this. Queensland Rail has now confirmed the following: no adjustments—no adjustments—occurred to the above rail freight rates for Coppabella Mine as a direct consequence of the Coppabella financial assistance arrangements in 2002. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the Leader of the Liberal Party. Ms BLIGH: Similarly, the below rail reference tariffs for access have not been affected because, as members would be aware, they were then and are still regulated by the Queensland Competition Authority. I table a copy of that letter. Tabled paper: Copy of correspondence from Mr Bob Scheuber, CEO of Queensland Rail, to Mr Bruce Wilson, Director General of Queensland Transport, regarding Macarthur Coal dated 22 February 2007. I will just try to explain this one more time. The shifting of the track to allow access to the coal is financed by the agreement that is the subject of the opposition’s questions. Those financial arrangements provided for the company to repay the government with interest, and that is occurring and those payments are meeting all of the scheduled time frames and requirements. The payments to actually take the coal on the track are being made in accordance with the regulatory requirements for the below rail requirements through the Queensland Competition Authority. In terms of above rail charges, there were no changes made to those charges in relation to this financial transaction.

Murray-Darling Basin Mr LEE: My question without notice is directed to the Premier and Minister for Trade. Could the Premier please inform the House what he hopes will be achieved at tomorrow’s meeting with the Prime Minister about the future of the Murray-Darling River system? Mr BEATTIE: We want an agreement with the Commonwealth tomorrow. Yesterday, I tabled in the House a joint approach put by the Premier of South Australia and me to the Prime Minister. I thank the member for Indooroopilly because I know he has an interest in sustainable issues, and that is what this is about: the sustainability of the Murray-Darling. I will attend tomorrow’s meeting with the same spirit of cooperation I took to the first meeting two weeks ago, but I will also be there with the same resolve to get Queensland its fair share. The Premier of South Australia and I have put a plan on the table that can resolve this impasse between the Commonwealth and the states. It is now a matter for the Prime Minister as to whether he is prepared to accept our proposal. My commitment to Queensland farmers and their water allocations remains. I will not walk away from our primary producers who are copping this drought worse than anyone. I rose in the House yesterday and detailed the joint position between Queensland and South Australia that we will take to the Prime Minister tomorrow. That position includes a number of conditions we are optimistic about the federal government agreeing to—we certainly hope so—firstly, a memorandum of understanding to settle the roles of the Commonwealth and the states if relevant powers for management of the Murray-Darling are referred to the Commonwealth; secondly, the establishment of a new independent Murray-Darling Basin Planning Authority; and, thirdly, a five-year review of the referral of powers and new legislative arrangements. It also includes the examination of the proposals I have canvassed—based on the broad terms of the Bradfield Scheme—to divert water from north-western Queensland rivers or rivers in New South Wales to recharge the Murray-Darling. I want to be clear about this. Our position is sensible. We are saying that Queensland and South Australia are prepared to refer or vest appropriate powers with the Commonwealth government. This will allow the integrated management of water across the Murray-Darling. We support the establishment of a new expert based body, the Murray-Darling Basin Planning Authority. What is wrong with having an expert based body to manage the Murray-Darling? We think it should have five full-time independent commissioners reporting to a federal minister. We support the Commonwealth appointing the chair of the authority, but the appointment of the remaining commissioners should be made jointly by the Commonwealth and the states. Decisions of the authority are to be by majority vote, and the Commonwealth water minister will have the casting vote but will have to explain his reasons to the parliament. We want the whole arrangement reviewed after five years. 504 Questions Without Notice 22 Feb 2007

In terms of some of the plans we have put forward about adding water, I want to table for the House some previous support for this from the National Party, including a 1981 National Party Water Resources Subcommittee and some comments from Mr Springborg in relation to these schemes. Those who have looked at this in the past know that it is worth considering. I table that information for the House. Tabled paper: Copies of an extract from Hansard dated 28 March 1995. Tabled paper: Report titled ‘The Revised Bradfield Scheme’ dated November 1981. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Open letter to Australians’. One matter that I would like to refer to in specific terms is the need for a review. What is wrong with establishing a new system to look after the Murray-Darling and having it reviewed within five years to make sure that it is working?

Employment of Offenders Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations. I note the media story that the minister has in his department’s employment a man who has been convicted of fraud and who is conducting safety inspections on workplaces in Queensland. Does the minister have any other individuals with criminal backgrounds working in investigations in his department? Mr MICKEL: Mr Speaker, you may be aware that an act called the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act was introduced to ensure that people who had been convicted of an offence could subsequently get a job as part of their rehabilitation back in the Public Service. There is a view around that people who have done the time—that is, have been in jail—should have that opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. That, I might say, was the view of both sides of politics because the act I am referring to is a 1986 act introduced by the Bjelke-Petersen government, of which the member for Beaudesert was a member and who presumably voted for it. The member for Maroochydore asked whether there would be other people working in the Public Service who would have been rehabilitated, and I imagine there would be. As to the specifics of what she asked, my director-general has advised me that he has suspended the individual because there are certain matters that we want to check in relation to his gaining of employment to see whether the employment of that individual was covered and captured under that act. Members would appreciate that we are seeking Crown law advice in relation to that matter, which I think is the correct procedure in this particular case. As to whether the Bjelke-Petersen government was right in 1986, I think that it is a held view that people deserve the chance to rehabilitate themselves. In 1999 I was approached as a newly elected member of parliament by somebody who had done time. They asked for my assistance in gaining employment. I could have held a judgement, I guess, that was pretty hard line on that guy, but I did not. I say to the honourable member that I made representations on behalf of that fellow and the last I heard was that he was making a wonderful contribution to this society. Whatever ill feelings I may have had in initially writing that letter on his behalf, I know that in many, many ways he has rehabilitated himself from what was a difficult background, to say the least. So, should individuals in our community be given a bit of a go after they have done their time? On the basis of the inquiry that I had earlier in my term as a backbencher, yes, I think they should.

Water Supply Mrs SCOTT: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Much has already been made of water today and this week in the House. Can the Deputy Premier detail examples of where those opposite have made pronouncements, accurate or otherwise, on this issue? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Woodridge for the question and for her ongoing interest in the provision of water, particularly here in the south-east corner and particularly as it affects her constituents. I was not surprised to hear the opposition moaning when the Premier and Leader of the House indicated that we would be having a debate on water. I was not surprised to hear their indications that debating water in this chamber is somehow a waste of time. It is no surprise to me that they do not want to debate water because, frankly, the evidence is that they know very little about it. Last week the Opposition Leader was in Bundaberg where he made the claim that SunWater did not put any profits back into Bundaberg. The Opposition Leader, unsurprisingly to many of us, is wrong on a number of counts. Firstly, in its first year the Paradise Dam made a loss due to asset writedowns. There was no dividend or profit being made out of the Paradise Dam. Secondly, since 2000 every single dollar of SunWater’s dividends have been reinvested in water projects—a total of $11.5 million. Every single dollar that SunWater gains from dividends from water infrastructure across the state goes back into water infrastructure. 22 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 505

Guess where some of that $11.5 million dividend has gone? It has not gone into one Bundaberg related piece of infrastructure, but into two projects in the Bundaberg region. The development of a new fishway on the Claude Wharton Weir in 2004-05 saw an expenditure of $2.5 million. An upgrade of the dam spillway at the Fred Haigh Dam saw $4 million allocated from the 2003-04 dividend. Of the $11.5 million that SunWater has gained in dividends since 2000, very close to half of it has gone into the Bundaberg region. The Opposition Leader was wrong, wrong, wrong. Members might like to think about that when they listen to him in the debate later on today. The Leader of the Opposition is not the only person who has water infrastructure wrong. I note with amusement the recent release from the Leader of the Liberal Party in relation to the Brisbane City Council’s Oxley Treatment Plant that will take water into the recycling pipeline. That plant is a great credit to the Brisbane City Council. The Leader of the Liberal Party claims that somehow the state government should have had its pipeline ready to use that water and that the councils of south-east Queensland had the foresight years ago to plan it. I think it is useful to remind the House that in fact until August last year, when this House passed the water regulation, the western corridor recycled pipeline was a project of the south-east Queensland councils being done through SEQ Water. The state government does have a shareholding in SEQ, but it is by far a minority shareholder. The acceleration and funding of this pipeline came about because the state government took it over from the councils of south-east Queensland. We did that, with their agreement, because we have the power under our legislation to accelerate the approvals process, to acquire the easements and to get the project happening as quickly as possible. I remind the member for Moggill of the facts. Ambulance Officer Hours Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) Last year, wives of Hervey Bay ambulance officers wrote to the minister about serious fatigue problems caused by his government’s roster system which forces their husbands and partners to work 12 hours, drive ambulances home, be on call for 12 hours, and then front up for another 12-hour shift after that and doing this for four consecutive days. Why does the minister continue to ignore this serious issue which is putting hardworking ambulance officers and their families under enormous stress? Is it not time that the minister and the Premier called on their mate, the ALP state secretary, Ron Monaghan, to step down as union boss for ambulance officers? As more and more ambos keep telling me, with brother Monaghan Labor politics come first and ambulance officers and the people of Queensland come a long second? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for the question. Since I have been the minister, and before that time, the Ambulance Service has been in a period of reorganisation in relation to hours of work by ambulance officers. The hours that they worked were 10-14. Those working hours meant that an officer does a 14-hour shift in their rotation shift. The Ambulance Service, along with the department and the government, saw 14-hour shifts as too long. The member himself made comment at one stage that he would not like to be transported by an ambulance officer at the end of his 14-hour shift because that could mean a shift of up to 16 hours. We are changing the working hours not only for the wellbeing, health and safety of ambulance officers—as the minister, my first consideration is their welfare—but also for our patients. It is not desirable to have people working 14 hours a day. It is not desirable because at the end of an officer’s shift he could get another call where he is required to continue to work until he is finished with that patient. When I became the minister I undertook many visits to ambulance stations around Queensland and in the metropolitan area where it is very busy. I know the officers like to have their four days off with their 10-14. That was a given. I think that if one can work four days and have four days off, it is not a bad life. But they agreed when I sat down and talked to them that the 14-hour shifts were killers and were not good for them, their family life or patients. We are in a period of roster reform. We have not finished the roster reform at this point in time. There are parts of Queensland where officers are still working 12 hours. There are parts of Queensland where they are still doing 10-14s. Every time a shift is changed from those longer hours, as members would realise, we need to put more people on. We are training paramedics at the moment. As I said this morning, another 43 will hit the road next week to help take up the slack in those rosters so that we can ease the burden on the roster system. I have spoken to the commissioner about the very point that the member has brought up. I do get out into the bush. Some have said that I am out there on self-promotion, but I am out there like a lot of— Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Mansfield, I welcome in the public gallery today teachers and students from the Hillcrest Christian College. The college is in the electorate of Mudgeeraba, which is represented in this House by Ms Diane Reilly. I also welcome to the public gallery the teachers and students from the St Thomas More Primary School, which is in the electorate of Noosa, represented in this House by Mr Glen Elmes. 506 Questions Without Notice 22 Feb 2007

Coppabella Mine Mr REEVES: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, and I ask: can the Premier tell the House when work first began on the APC proposal for the Coppabella Mine? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question. Yesterday I indicated that the signing of the deeds of arrangements on 23 October 2002 was simply a formality at the end of long and comprehensive approval processes. I indicated that on 22 November 2001 the then minister for state development approved proposed funding arrangements as the basis for commercial negotiations between the department of state development and Australian Premium Coals Pty Ltd. However, further detailed analysis reveals a time line that stretches even further back beyond this date. In fact, initial correspondence with APC on this matter dates back as far as July 2000. The time lines are clear and so are the facts on the loan arrangement. Tonnes of saleable coal would not have been available if the transport infrastructure corridor was not relocated. What did the relocation of the corridor mean and why was it done? It allowed the coal reserves to be mined, and it was estimated that that would result in the generation of additional coal royalties and rail, freight and port charges in the order of $150 million in 2002. That is not a bad return. It was estimated that the project would create 45 jobs during the construction period and 180 full-time equivalent operational jobs for five years. It was not bad for jobs either. In relation to interest rates, it should be noted that the original interest rate applicable to the financial arrangements between the state and APC was 6.248 per cent. The Queensland Treasury Corporation rate at the time was 6.096 per cent. Therefore, it was higher than the QTC rate. It should also be noted that the APC was required to bear bank guarantee costs of up to one per cent. The interest rate was renegotiated in November 2004. The rate applied at that point was 5.85 per cent. The QTC rate at the same time was 5.698 per cent. Bank guarantee costs continued to apply. We have been clear about this. APC have paid rates higher than QTC rates. This is what any government with half a brain anywhere in the world would have done. In terms of considerations elsewhere, I say that the matters relating to Coppabella have been examined in detail by the appropriate authorities. As far as I understand it, they no longer have any interest in it. In terms of matters being pursued elsewhere, this matter was examined and subsequently matters were pursued elsewhere. If these matters were relevant to any issue to be pursued elsewhere, they would have been included in those charges, but they were not. Let us be clear: clearly the investigating authority, the CMC, has no particular interest in this matter any longer. Let us not have any more nonsense about this issue. It was an honest and clear deal, it was done on commercial grounds, it created jobs, it produces royalties and, frankly, it was the right thing to do and any government would and should have done it.

Wondai Health Service Mrs PRATT: My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Health, and I will not be surprised if she does not know the answer to this question. The new facility of the Wondai Health Service was supposed to be opened late last year. However, the facility’s new kitchen has been built over a known spring. What measures are being put in place to control the water flow? How much has this mistake cost the government? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for the question. I really wish I did know the answer, but she is quite right; I do not. Of course, we will get that answer to her as soon as we are able. Nonetheless, while I am on my feet as Acting Minister for Health, I will alert members to some good news, particularly for those members who represent country electorates in Queensland. Over many years, from time to time rural communities face difficulties in recruiting doctors, particularly GPs but also specialists, to their local hospitals. Therefore, I draw to the attention of the House a very fine initiative of the Australian College of Royal and Remote Medicine. The college has had its special training and education program formally recognised by the Australian Medical Council. This provides a new stream of training for doctors, specifically aimed at promoting rural practice. This is a major breakthrough. Since time immemorial, country areas of Queensland and other states have had difficulty recruiting doctors. Therefore, having a specific program that gives doctors training in the kinds of skills that are needed for practising medicine in rural areas is very welcome indeed. The James Cook University School of Medicine focuses on rural and remote medicine as well as tropical and indigenous medicine. The college makes the point that doctors who are willing to either serve for a period or live more permanently in rural areas need to be a jack or jill of all trades. Given that they work with little backup, they require a wide range of skills. 22 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 507

I compliment the mayors of the central west. Last night I met with Mayor Rob Chandler, who told me how a group of councils of the central west, including his own, have recognised that the provision of good health services in country areas is a matter for councils to consider. Therefore, those councils have been meeting to formulate a plan to attract more doctors to their areas, through the creation of a group practice that will serve a broader area. Rather than having individual small communities competing against each other, they are promoting the idea of the broader region working together towards ensuring greater stability in medical practice and a greater supply of medical practitioners in rural areas. Energex and Ergon Mr MOORHEAD: My question is directed to the Minister for Mines and Energy. I have received a number of queries from constituents about the sale of the retail arms of Energex. Could the minister advise the House what the sale of the retail arms of both Energex and Ergon will mean for ordinary everyday Queenslanders? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. During Tuesday’s proceedings in this place, the Deputy Premier and Treasurer presented an extensive report on the latest sale of the retail assets within the electricity sector in Queensland—that is, of Powerdirect to AGL. That completes a tranche of sales involving the energy retailers, principally Sun Retail and Powerdirect, and a number of related retailers in the industry. As a result of that sale, Origin Energy now owns Sun Retail and AGL owns Powerdirect. Despite those sales, it will be business as usual. Energex and Ergon do not exercise any retail sales within the contestable area, but their core focus will remain the distribution system in Queensland. There will be a period of transition of six to 12 months, but Origin Energy and AGL, the new owners of the retail arms, will issue bills to customers. Sun Retail will cover the Brisbane River down to the Tweed, and Powerdirect will cover the Brisbane River up to Gympie. There will be some changes with the bills that people receive, but all of the presently applying arrangements will continue. In particular, the uniform tariff will continue for all electricity consumers who were on the uniform tariff before the sales took place. The same payment arrangements will apply, the community ambulance levy will apply and the facility for making payments in relation to the Energex helicopter will continue to apply. In conjunction with the retail asset sales, full retail competition will commence on 1 July. That process is happening in parallel with the asset sales. From that point, all small businesses and residential consumers—that is, those who use less than 100 megawatts, which is about $15,000 a year—will have the opportunity to purchase cheaper power in Queensland if they are given a contract where they can make savings, but they do not have to shift from the uniform tariff if they do not wish to. I make it clear that all of Ergon’s regional and remote consumers will continue to be on the uniform tariff. There will be no change for them. Bundaberg Hospital Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the honourable Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I refer to the minister’s answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s second question this morning, and I ask: is his government so ashamed of the paltry payment to the victims of the Bundaberg Hospital scandal that he gags them from making comment about how bad these settlements really are? Is he not ashamed that these minimal payments are the same amount that has been paid to lawyers handling these matters? Mr SHINE: In answer to the earlier question I referred to the fact that a Mrs van Loon had made a statement on ABC Radio. I was incorrect; it was Mrs Hillier. I intended to make a statement shortly to correct the record in that regard. The facts in relation to the van Loon matter that I outlined earlier are correct. The special process here is the same as that which would apply in any mediation settlement program that operates in association with claims of a similar nature. There is no attempt by the government to gag anyone. The normal restriction on entering into such a series of negotiations is for confidentiality to apply. There is nothing unusual or untoward about that. In terms of being ashamed of any aspect of the special process that was set up by my predecessor, I say I am not. I wholeheartedly endorse it. It is fair and it is working. Mr Messenger: Patients continue to die. Mr SHINE: It is impossible for everyone to be totally happy with the outcome. Sometimes what they are complaining of and seeking compensation for may relate to pre-existing conditions, for example. It is hard for people to accept that they cannot receive compensation from this process for something that may have been an existing medical condition. There are numerous variations in terms of the 300-odd claims that have been lodged. Mr Messenger interjected. 508 Questions Without Notice 22 Feb 2007

Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Burnett under standing order 253. Mr SHINE: One of the documents tabled the other night by the member for Burnett indicated that there was an invitation to be conveyed to me to attend a meeting in Bundaberg organised by Mr Fleming at 7 pm on 12 March. To the best of my knowledge, he has not conveyed that invitation to me other than by way of tabling it in the parliament. Nevertheless, I am happy to attend that meeting. I also inform the House that I am attending a meeting to be organised by Ms Beryl Crosby of the Bundaberg Hospital Patients Support Group, whom I met in parliament yesterday, at 5 o’clock on that afternoon. So I will be in Bundaberg on 12 March. I hope that invitation was meant to be conveyed to me by the member for Burnett. Mr Schwarten: He didn’t do it. Mr SHINE: He did not do it. Nevertheless, I will be there, and I will be available to listen in person to these people. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Burleigh, can I welcome a further group of teachers and students from the St Thomas More Primary School in the electorate of Noosa represented in this House by Mr Glen Elmes. Water Police Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. The summer holidays are a popular time for boat owners to get out and enjoy Queensland’s waterways of which there are many on the Gold Coast. Was there an increased water police presence during this time? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Burleigh for the question. As usual, the police had a blitz on the waterways during the summer holiday period. I regret to inform the House today that the results were not very good. In fact, during December and January Water Police intercepted a total of 5,874 vessels. The single biggest offence detected was boaties failing to carry the right safety equipment. Some 1,340 infringement notices were issued to boaties, many for not having the prescribed safety equipment. This means they failed to take suitable personal floatation devices or commercial standard life jackets, they did not have EPIRBs and flares on board, nor did they teach passengers how to use them. Some of these boaties neglected to have essential equipment such as radios, navigation lights and engines in good working order. This is simple stuff. These are straightforward precautions. I think it is shocking that so many boaties have not woken up to the message that they will be fined $150 if they are caught without this essential safety equipment but, more importantly, they are putting their own lives and the lives of their passengers at risk. It is more disappointing when we consider that we have had a very big campaign on this. Maritime Safety Queensland has had a very big advertising campaign and we have had this extra Water Police presence out there warning boaties that they will be caught. After the safety issue the next biggest issue was speeding, with 228 infringement notices issued to boaties for speeding. Like last year, the Gold Coast remains the favourite spot for jet ski hoons. Some 125 infringement notices were issued to people for inappropriate jet ski activity, and 119 of these were on the Gold Coast. Fortunately, the message does seem to be getting out about alcohol because only 13 recreational skippers and four commercial skippers were charged with drink driving related offences. While we should be aiming at no alcohol related driving offences, I do want to thank the boaties at least for being very responsible about drinking alcohol on the water. I urge them to show the same level of responsibility when it comes to having appropriate safety equipment on board their vessels. Racing Industry Mr HOBBS: I have a question for the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport. I refer to the massive vote of support by members of the Brisbane Turf Club condemning the sale of the Doomben racecourse. They voted overwhelmingly not to merge while the threat of the sale remained. I also refer to a Courier-Mail article of 24 November 2006 which suggested that, if the Brisbane Turf Club members voted not to merge, Queensland Racing would not allocate any race dates to that course. Will the minister respect the wishes of the Brisbane Turf Club members to retain their race track and not support Queensland Racing to cut their race dates? Will the minister also be proactive and explore other avenues of funding to upgrade facilities for Doomben and Eagle Farm—after all, your government did that for Lang Park. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the minister, I would remind the member for Warrego that these are questions, not essays. Mr FRASER: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. It is important that the government’s position on the future of the racing industry, in particular in south-east Queensland, is reinforced and made clear again today for the benefit of all members of the House. As I said during the 22 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 509 last sitting of the parliament and as I have said repeatedly, the government supports the proposal currently before the members of the Brisbane Turf Club and the Queensland Turf Club to consider being part of a merged entity. The reality for the racing industry in this state is that it is part of a national and international industry that is increasingly competitive and that increasingly relies upon having facilities of a world- class standard. The government’s position on this has been clear from the start, and that is that we see merit in the merger of the two clubs. Providing for a merger for these two clubs is the first step on the path to prosperity and actually being able as an industry to position itself to take advantage of the challenges that lie before it. The matter of the sale of Doomben is very clear. Doomben is owned by the members of the Brisbane Turf Club. The matter of whether the two clubs merge is a matter for the members of both the Queensland Turf Club and the Brisbane Turf Club. The future of the sale of either Eagle Farm or the Brisbane Turf Club is in fact a matter for those members. The member for Warrego would be acutely aware that the land ownership of those two clubs remains vested in those club memberships. The position has been clear from the start that those clubs are owned by the members and they have the decision about what to do with that land. My position as the racing minister has been very clear on this from the start, and that is that I see great advantage in a proposal to merge the two clubs so that that merged entity can make decisions that it needs to make about the future of the racing industry. Mr Hobbs: They’re prepared to merge; it’s funding! Mr FRASER: I note in particular that much was made at the start of the year about the members opposite forming a new one-coalition, one-team, one-strategy approach. I would have thought that within that one-team, one-strategy approach someone might have come up with the idea of having one policy. What is interesting is that on the day that the announcement was made about proceeding down this path we had not one but two press releases from the shadow minister for racing— Mr Hobbs: What about funding? Mr FRASER:—the first one decrying the end of the world and the second one coming out some hours later with a very different set of arrangements proposing why it was in fact that the one team, one strategy had two different positions on the sale of Doomben— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr FRASER: The point I want to make here is a very clear one: the time for sober decisions and clear, level-headed decisions in the racing industry is right now. The racing industry is facing a particularly critical juncture in its future. What we need to do as an industry and as a government is make sure that the industry is best placed to meet those challenges, and that future includes a merged club in Brisbane. Disability Services, Federal Funding Ms STRUTHERS: My question without notice is directed to the minister for disability services. Can the minister inform the House about the current state of negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on a new five-year funding deal for disability services? Mr PITT: I thank the member for her question and also thank her for the genuine and active interest she takes in this important part of my portfolio. Negotiations for the new Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement, known as CSTDA, started earlier this month when officials from various governments across Australia met in Adelaide. At this meeting representatives of the federal government outlined the Commonwealth’s offer for the new agreement, which would take effect on 1 July this year. To everyone’s great dismay and disappointment, the states and territories were told by the federal government that its offer will have no new funding for the next five years. That means that there is no new money to meet Queensland’s well-documented population growth and no new money to address the unmet need for disability services across this state. Since 2002-03 Disability Services Queensland has provided support for an extra 4,300 people with a disability due mostly, I must say, to substantial increases from the state government. Disability Services Queensland currently helps more than 18,000 people—a number that would be substantially higher if the federal government faced up to its responsibilities and met its obligations. Just putting that contribution into perspective, when the current CSTDA started in 2002, the Queensland government’s contribution was $238 million while the federal government supplied $102 million. In the past five years Queensland’s funding has virtually doubled to $467 million while the federal government’s contribution rose a measly 16 per cent to $118 million. If we put this shortfall into perspective, the federal government’s commitment to disability services in Queensland five years ago represented 30 per cent 510 Questions Without Notice 22 Feb 2007 of the total funds available, yet in 2006-07 the federal government’s contribution has dwindled away and now only represents an estimated 20 per cent of the total. At a minimum the Commonwealth needs to contribute a further $72 million just to restore its funding to the 2002-03 share. The Commonwealth has refused to change its method of calculating the annual rate of indexation applied to funding. This is in spite of a federal Senate committee report which strongly recommended changes to the indexation formula because it was based on flawed assumptions—conveniently ignored by the current minister. It has relied very heavily on the Productivity Commission report, which equates disability workers with workers in mines and other manufacturing areas—that is, in those areas productivity gains can be made through IT. Unfortunately, of course, disability services is very much a person-to-person arrangement and there cannot be those sorts of gains. The 1.8 per cent is far short of the three per cent this state offers in indexation— Time expired. Pinkenba Waste Transfer Station Mr NICHOLLS: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads—and Airport Link. I refer to the Pinkenba waste transfer station located on land owned by Queensland Rail at Pinkenba. I have now written to the minister on behalf of Pinkenba residents about the activities on this site on four separate occasions—7 November 2006, 18 December 2006, 11 January 2007 and 9 February 2007—and I have still not received a substantive response. The tenant of the land is now to be prosecuted by the Brisbane City Council for breaches of the Integrated Planning Act. Why has the minister done nothing about the illegal activity occurring on this site? When can the residents of Pinkenba expect the minister’s support? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. As a former Brisbane city councillor, I know that he would be aware that in the vast majority of cases land use issues are within the control of the Brisbane City Council. I know this because there is a situation in Hemmant in my electorate where there is a person who is occupying land who in my opinion is breaking the law and is currently being dealt with through those procedures. I would love it if that were expedited. The honourable member would well know that if one breaches town planning laws one is prosecuted by the council. I will ask my department to look further into the matter. If someone has broken the law and is found to have done so and the lease then allows repercussions to take place as a result of that, I will ask it to examine the alternatives in relation to that lease. I believe that people should be good corporate citizens, and that is important. When we are leasing property to people, we should ensure that they abide by the terms of their lease and would hope that they abide by the law. But I will say this though: we are not the arbiter at a state level of town planning law. That is a matter that is within the province of the Brisbane City Council. I say to the member that if that action is undertaken then we will have a look at it in that context. If the member opposite wants the state government to be the town planning body, we might as well not have the Brisbane City Council and his political pedigree would be a lot shorter than what it otherwise is. Comcare Mrs LAVARCH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations. The Commonwealth government has made it easier for employers to self-insure through Comcare. Given that the Commonwealth government has recently announced plans to remove journey claims from the Comcare scheme, what impact will this have on Queensland workers? Mr MICKEL: The honourable member would be aware that WorkCover in Queensland is one of the best schemes in Australia. It is very good for employers because it is low cost but is excellent if you are an employee who is injured. One of the great differences in our scheme is that, if you are on your way to work and you get injured, you will be covered under WorkCover. This will not be the case with Comcare in the future. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr MICKEL: I hear the member for Gregory interjecting. Let me give him one that may impact on his electorate and the electorates in country Queensland. Imagine if you are one of these people working in country Queensland and your car hits a kangaroo. Under the federal scheme you will not be covered in the future. You are not covered; you just become an injured worker who would be forced onto a disability pension. That is what is wicked about the Comcare scheme, and the member for Gregory of all people should not be interjecting on it. He should be getting down there to Joe Hockey and making sure that the Comcare scheme under the federal government has the same journey claims as is offered in Queensland. I can tell members this: I intend and this government intends to make this an election issue in the lead-up to the federal election. Those opposite should go out and tell the people in their electorates that if the federal Howard government gets returned then Comcare will be the system used in all states, 22 Feb 2007 Motion 511 because the High Court decision allows that sort of intrusion. There is every hope that we can at least roll the federal government back. The last Prime Minister who interfered in industrial relations was Stanley Melbourne Bruce, and he went on to lose his own electorate! I have great news for the lot of you: there was a poll the other day in the Prime Minister’s seat of Bennelong and what did it say? The PM would lose his seat. Be under no illusions: there is white hot anger out there— Mr Rickuss: I’ll run the book! Mr MICKEL: And you of all people! He nearly lost his seat last time! We will be down there at Greenbank to tell them that he is interjecting to stop journey claims for working families in his own electorate. I will be out there making sure that the people in that area know about that. As a matter of fact, I will scoot down there tomorrow and make sure that they are aware of it. I will take time out of my busy schedule. This is absolutely essential. I urge all members of the Labor Party and the Independents who represent these sorts of people to get out there and campaign against Joe Hockey and the federal government and bring back decency when it comes to journey claims for workers. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That completes question time.

MOTION

Water Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.30 am): I move the following motion that the Leader of the House gave notice of earlier today— That this House— 1. recognises the current drought in south-east Queensland is the worst on record, with inflows into the Wivenhoe-Somerset dam system currently 20 per cent lower than the worst on record; 2. endorses the addition of purified recycled water into south-east Queensland’s water storages for industrial, domestic and agricultural consumption; 3. recognises that a large body of scientific research finds that purified recycled water is safe for human consumption as well as for use in industry, agriculture and food production; 4. acknowledges the expertise of the scientific panel assembled to advise the government on the use of purified recycled water, which has confirmed previous research into its safety; and 5. notes that purified recycled water has been used safely in many international cities for periods of up to 40 years. We are faced with the worst drought on record. We are experiencing warmer winters, hotter summers and our water supply is under threat. Understanding the water cycle and managing water consumption are the keys to managing our water resources. When we look at these changed weather patterns and when we look at what is happening with climate change, we do not need to be rocket scientists to know that we need to use recycled water for drinking. These weather patterns make it absolutely clear that climate change is occurring. We have to have the courage to lead on this issue, and we will. We owe it to the future generations of Queenslanders to secure our water supply in the future. My government intends to do everything it can to ensure that we drought proof Queensland as much as humanly possible, particularly the south-east corner that is being affected by this drought. That is why we are building the water grid. It is also why we must have access to purified recycled water to ensure that we have the water supplies to live—to support our homes, our industries, our agriculture and our future. The state government is taking action to secure our water supply. This multipronged plan will secure water supplies for decades to come and will enable us to cope with population growth. The predictions are that Queensland’s population will reach 5.3 million in the next 50 years. We are building the South East Queensland Water Grid. It will provide a network of two-way pipelines to connect all major bulk water sources in the region. The Traveston Crossing and Wyralong dams will supply significant additional water to people across south-east Queensland from 2011. The Gold Coast desalination project will provide an additional water source for south-east Queensland by the end of 2008. The Southern Regional Water Pipeline is a major part of the water highway, connecting water sources across south-east Queensland. The $680 million project was granted significant project status by the Queensland government in September 2005 and it is a fundamental part of the government’s drought strategy, to which I have referred. The northern pipeline interconnector is a vital part of the state government’s strategy. It will be an important backbone in the South East Queensland Water Grid. That interconnector is designed to connect dams, weirs and other water storages throughout the whole region. High-quality water will be provided to industry and put into our dams to support our drinking supplies. The western corridor recycled water project is one of a number of water supply initiatives of my government. It will involve building a pipeline from six wastewater treatment plants in Brisbane and Ipswich to take recycled water to end users. 512 Motion 22 Feb 2007

Let us not have any more nonsense about recycled water. Already, many communities around the world are drinking recycled water. Queensland will join the USA, the UK, Singapore and Belgium in using recycled water to replenish water supplies. I want to make this very, very clear. If any member has ever visited London, Washington, Singapore or Belgium, they have drunk recycled water. Let us be clear about that. If members have been to London, they have drunk recycled water. If members have been to Washington, they have drunk recycled water. If members have been to Orange County, which is near Los Angeles, they have drunk recycled water. If members have been to Singapore, they have drunk recycled water. Studies of the direct effect on human health carried out in these countries confirm that water containing purified recycled water is safe to consume. Purified recycled water is a safe and reliable source of drinking water. Queensland’s plans for the recycled water cycle involves the best science in the world. There have been plenty of scaremongers talking nonsense about recycled water—allegedly causing changes in the sex of fish and spreading AIDS—all of which is nonsense. We need to focus on the facts. The seven-step process of recycling involves filtration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation. At all stages of this process the water is subject to water quality monitoring and testing. In Queensland, purified recycled water will be subject to a new regulatory regime to ensure that it meets health and safety requirements. The Queensland Water Commission expert advisory panel will provide independent advice on the science behind purified recycled water. The commission chair, Elizabeth Nosworthy, announced that the panel will be chaired by the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, Professor Paul Greenfield. Professor Greenfield is an expert in wastewater and environmental management. His team of local, national and international experts in the scientific fields of ecotoxicology, advanced water treatment, the environment and microbiology will provide a valuable service. The panel will report directly to the Queensland Water Commission, which has been charged with the responsibility of providing information to the community on purified recycled water. So what are the issues? The first issue is that we are experiencing the worst drought on record. We have to have a long-term strategy to provide Queenslanders with water. Without water, we will die. This project is about providing for the future needs of Queensland, both in terms of our increasing population but, more importantly, for our existing population. If we look at this map, we can see clearly the change in weather patterns. All the red on the map indicates where the drought is occurring. It is clear that we have no choice but to drink recycled water. We need some leadership on this. We have to face up to the issue. That is the first point. The second issue is that we have a clear strategy to ensure that we have purified recycled water. I am going to table in a moment this brochure titled Securing our water future. It covers issues such as what is purified recycled water, is purified recycled water safe—and it explains how it is—and it sets out where it is drunk. The brochure also deals with advanced water treatment and other issues that explain in a sensible way how and why recycled water is safe to drink and how it will provide for Queensland’s future. I was hoping that we could get some bipartisan support for this issue, but I have just noticed an amendment from the opposition that is being circulated. That amendment demonstrates clearly that the National Party has had a win over the Liberal Party. Basically, the amendment states that the opposition is not supporting recycled water for drinking. The amendment contains some mealy-mouthed nonsense that condemns us for the failure to provide recycled water to industrial and agricultural users. That is what is happening. We are already doing that. But is there any support for recycled water? The answer is no. I notice that Bruce Flegg, the Leader of the Liberal Party, used to support recycled water. On a number of occasions he has said that we should get out and do it. I have a transcript here of one of Madonna King’s programs, but I am not going to go through it because, frankly, I am not going to waste time on the Leader of the Liberal Party. The real question is: when is the Liberal Party ever going to stand up to the National Party on any matters of policy? The coalition said, ‘Let’s have a debate about these matters.’ We are having a debate about these matters. But when the coalition is tested on these issues, which are about Queensland’s future, it is found wanting. When is the opposition ever going to stand up for Queensland and support our construction of dams and the water grid? When is the opposition ever going to support initiatives such as recycled water for industry in the way in which we are doing it now and recycled water for drinking? Whenever these tough decisions come along, the coalition runs away. That is why the coalition is not fit for opposition, let alone fit for government. The Leader of the Liberal Party, Bruce Flegg, is in the chamber. He is bending with the breeze. I cannot understand why the Liberal Party does not support recycled water. I table this document. Tabled paper: Copy transcript, dated 20 November 2006, of 612 ABC radio interview of Dr Bruce Flegg by Madonna King. 22 Feb 2007 Motion 513

The Liberal Party in New South Wales is prepared to support recycled water and the government in that state is not. I understand that there is an election campaign in that state. I understand all of that. But let us look at where we stand. The Prime Minister of Australia supports recycled water. The Prime Minister has the courage to stand with us. Even the federal water minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has the courage to stand with us. But not the Liberal Party in Queensland and not the National Party in Queensland. When the heat gets turned on, they disappear. They do not have the courage. I say to Queenslanders: we have no choice. However, the recycling of water is also about good planning. It will be done safely in accordance with the instructions given by the Queensland government, and I table that for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Queensland Government information sheet titled ‘Securing our water future’ Tabled paper: Map of Australia from Bureau of Meteorology showing rainfall deciles 1 December 1999 to 30 November 2006. I say to Queenslanders: listen to this debate, see how people vote and they will then understand why my government is the only government that can deliver infrastructure for the future of this state. That is why we are putting this on the agenda. The Deputy Premier who has led on this—she has done a magnificent job in terms of water infrastructure—has had the courage to stand with me, along with all my government colleagues, and support recycled water. We will make the tough decisions for the future of this state, and that is what we are doing now. We are delivering on this. Let us not have any more nonsense about changing the sex of fish and all the other sort of rubbish. Let us deliver for Queensland. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.40 am): I second the motion moved by the Premier. Our government’s decision to make purified recycled water an ongoing part of south-east Queensland’s water supplies was informed by expert advice and evidence. This was not a decision we made lightly and it was not a decision we made in haste. I personally as the minister responsible satisfied myself of the evidence and studies that confirm the safety of purified recycled water for domestic use. As we have seen in this House and outside it in recent weeks, there will always be the ill-informed and there will always be fear driven statements made about recycled water. But these can be refuted at every turn by the weight of scientific evidence and health studies that have been undertaken on purified recycled water over the last 40 years. This is the same evidence that underpinned our very difficult but necessary decision to supplement our diminishing dam supplies with purified recycled water, and the evidence is as follows. Firstly, where is it used? Purified recycled drinking water has been used safely around the world in major capital centres for up to 40 years. Cities where planned indirect use of recycled water occurs include Washington—the capital of the USA—and California, Essex in the United Kingdom, Singapore and Belgium. Indirect recycled water schemes occur in other places such as London. Studies have been carried out on a number of the existing purified recycled water schemes operating around the world. These have confirmed over and over again that purified recycled water is safe to drink. The oldest example of a scheme using purified recycled water is in Montebello Forebay in California, which has been adding recycled water to its underground aquifer—which supplies the greater Los Angeles area—since 1962. Health and toxicological studies of this scheme found no negative health impacts associated with drinking water that contains purified recycled water. I also outline to the House that we will be ensuring that high standards are met. Water quality standards and monitoring requirements will be set to achieve world’s best practice and will meet or exceed the current Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Specific standards are being finalised in consultation with the Queensland Water Commission’s expert advisory panel, which was established in January this year. This nine-member panel of world leading experts is chaired by Professor Paul Greenfield, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Queensland, and I thank him for his service. It includes experts in the fields of ecotoxicology, environmental science, microbiology and advanced water treatment. I seek leave to table a copy of the biographies of each member of the panel. It is a very impressive and eminent group. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Copy of biographical details of members of Queensland Water Commission expert advisory panel. Ms BLIGH: As I outlined to the House earlier this year, the water treatment process goes through seven different processes to ensure that the water is safe. Like the Premier, I have seen the amendment that will be moved by the opposition. I have to say that I am dismayed that our motion does not enjoy bipartisan support. There are a number of factual errors in the amendment. We are being condemned for not providing recycled water to industrial and agricultural users. That is wrong. The western corridor pipeline will be taking water to industrial users. Mr Seeney: Sometime in the future. Ms BLIGH: Well, you cannot put it in the pipeline until it is built. Mr Seeney: It is all going out into Moreton Bay. Ms BLIGH: The water will go to industrial users. Mr Seeney: Oh, come on! 514 Motion 22 Feb 2007

Mr Beattie: It was in the control of the Brisbane City Council, run by his mates. So don’t go around blaming us. Ms BLIGH: That is right. It will supply industrial users such as power stations and others. The reality is that there is spare capacity in the pipe, and we need to be using every drop we have and it will be going into the households of south-east Queensland. Make no mistake: what this amendment represents is the comprehensive rolling of the Liberal Party. Without a single shadow of a doubt, this morning during question time Bruce Flegg walked out of here and got done over and done over comprehensively. When we hear them say that they speak with one voice, it is a National Party voice. When they say they speak as one team, it is as a National Party team. When they say they have one destiny, it is a National Party destiny. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Nationals. What is being done over here is science, and it is being done over by someone with a science and medical degree. By this amendment, this attempt at undermining this motion today, science will become the victim of superstition and nonsense, and to see that done by a leader with a science background is nothing short of appalling. The member for Moggill should stand condemned. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.45 am): I was reminded as I listened to the hysterics of the Deputy Premier of a comment that the Speaker made about playing the ball rather than the man. I am also reminded, as we waste another hour of time here in the House, of something I read the other day that may not seem connected but it is very relevant. I am reminded of something I read about the history of circuses. In the early days of circuses they did not have clowns, but they eventually recruited clowns in the circus to distract the attention of the audience from the mishaps of the acrobats. So while they were cleaning up the tangled limbs and the results of miscalculations by the acrobats, they got the clowns to put on a show. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! I would like you to come back to the motion. Mr SEENEY: Today in the parliament we have seen Queensland’s chief clown put on one of his best performances. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That language is unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw. Mr SEENEY: ‘Clown’ is unparliamentary, is it? I withdraw anyway. I only have five minutes, so I will keep going. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do have 10. Mr SEENEY: I have too. I would have argued with you had I known that. Today is about a distraction. It is about continuing the strategy of distracting attention from the real issue. The amendment that we will move is about focusing the attention on the real issue. I move the following amendment— Delete all words after "That" and insert the following: This House condemns the Beattie government for its 8½ year failure to invest in the necessary water infrastructure to guarantee the people of south-east Queensland access to adequate water supply to meet both climatic conditions and increased population and industry pressures; and This House condemns the Beattie government for its failure to provide recycled water to industrial and agricultural users thus freeing potable water supplies for personal use by Queenslanders. That is the train wreck that the government is trying to divert attention from—the fact that for 8½ years it has done absolutely nothing. There has been absolutely no new water infrastructure built in the south-east corner of the state for almost 20 years. Government members were able to live on the legacy of the previous coalition governments for so long, but eventually it has caught up with them. They have come into this place year after year and poured scorn and derision on coalition members who have stood up and advocated the construction of water infrastructure. But eventually that policy of doing nothing in the face of an increasing population has caught up with them. It has caught up with them the first time we have a drought during their time in government. The Premier would like us to believe that it is all the drought’s fault. There have been droughts in south-east Queensland ever since Europeans have settled here. There have been droughts in south- east Queensland for thousands of years before that, and there will be droughts in south-east Queensland for the next 1,000 years. It is part of the management responsibility of whoever is in government to ensure that in the climate in which we live we are able to guarantee that the great metropolis of south-east Queensland has an adequate water supply. The Beattie government has failed dismally to do that and the people of south-east Queensland know it. They know it when they have to cart water to their gardens and when they are not allowed to wash their cars and when they are suffering under the water restrictions. They know that somebody has failed and that that somebody is the Beattie Labor government and successive Labor governments before that that have refused to invest in infrastructure. 22 Feb 2007 Distinguished Visitors 515

That is the issue. That is the issue that the people in south-east Queensland should be talking about and debating. But, rather than have that debate, the government wants us to debate whether or not we should drink recycled water. It has picked the most emotive subject it could find and started an argument. This is a constant strategy that we have seen over the last month or so: the government picks the most emotive issue it can find and starts an argument. First it was recycled water. That was always going to be an emotive issue. Then it was the North Bank project. That was also always going to be an emotive issue, and it was deliberately designed to be like that. The government has used the same strategy—that is, it has gone out there and started an argument, it has gone out there and put a whole range of different opinions to see if it can stir up people and get them arguing about this rather than thinking about the government’s own failings. There is the crazy Beattie scheme I have spoken about already in this House a number of times. Everybody knows that no-one on the Labor Party side of the House is serious about it, but the government has put it up there and made all sorts of crazy and stupid comments about it to see if it can start an argument and get people stirred up. The government thinks that, while the people are arguing about that and are stirred up about that, they are not talking about the government’s failings. The government thinks the people will not be talking about its failure to deliver a core responsibility like basic water infrastructure. This is a well-recognised strategy. As I said this morning, the only question that remains unanswered is: what else is the government and the Premier trying to hide? The water crisis in itself is a big enough issue. I am not suggesting that it is not an issue that should cause severe embarrassment to the government and it is not an issue big enough to warrant the type of panic we have seen from the government. The motion before the House today is about recycled water. Let us look at the motion in some detail, even though it is here because it is a distraction. The first part of the motion ‘recognises the current drought in south-east Queensland’. I think I have dealt with that already. We recognise well and truly that drought is a part of living here. The second part of the motion is the one I want to deal with— that is, ‘endorses the addition of purified recycled water’. That in itself illustrates how absurd this debate is today because we could not do that even if we wanted to. We could not do that because, as the Premier said, we have no other choice. The Premier is right about one thing: we have no choice. We cannot even choose to do it. We cannot choose to do it because the infrastructure is not there—the pipeline is not there, the pipeline has not been built. For those of us who have stood in this House for the last five or six years and advocated the construction of that pipeline and have been ridiculed, scorned and showered with derision because of that stance, there is almost a poetic justice in the fact that now the government is in a panic situation trying to construct that pipeline. The Deputy Premier told us the other day that workers will now work 24 hours a day doing around-the-clock shifts and that the people at Bundamba will have to get used to excavators working in their backyards in the middle of the night. She also said that they will break the world record for pipeline construction to try to get that pipeline in place. That pipeline should have been in place five or six years ago. The fact that it is not in place is an indictment on the government. The fact that it is not in place makes a mockery of this debate, because we cannot use the recycled water. We cannot use recycled water for anything because at the moment it gets discharged into Moreton Bay and the Brisbane River because the government has not built the pipelines and the treatment plants necessary. The Brisbane City Council is miles in front. It has upgraded its treatment plants. It has the product ready to be used, but the state government has not built the infrastructure. So it is a nonsense that the government has come in here today wasting an hour of this parliament’s time arguing about what we are going to use recycled water for. When the pipeline is there, when the treatment plants are there, when the pumps are running and when the tap is ready to be turned on at the other end, then we can have a debate. That is when we can have a debate, because that is when we will have the options. We will have the option of using that water for what we think it should be used for. It should be used in the power stations, it should be used for industry and it should be used for agricultural users who are waiting to use it. There are customers waiting to use that recycled water and those customers are being denied the opportunity to use it because this government has not done its part. That is what the government is trying to divert attention away from. The argument is not about how we should use it; the argument should be about why this government has not built the infrastructure so we can use it for the industry, the power stations and the agricultural users that we have long advocated it should be used for. Time expired. Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Prior to calling the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, I would like to recognise the presence in the gallery today of Mr Dhanojak Obongo MP, member of the Jonglei State Interim Legislative Assembly of Southern Sudan. Welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 516 Motion 22 Feb 2007

MOTION

Water Resumed. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (11.56 am): It gives me pleasure to second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Have no doubt about it: yesterday we debated the issue of diversions and stunts in this parliament and the government learnt absolutely nothing from that, because here we have another stunt. Anyone who thinks this motion is anything more than a stunt by the Premier should think again. This is about the politics of water, not about the supply of water. In fact the Premier himself summed up the whole argument by saying, ‘We’re going to use it because we’ve got no choice.’ There is no choice for the people of Brisbane about using recycled water; the Premier said that himself. In fact, so emphatic is he about not having a choice that he took that choice away from the people of Brisbane. He told them that they were going to get a vote. Then he said, ‘We’re not even going to listen to you. You’re not going to get a vote because you’re going to get it anyway.’ So he took their choice away and then he has come in asking us to have a vote on it. The people of Brisbane do not get a vote but we are asked to vote on it—what a lousy, miserable stunt from a totally failed government. All the Premier is doing here is asking for a vote of endorsement for his government’s failure. Not only did the Premier take away the right of the people of Brisbane to have a say, he failed to explain what is happening, he failed to convince the people and he failed in particular to address the legitimate concerns that many people have about what is happening with our water supply. If he thinks that we on this side of the House are going to endorse the government’s miserable failure, he can look somewhere else. What we are seeing today—to underscore the point—is millions and millions of litres of totally usable water pouring into rivers and into Moreton Bay, and the Premier wants us to come in here and endorse the government’s failure. In fact, his whole concept is that you do not bother to put in any infrastructure, you do not bother to use the recycled water, you have a whole industrial precinct at Rocklea right near Oxley not using the recycled water and you have large users down at Luggage Point not using the recycled water. The government has not bothered with any infrastructure and now it is taking the lazy option. Do members know what the lazy option is? It is sticking a pipe up to Wivenhoe. It is not worrying about doing it properly and not worrying about using all of that water that is being wasted in industry. It is telling people, ‘Like it or lump it. We’re taking your choice away from you and we’re just going to put it in anyway.’ It is having the hide to walk into this place and say that we have a choice to vote when he has just taken it away from every single person who lives in Brisbane. I am on record—and I will repeat it here—that I believe recycled water can be supplied safely for drinking purposes. In fact, members on this side of the House have always held the belief that recycled water should be used in industry first and, as a last resort only, it should be used for drinking. Make no mistake about it, this debate has nothing to do with the safety or otherwise of recycled water. The Premier is simply trying to cover up for the fact that he cannot supply dam water because it is running out and he has not done anything about infrastructure. To make it even more obscene, he cannot supply the recycled water anyway. It is years away. Anyone who is listening to this debate or reads it in Hansard should understand fully that this is a political stunt, and we are not having any part of it. It is amazing and hypocritical that we are debating this issue today when recycled water cannot be delivered into our tap even if people do choose to go down that route. The Deputy Premier told us we are going to set a world record in building this pipeline. It is still going to take another two years. Members on that side who vote for recycled water should not get excited because they cannot have it as it is still two years away. There is every chance that their government will not make that world record and we will be confronted with draconian measures and an empty dam. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (12.00 pm): Before I came into the House this morning for this debate I had a look at the web site of the Leader of the Liberal Party. People who actually jump on the web site are asked to vote on the question of whether ‘recycled water should be able to be used for domestic use in south-east Queensland’. The findings of the web site were pretty empathetic: 133 for and 16 against. Where does the Leader of the Liberal Party get off today voting against recycled water? Where does he get off not supporting it? People have gone on to his web site in good faith and have said that they want it. What the Leader of the Liberal Party should do is come over here today and vote with us. Studies of the effect of water containing purified recycled water confirm that it is 100 per cent safe for humans to drink. I can personally vouch for this; my wife can confirm this and so can her family. Indeed, I am so confident that purified recycled water is safe to drink that my wife and I have no 22 Feb 2007 Motion 517 concerns about our young daughter, who is now five, drinking that water. During the time that I lived in Singapore I drank water with purified recycled water added—what Singaporeans call ‘NEWater’. My wife, who is Singaporean, has also drunk ‘NEWater’ over a considerable period; so have her family members who still live in Singapore. In visits to Singapore my young daughter has drunk purified recycled water and, I am proud to say, is a happy and healthy girl—sometimes too healthy the way she gets out of bed at 6 o’clock in the morning. We also drank ‘NEWater’ again in January during a trip to Singapore for a family wedding. During this trip I took time out to visit the NEWater plant near Changi Airport. I was impressed with the very rigorous safeguards they have. The Singaporeans deserve a pat on the back for putting that plant in place. My wife gets very cranky when she hears some of the comments that purified recycled water is somehow unsafe and can lead to health concerns. She was most bemused when the former Leader of the Opposition said it can change the sex of fishes. I am from north Queensland. Barramundi actually change sex and there ain’t no purified recycled water up there! This is the second time my wife has been through such a scare campaign. Precisely the same health scares were raised in Singapore as have been raised in south-east Queensland. However, my family are still hale and hearty and have not suffered from drinking ‘NEWater’. When I met with the High Commissioner of Singapore, Mr Eddy Teo, last Wednesday, Mr Teo said that Singaporeans had similar health concerns to Queenslanders about the introduction of purified recycled water. However, Singaporeans have now put these concerns behind them. They cannot make enough of the stuff; industry is buying the recycled water before they can get it into the dams. Purified recycled water has been used to replenish drinking water supplies in many other parts of the world over the past 40 years. These places include the USA, the UK and Belgium. I am pleased to say that my own department will be part of the safeguards that will be put in place for purified recycled water. The Department of Natural Resources and Water will approve purified recycled water schemes in Queensland. I will take advice from Queensland Health and the Environmental Protection Agency in giving this approval. This regulatory framework aims to make sure that purified recycled schemes operate effectively to produce quality recycled water that is fit for the purpose. A whole-of-scheme risk management approach is adopted by that framework and providers and users of recycled water will be required to comply with the regulatory requirements. In approving management plans for purified recycled water schemes my department will review, approve or refuse the multiple barrier treatment process of a purified recycled water scheme and contingency measures; specify the recycled water quality standard, scheme performance requirements—that is, the validation, verification, and operational monitoring of the scheme—and notification and reporting arrangements under the purified recycled water scheme. My department will also approve or condition the purified recycled water scheme’s quality standard and monitoring regime to protect public health and ensure continuity of supply. It will require source control studies as part of the recycled water management plan as well as recycled water management agreements with the recycled water provider. It will also require recycled water management agreements with the end user, for example, water service providers and drinking water treatment plant owners. Queensland Health will be responsible for setting the standards for purified recycled water. These standards will be endorsed by both Queensland Health and the Department of Natural Resources and Water. The best practice standards that have been adopted by Queensland Health incorporate the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, and where contaminants do not have an ADWG value, the drinking water guidelines of the World Health Organisation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Health Canada will be used. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): I acknowledge students, teachers and parents from St Thomas More Primary School on the Sunshine Coast in the electorate of Noosa represented in this House by the honourable Glen Elmes. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (12.06 pm): The Beattie Labor government is renowned for spin over substance, for words rather than actions and for paper, not concrete. Nowhere is this more evident than in the crucial area of water infrastructure. Make no mistake, the main reason that south- east Queensland is in the grip of a water crisis now is the Beattie Labor government’s failure to invest in new water supply sources over the past eight years. Similarly, in other parts of the state, such as central and northern Queensland, we are not making the most of our water resources because the Beattie Labor government has refused to build the infrastructure Queensland needs to underpin our rapid population growth and economic development. The contrast between the Beattie Labor government’s record and the record of the Queensland coalition team on water infrastructure could not be more stark. Virtually every single major dam in Queensland has been built by National or coalition governments. The Fairbairn, Wivenhoe, Burdekin Falls, Fred Haigh and Boondooma dams, to name but a few, have all been built by the National or coalition governments. The only dam Labor can attempt to claim credit for is the Paradise Dam. The 518 Motion 22 Feb 2007

Borbidge government had actually given the go-ahead for that dam and then the Labor opposition was forced to match the coalition’s commitment in a bid to retain the seat of Bundaberg in the 1998 election. That is the only reason it has built one dam. It is also worth reflecting on the Borbidge coalition government’s water infrastructure task force which developed a visionary, long-term plan for future water supply in Queensland. The task force evaluated and prioritised more than 380 new water projects throughout Queensland which led to the then coalition government committing to and starting work on the multibillion-dollar water development program. Unfortunately, this plan was dumped by the incoming Beattie Labor government, which has sat on its hands for eight years while Queensland’s water supplies have dried up. We recently saw the impact of the Beattie Labor government’s neglect of water infrastructure in north and central Queensland when Queensland’s largest dam, the Burdekin Falls Dam, continues to spill over after torrential downpours. Much of this water could have been stored in the dam if it had been raised. Mr Wallace interjected. Mr HOPPER: You should know yourself, Minister— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Minister and member for Darling Downs, keep your comments directed through the chair. Mr HOPPER: The minister should know himself that at the height of these torrential downpours that dam was filling the equivalent of Sydney Harbour every five hours. That is the amount of water going over the Burdekin Falls Dam. Surprise, surprise, during the past eight years of the Beattie Labor government nothing has been done to advance any of these projects. This means that thousands of litres of water is not stored when we get torrential rain. Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order. The member for Darling Downs is deliberately misleading the House. We have committed studies— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): There is no point of order. Please resume your seat. Mr HOPPER: In far-north Queensland, the Nullinga Dam was identified by the Borbidge coalition government as a high priority and yet, after eight years of Labor, nothing has happened. We are still getting plenty of— Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order. The member for Darling Downs is deliberately misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I warn the minister about frivolous points of order. Mr HOPPER: The minister is purposely wasting time, because he does not want the facts released about how he looks after north Queensland. Indeed, in response to a coalition question on notice asked late last year, the infrastructure minister was at pains to point out that the government had only committed to investigate the Nullinga Dam. She could not provide any construction cost estimates and revealed that over the next four years all they had planned to do on the Nullinga Dam were studies and preconstruction work. It is clear that many of the water woes that Queensland is facing, while exacerbated by drought, are primarily due to the Beattie Labor government’s neglect and inaction on what is surely one of the most basic areas of state government responsibility—that is, the provision of adequate water infrastructure. Unlike the do-nothing Labor government, the Queensland coalition will work as one team to build for the future and ensure that infrastructure is delivered throughout Queensland, ahead of time and not just when a crisis develops. Last night I touched on the Wolffdene Dam site. I know a bit about that dam site. Kevin Rudd advised Goss to sell the Wolffdene Dam site and that is why, under this government, the people of Brisbane will be forced to drink recycled sewage. Kevin Rudd and this government’s inaction have meant that the people of Brisbane are faced with drinking recycled sewage. If the Wolffdene Dam had been built, it would hold as much water as Wyvenhoe and we would not be faced with this situation. The Hinze Dam is now running over and the Wolffdene was to be in the same catchment area. If that infrastructure had been built, this would not have happened. Time expired. Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (12.12 pm): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this motion. A Queensland recycled water scheme will use only the best technology to purify water for drinking purposes. The scare campaign around recycling is not founded on fact. Having spent several years of my life changing nappies, I assure the House that human waste is not that scary and, once in the sewerage system, it is a sediment that can be removed easily from water. Sewage water contains many contaminants from many sources, not just the toilet. However, mostly water is washed down into the sewerage system. Many impurities need to be removed from water to make it acceptable for drinking purposes. Pesticides and fertilisers, animal waste, bacteria and many other pollutants are currently found in our dams. Consumers trust that they are removed and that the water is treated safely to drinking quality. 22 Feb 2007 Motion 519

Reverse osmosis is a scientifically proven system and it is a very reliable purification system. For several years I have been using reverse osmosis purification for drinking water in my family home, so I understand and trust the technology. Before I purchased my reverse osmosis unit, I researched the best options for purifying water. At that time in my life, which was quite a few years ago now, I had a toddler and a baby. I was, and still am, very interested in the health of my family. I was already boiling water to use in the baby’s bottle. I became interested in the content of bottled water. Some bottled water that is available for purchase has high levels of sodium and other minerals. At the time, the water company with the purest water available for purchase was a company called Nobles. I called Nobles to discuss their water purification system. I was delighted to be connected through to the managing director of the company, a woman who was very passionate about the quality of her company’s water and its reverse osmosis treatment system. International scientific research confirms that waste water can be safely treated for drinking purposes. Current treatment processes, plus reverse osmosis treatment, plus advanced oxidation processes will all be used to purify water sourced from the sewerage system. Following those treatments, the water will go back into the dams and through the natural filtration processes, before eventually going through the whole purification process again. This purified water cycle chart is available to all members of the House and the public from the Queensland Water Commission web site. It explains the many barriers and processes that the water will have to go through for purification. It clearly states that reverse osmosis will remove viruses, bacteria and organics, and that advanced oxidation also removes them from water. I recommend that all members of the public who are interested in pure water look on the Queensland Water Commission web site. It is very informative. It also explains that we are sourcing a panel of scientific experts from around the world to give us advice and ensure that we have the best system in Australia and the world. On Saturday the honourable member for Nudgee and I held an information stall at Taigum Shopping Centre. We provided people with bottled recycled water from Singapore to taste. Apart from one or two people who held their cups of water up to the light to make sure that it was completely clear, the overwhelming majority of people accepted that the technology to purify drinking water is sound. On Saturday I heard some great stories from people who grew up on the land and had drunk anything wet to stay hydrated, and they had stayed alive. They cannot understand what all the fuss is about and why people are so scared. My constituents told me that they have a much greater fear. They are scared that we might run out of water and, if we do not urgently embrace the recycling and purification of water, we will really have something to worry about. They are scared that the worst drought on record is taking its toll. As one constituent said to me, ‘If the Prime Minister is going to drink it and the Premier is going to drink it, why would I be worried about drinking it?’ I am proud to be a member of a government that is securing the water future of Queensland. I support this motion, I reject the opposition’s proposed amendment and I add my declaration that I am looking forward to drinking purified recycled water. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (12.15 pm): Mr Speaker— Mr Lawlor: Tell us about the Wolffdene Dam. Mr NICHOLLS: Obviously the honourable member for Southport has been drinking too much sea water out of the Broadwater, or something else. This motion is yet another distraction from a Beattie Labor government that is more interested in diverting people’s attention than dealing with problems. The motion itself is a distraction from the very real questions hanging over the actions of this sleazy Labor government. It is yet another stunt to distract attention. In fact, the words of the motion itself are a distraction. It states that the current drought in south-east Queensland is the worst on record. That may or may not be true. The Premier has put some papers down, some people dispute it and some people agree with it. It does not matter. What we have is the worst water supply crisis in south-east Queensland and we have to look at the reason for that. The reason that there is a water supply crisis in Queensland is that this Labor government and its predecessors were unable to plan and build infrastructure for the future. Where was this government when plans were put forward by the qualified independent bureaucrats of our departments of state to build water storage devices in Queensland? The Premier talks about science and evidence. Where was his government—indeed, where was the Premier?—in 1989, 1990 and 1991 when the science said to build dams for the future? The Premier was not to be heard. He did not stand up and say, ‘I will take the advice of the Independents.’ He said, ‘No. We did a deal with the greens and I’m going to go with them.’ That shows the Premier’s reliance on science. We have heard a lot about science from honourable members on the other side. Item 3 refers to scientific research, item 4 requires acknowledgements of expertise of the scientific panel, item 5 looks at the previous history of it. Where does the government stand on those three issues when it comes to the 520 Motion 22 Feb 2007 nuclear debate? Does it recognise the scientific research that finds that nuclear energy is a safe source of energy? Does the government acknowledge the expertise of the scientific panel put together by the Prime Minister to investigate nuclear use? Does it note the safe use of nuclear power almost everywhere in the world? The government chooses to ignore it so that its doctrinaire, left wing masters can have a say about what it does. The government talks about science, the Premier talks about science and the Deputy Premier talks about science, but they ignored the best science put forward by the bureaucrats of the state 15 or 20 years ago. They ignore science when it suits them and they adopt it when they want a diversion. The Premier says that we have no choice, that this is about proper planning. However, ‘no choice’ and ‘proper planning’ are oxymoronic. We have no choice because there was no proper planning in the past, as the Premier refused to accept the reality of 1,500 people a week moving to the south-east corner; because the Premier chose to stick his head in the sand and hope for rain; because the Premier failed to put money in until it was too late and we were on the threshold of running out of water, and his Deputy Premier was very much in lock step with him. I know from being on the Brisbane City Council that they are the people who did spend money on addressing the issue and put a recycled water plant in place which is now supplying 10 megalitres a day to BP. They did the $200 million Brisbane Water Enviro Alliance program at Oxley which was commended by the Deputy Premier this morning. I sat on the board of that and was part of the council that was responsible for putting in place the fantastic treatment plant at Oxley that now produces grade A quality product that can go up into the Lockyer Valley. It is currently being tested up there as part of their process. Where was this government when that work was being done? It was nowhere to be seen. It was dealing with the crises at the time—the health crisis, the roads crisis, whatever other crisis, and there were plenty of them, going on at the time. This government was asleep at the wheel. Now we have this motion in front of us here which is designed to divert the focus from this government’s inaction. The Premier is trying to upset people. He is trying to create a diversion. He is trying to avoid taking responsibility for what the Water Act says is the state’s responsibility. The Water Act, its own state government legislation, says it is the state government’s responsibility to provide raw water. The Premier tries to divert attention by attaching it to councils. It is a stunt and nothing more. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.21 pm): I rise today to contribute to this very important debate about water recycling. The water shortage is foremost on everyone’s mind and is a topical issue in my electorate of Mount Ommaney. Everywhere I go I hear stories about how people, particularly our seniors, are using innovative methods to save this precious resource—a tap in the bottom of a recycling bin, buckets in their showers, ice-cream containers in the sink. They are frightened, and rightly so, that our situation is so dire. Some members may know that the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme runs through my electorate. The Oxley water treatment plant, which I visited on Saturday on behalf of the Premier and as the local member, will deliver up to 230 megalitres per day to industry when completed, particularly Swanbank Power Station. I have been informed that construction work is progressing as fast as humanly possible. Our water situation has deteriorated to the extent that the government has been required to reconsider what is in the best interests of our region and its residents. In fact, members of my community have told me that they gave the Beattie government a mandate to make decisions about recycling water for this reason at the last state election. Inflows into the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams are currently 20 per cent lower than the worst year on record, with inflows into the dams between April 2006 and December 2006 almost 20 per cent lower than for the same period in the worst year on record, which was 2004. In past years, December through to February has produced good rainfall and dam inflows. This year we only saw a small amount of rainfall enter our major dam system. While the remainder of February and the month of March are generally high rainfall months, the 2007 water year—despite the declaration yesterday that the El Nino system is over—could be our driest on record. With the continuation of below average rainfall patterns it could take many years for the Wivenhoe system to climb back up to 40 per cent. Numerous experts believe it will take between five and 10 years of normal rainfall to reach 40 per cent. This is even with the addition of purified recycled water, desalination and the other measures being taken by this government. Queensland is way ahead of other states in relation to the amount of plant infrastructure planned to overcome the problems caused by the drought. It appears inevitable to me and to my constituents that we will have to rely on purified recycled water for a range of uses. Recycled water usage is no longer an option. We will have no choice should we want to have enough water to sustain our communities into the future. 22 Feb 2007 Motion 521

Purified recycled water will be a permanent and ongoing part of south-east Queensland’s drinking supplies. Our technology today will ensure the utmost quality of this water. We must change our thinking about the way we view it. We will be supplementing our water supplies with purified recycled water that meets stringent health and safety standards. There is strong support within my electorate, and coincidentally from the Prime Minister down through the various layers of government, for supplementing our water supplies with safe and clean purified recycled water. While there have been so many strong views expressed by some within the community most people just want to get on and do it. Our community needs purified recycled water on top of everything else the government is doing, including commissioning desalination plants, building additional dams, making pipelines to transfer water to where it is needed most, providing subsidised rainwater tanks for home and industrial use and utilising water recycling for industry to ensure that we have the water we need now and into the future. There is strong support within the community for adding purified recycled water to our water system with a range of surveys showing a clear majority of support at almost 80 per cent of people. The research found more than three out of four south-east Queensland residents support the concept of adding purified recycled water to our existing water supply. I have been told that up to 115 megalitres per day of purified recycled water is expected to be available after the needs of major stations and major industry are met to supplement our drinking supply. The government has started a major information campaign that will run over the next two years to educate the public about purified recycled water and the extensive checks and balances that it will go through before entering our drinking supply. We cannot plan for sufficient water supplies based on the hope that it will rain in our dam catchments. Time expired. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.26 pm): I rise to speak to this motion and acknowledge that it is a motion directed at the south-east corner. However, it is the beginning of the introduction of recycled water. It is not necessarily a new thing for industry and agricultural purposes but it is for domestic purposes. I want to address those issues. It has been stated in the debate that at the last election people gave approval to the Premier to make decisions on recycled water. I have to question that. At the last election it was my understanding that people thought that there was to be a plebiscite. That plebiscite was then taken away and this chamber is being asked to make a decision for the wider community that the wider community expected to make themselves. The responsibility for me in this debate is to represent the views of my community. But, as I said, I understand that it is the issue of water recycling for the south-east corner that we are discussing. It has been acknowledged by other speakers that recycled water is used in other countries. I do not believe our community has had enough information on any long-term impacts, both positive and negative, of that water use. It is easy to cite places where the water is recycled but there has been no empirical data to support the claims that have been made one way or the other. I acknowledge that fact. In my electorate sewage effluent has been redirected for industrial and recreational purposes for many years. Calliope shire uses recycled water. There have been no outfalls to the waterways for quite a number of years. Prior to Cyclone Benny the Gladstone city effluent was redirected to QAL for industrial purposes. I do not think there is anyone in the community who has a problem with the re-use of effluent in that way. The major psychological and practical concerns relate to the use of this water for domestic ingestion. The questions that I think the community still needs answers on relate to the unseen things in the water. It is obvious that we can remove solids and fines out of the water in a primary and secondary processing program. However, there needs to be scientific information given to the community about the soluble elements in effluent water. How can it be guaranteed that the hormones can be 100 per cent removed? It is easy to prove something that is visible is not there. It is the invisible things that the community is concerned about. There has been concern expressed about the fact that it is going to be fed directly into the major water storage area rather than into a retention basin. Most of us who have had anything to do with local councils know that there are times when effluent plants malfunction and raw sewage is disposed of. A retention basin would guarantee against any possible pollutant in the main water source. As I said, it is a divisive issue. It is one that the community is still debating, and the reason we are here today is that there has been insufficient infrastructure provided in the past. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.29 pm): I also rise to participate in the debate and say that I will be supporting the motion and will be calling on members who will be voting against the motion to actually call for a division on that motion. I will be supporting the motion because I believe it is out of necessity for our community in south-east Queensland. We have no alternative. I took the chance to actually sample some of the recycled water—some of the new water—which has been available to members during this session. Can I say that it actually tastes better than the Brisbane water and some other local water in Queensland. Thousands of people in this world are drinking this very water. If it is good enough for them, it is jolly well good enough for me. 522 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

One other reason why I support this motion is that I would hope this may save viable and valuable agricultural land in the Mary Valley. I know that the government has already made a decision in relation to the future of the Traveston Dam. Who knows? Maybe stage 1 may happen, but hopefully if recycling water goes ahead in Queensland we will not need to go to stage 2 and thousands of hectares of agricultural land can continue to be used for the good of Queenslanders, Australians and visitors to this wonderful region. I urge members to support the motion. I think the opposition’s amendment is valid, so I will be supporting that as well. Division: Question put—That Mr Seeney’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 30—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Any future divisions will be of two minutes duration. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 28—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (12.42 pm): I move— That government business order of the day No. 1 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION (STATE PUBLIC SECTOR) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 28 November 2006 (see p. 613). Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (12.42 pm): I rise to speak to the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill. I say to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer at the outset that the opposition will be supporting this bill and I appreciated the briefing that her department gave me to clarify some of the technical aspects to it. The bill itself will bring the current QSuper into line with the federal regulatory regime and therefore produce uniformity. As members know, superannuation has come a very long way since the original state public sector schemes. There is now rigorous federal control and prudential management of superannuation funds. This bill will bring QSuper—the Queensland public sector superannuation fund—under that umbrella of federal legislation. I think that in this day and age where almost all superannuation has gravitated to that federal area this would appear to be an appropriate thing and simply bringing practices in Queensland into line with what is happening in the rest of the superannuation sector. I note that the legislation makes some changes to the way in which the board acts and transfers some assets, which is necessary in order to put in place the shift of this scheme to the federal regulatory regime. Essentially, this legislation brings the public sector practice into line with the federal regulatory regime. I do not think any member of this House or any person who uses QSuper has any concern about that. In fact, these changes may even provide additional layers of protection for the members of QSuper. One of the benefits that arises from these amendments is that, currently, QSuper is available only to members of the public sector within Queensland. Over recent decades, times have changed and people seem to be much more mobile in their careers than they used to be. It is not uncommon for people in the public sector in Queensland to leave and perhaps go into the private sector or go into the federal government sector. In some cases, I might add, perhaps even later on they may return to the Queensland public sector. At this stage the difficulty that those people face is that when they leave the Queensland public sector they have to suspend their contributions. 22 Feb 2007 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill 523

We in this country have put a lot of effort into improving superannuation planning and retirement income planning. One of the issues that has been addressed through the private sector has been increased access to portability in superannuation and an increased ability for people to continue to utilise their existing fund even if they have moved to a new employer. In my view, it is right and proper that that should also be the practice for members of the Queensland public sector. Over my lifetime there has been a very significant change in the attitude of Australians to superannuation. For many years superannuation was for the privileged few. Essentially, it was offered to white-collar workers. In this country the standard retirement income was the age pension. We have now moved to the point at which we have compulsory contributions to superannuation funds and national savings. Certainly, for the vast bulk of Australians the majority of what is saved on their behalf is saved into super. So it is all the more important that we get the management, efficiency and convenience of operating superannuation schemes as simple as possible. I support the Deputy Premier’s move to facilitate this convenience on behalf of members of the public sector in Queensland. I note that, despite these changes, at present QSuper is not open to the general public, but it will be open to former public sector employees in Queensland. I note also that these changes have the support of the board of QSuper. Most of us would be aware that QSuper is a very well-respected and successful superannuation scheme that has achieved a high level of return. Like many other members of this House, I know many retired teachers and other public sector employees who are more than happy with the performance of QSuper. So I think that the fact that this legislation has the support of the board is quite important. Finally, I note that this legislation makes minor changes to the superannuation structure of MPs. These changes will bring those structures more into line with what has become standard practice throughout the rest of the community. I will finish on that note. The opposition has had a good look at this bill. I appreciate the detailed briefing that I was given on it. Along with the government and the board of QSuper, the opposition supports the measures contained in the legislation. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (12.49 pm), in reply: The bill before the House includes provisions that will make it possible for the Queensland Public Service superannuation scheme to be transferred into the regulatory framework of the Commonwealth. As outlined by the shadow minister, the regulation of superannuation in this country has increasingly become a responsibility of the Commonwealth government. The provisions of the Commonwealth regulatory scheme already apply but they apply by way of an intergovernmental agreement. The provisions of this bill will transfer effectively the assets and employees of QSuper from the state government to the board and thereby open up an application by the board to be covered by the Commonwealth regulatory scheme. I think members are familiar with provisions of the bill, and I do not intend to repeat them at length. I thank the opposition for its support for the legislation and its recognition that it is an important move forward in the regulation of what is, as the shadow minister acknowledged, an increasingly important part of the retirement income of all Australians. I also flag to the House that there will be some amendments moved in consideration in detail. Those amendments will basically seek to achieve the effect of transferring the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund to the administration of the board of trustees of QSuper. For such a long time these two funds have been so completely separate. When the QSuper amendments were done there was no thought given to the prospect of moving the parliamentary fund to come under Commonwealth regulation. But it seemed to me that the very same reasons why you would move the superannuation fund for public servants to come under the administration of the Commonwealth regulatory framework prevail as much for politicians as they do for public servants and therefore we should give that some consideration. Equally, the parliamentary contributions scheme, because of recent changes to superannuation for politicians across the country, is now a scheme that will diminish in numbers. There are currently 70 contributing members and with every election I would expect to see that number decline. So the cost of administering the scheme will be best served by putting it under the administration of QSuper. I will speak more to the amendments in consideration in detail, but I wanted to foreshadow those amendments to the House. I want to thank both the opposition and the Independents for their consideration of those amendments in detail over the last couple of days and I apologise for the relatively short notice. But I thank them for their support, and I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. 524 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 26 (en bloc amendments)— Ms BLIGH (12.54 pm): I will be moving a number of amendments in consideration in detail. I propose, in order to facilitate debate, to move a number of them en bloc. I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 6 en bloc and allow their debate to be concurrent. Leave granted. Ms BLIGH: I move the following amendments— 1 Amendment of clause 4 (Amendment of s 2 (Interpretation)) At page 7, after line 22— insert— ‘Parliamentary Benefits Committee see section 32K(6).’. 2 Amendment of clause 15 (Replacement of ss 8 and 9) At page 16, line 29, after ‘alternate trustee,’— insert— ‘a member of the Parliamentary Benefits Committee,’. 3 Amendment of clause 18 (Amendment of s 13 (Membership of scheme)) At page 19, line 4— omit, insert— ‘(1) Section 13(6)(c)(iii)— omit. ‘(2) Section 13—’. 4 Amendment of clause 19 (Insertion of new pt 3A) At page 20, lines 4 to 10— omit, insert— ‘ ‘The officer’s functions are, as directed by the Minister, to give advice, prepare reports and carry on other activities relating to superannuation and public service employee entitlements.’. 5 Insertion of new clause 25A At page 22, after line 17— insert— ‘25A Amendment of s 30B (References to discontinued schemes) ‘Section 30B(2), definition discontinued scheme— insert— ‘• the repealed Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970’.’. 6 New clause 26A— At page 24, after line 26— insert— ‘26A Insertion of new pt 5A ‘After part 5— insert— ‘Part 5A Transfer of Parliamentary scheme ‘32A Definitions for pt 5A ‘In this part— commencement means the commencement of section 32L.1 Parliamentary fund means the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund established and kept, immediately before the commencement, under the repealed Act. Parliamentary trustees see section 32D(2). repealed Act means the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970. transferring member means— (a) a person mentioned in the repealed Act, section 4(1)(a) or (b); or (b) a person mentioned in the repealed Act, section 4(1)(c) who, immediately before the commencement, had an entitlement under that Act. trustees body corporate see section 32D(2). 1 Section 32L (Repeal) 22 Feb 2007 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill 525

‘32B Transferring members ‘(1) On the commencement, a transferring member becomes a member of the scheme in the membership category stated for the transferring member in the deed. ‘(2) A transferring member is eligible for membership of the scheme. ‘32C Entitlements ‘(1) On the commencement, each transferring member has the entitlements that applied to him or her immediately before the commencement. ‘(2) This section does not affect section 12.2 2 Section 12 (Deed to establish scheme) ‘32D Trustees of the Parliamentary fund ‘(1) The Parliamentary trustees go out of office and the trustees body corporate is dissolved. ‘(2) In this section— Parliamentary trustees means the trustees of the Parliamentary fund under the repealed Act, section 7(1). trustees body corporate means the Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund under the repealed Act, section 7(2). ‘32E Parliamentary fund ‘(1) The Parliamentary fund is discontinued. ‘(2) On the commencement, an amount that, immediately before the commencement, was contained in the Parliamentary fund becomes part of the State Public Sector Superannuation Fund. ‘32F Agreements and legal proceedings ‘(1) An agreement or arrangement in force immediately before the commencement, between the trustees body corporate and another entity is taken to be an agreement or arrangement between the board and the entity. ‘(2) A legal proceeding started but not finished, before the commencement, by or against the trustees body corporate may be continued and finished by or against the board. ‘32G Assets and liabilities ‘On the commencement, an asset or liability of the trustees body corporate immediately before the commencement becomes an asset or liability of the board. ‘32H Annual report ‘(1) The next annual report made after the commencement must include a report on the administration of the Parliamentary fund under the repealed Act during the period from 1 July 2006 until immediately before the commencement. ‘(2) In this section— annual report means a report under section 20. ‘32I Auditing ‘(1) The former trustees must give to the board the accounts under the repealed Act, section 14, relating to the period from 1 July 2006 until immediately before the commencement. ‘(2) A reference in section 20A(1)(b) or (2) to financial statements includes the accounts received by the board under subsection (1). ‘(3) In this section— former trustees means the persons who were the Parliamentary trustees immediately before the commencement. ‘32J Liability for tax ‘(1) State tax is not payable in relation to anything done (including, for example, a transaction entered into or an instrument made, executed, lodged or given) because of, or for a purpose connected with or arising out of, this part. ‘(2) In this section— State tax means a tax imposed under an Act. tax includes any fee, duty, levy or charge. ‘32K Deed making power for transferring members ‘(1) This section provides for the amendment of the deed under section 12 to provide for transferring members. ‘(2) An amendment of the deed may be expressed as a relocation to the deed of a provision, with or without stated changes, of the repealed Act. ‘(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared the amendment does not amend the repealed Act. ‘(4) The amendment must not commence until the repeal of the repealed Act. ‘(5) The deed must be amended to provide for the membership category or categories of transferring members. ‘(6) The deed must be amended to include provision for a resignation matter to be decided by a committee (the Parliamentary Benefits Committee) consisting of the following persons— (a) the Premier; (b) the speaker of the Legislative Assembly; 526 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

(c) the member of the Legislative Assembly who is recognised as the leader of the opposition. ‘(7) This section does not limit section 12. ‘(8) In this section— resignation matter means a matter about whether a transferring member has resigned, or not sought re-election, as a member of the Legislative Assembly for good and sufficient reasons. ‘32L Repeal ‘The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970 No. 1 is repealed.’.’. As I outlined earlier, this series of amendments will have the effect of moving the responsibility for the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund to come under the administration of QSuper. Amendments Nos 1 to 6 do that in a number of ways. Amendment No. 1 amends clause 4 and inserts a definition of the ‘Parliamentary Benefits Committee’ and amendment No. 2 also goes to that question. Members would be aware that the board of trustees of the parliamentary superannuation fund comprise the Speaker, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. It is proposed under this bill to retain a parliamentary superannuation committee but that committee will not have any decision-making power. It will have the power to make recommendations to the board of trustees of QSuper in circumstances where a member ceases to be a member voluntarily and to determine or provide advice on whether there are good and sufficient reasons for the member’s superannuation, or some portion of it, to be made available to them. I would expect that, considering the 70 people who remain in this fund, the prospect of the services of that committee being called upon very often over the next 10 to 20 years is very slim. But I thought it important, given the political circumstances that arise from time to time, that the bipartisan consideration of the parliament be given to that through the auspices of that committee. I do stress that the board of trustees of QSuper would ultimately make the decision regardless of the advice that is put forward. I commend those amendments to the House. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 4 to 26, as amended, agreed to. Clause 27, as read, agreed to. Deletion of clauses and insertion of new clauses— Ms BLIGH (12.57 pm): I seek leave to move an amendment that is outside the long title of the bill. Leave granted. Ms BLIGH: I move the following amendment— 7 Replacement of pt 3 (Amendment of Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970) At page 28, lines 7 to 23— omit, insert— ‘Part 3 Consequential amendments ‘Division 1 Amendment of Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 ‘28 Act amended in div 1 ‘This division amends the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. ‘29 Amendment of s 65 (Meaning of paid public appointment and related appointment) ‘Section 65(6), definition reward, paragraph (a)— omit, insert— ‘(a) an amount decided under chapter 7;3 or (aa) an amount decided under the deed under the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 in relation to a transferring member within the meaning of section 32A of that Act; or’. 3 Chapter 7 (Members’ salaries) ‘30 Amendment of s 70 (Meaning of transacts business) ‘Section 70(5), definition reward, paragraph (a)— omit, insert— ‘(a) an amount decided under chapter 7;4 or (aa) an amount decided under the deed under the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 in relation to a transferring member within the meaning of section 32A of that Act; or’. 4 Chapter 7 (Members’ salaries) ‘31 Omission of s 123A (Application of pt 4) ‘Section 123A— omit. 22 Feb 2007 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Bill 527

‘Division 2 Amendment of Public Officers Superannuation Benefits Recovery Act 1988 ‘32 Act amended in div 2 ‘This division amends the Public Officers Superannuation Benefits Recovery Act 1988. ‘33 Amendment of s 8 (Factors relevant to assessment of liability) ‘Section 8(2)(c), ‘established by the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970’— omit, insert— ‘under the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 in relation to a transferring member within the meaning of section 32A of that Act’. ‘Division 3 Amendment of Superannuation (Public Employees Portability) Act 1985 ‘34 Act amended in div 3 ‘This division amends the Superannuation (Public Employees Portability) Act 1985. ‘35 Amendment of s 4 (Meaning of terms) ‘(1) Section 4(1), definition approved superannuation scheme, paragraph (c)— omit. ‘(2) Section 4(1), definition approved superannuation scheme, paragraph (d)— renumber as paragraph (b). ‘36 Amendment of s 9 (Payment by the Crown) ‘Section 9, ‘the State Service Superannuation Fund, the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund or’— omit. ‘37 Amendment of s 10 (Receipt and application of transfer values) ‘Section 10(4), ‘Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970’— omit, insert— ‘Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 in relation to a transferring member within the meaning of section 32A of that Act’.’. This amendment deletes two clauses and inserts 10 new clauses. In summary, what this amendment does is provide further for the facilitation of the movement of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund to come under the auspices of QSuper. I draw attention to one of those provisions—and that is a subsequent amendment of the Parliament of Queensland Act. The Parliament of Queensland Act currently contains a prohibition on salary sacrificing for members who are members of the parliamentary superannuation fund. Salary sacrificing is a commonplace entitlement for public servants in QSuper and therefore is an entitlement of members who were elected from December 2004 onwards and who are therefore members of QSuper. It is an entitlement enjoyed in other superannuation schemes, and I understand that, if it is not already, it will soon be, under Commonwealth changes, available to members of the Commonwealth parliament. This amendment simply omits that prohibition. It is not a requirement for members to take up the opportunity to salary sacrifice. As I understand it at the moment, there would be no financial benefit in doing so. But subsequent Commonwealth changes may make it something members wish to consider. This amendment seeks to remove the prohibition and allows members, in consideration of their own financial circumstances at some time in the future, if they wish, to avail themselves of that entitlement. I felt it important to draw the attention of the House to that fact. Amendment agreed to. Third Reading Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Long Title Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (12.59 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be amended to omit the words ‘another act’ and insert after ‘and’ the words ‘other acts and to repeal the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970’. Motion agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill, as amended, be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1 pm to 2.30 pm. 528 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

WILD RIVERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 6 February (see p. 46). Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (2.30 pm): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill today. As we know, it was introduced last year and then another bill pertaining to regulations on what was to happen was brought into parliament and now we have the naming of the six river systems. Those six river systems are the Staaten, the Gregory, Mornington Inlet, the Settlement, Hinchinbrook and Fraser Island. I thank the minister for the briefing that I received. During that briefing, I asked the minister’s staff how many rivers were intended to be in wild rivers and the answer was 19. Eventually, when there are 19 rivers of the north involved, it will take up a massive amount of north Queensland because the tributaries of those river systems are also involved. This has filled the property owners of the far-north with great angst. These people have been there for a number of generations and they have fought hard in a wilderness area. They are totally isolated. They fly in and out in the wet and they struggle against the elements. We in the opposition see this legislation as being another impost upon them. It is an impost that they must get used to, because there is no doubt this legislation will be made law today because of the numbers the government has in this House. This legislation goes back to a deal with the Wilderness Society and the Greens. That is exactly what this whole bill is about. There are members in this place and a lot of people elsewhere who would like to see north Queensland turned into another Yellowstone National Park from the United States of America. They have great resources up there, so we have to look at the actual impost this will have on the people who live there, on the extraction industries and on the Aboriginal society. This will totally tie up the north and we simply do not accept this. Mr O’Brien: You voted for it. Mr HOPPER: It is too hard for them. Only last week I went to Georgetown and met with the property owners up there. I met with the Keoghs, the McDonalds, the Bethels, the Hughes. These are people who have lived there all their life. Mr O’Brien: Did you tell them you voted for it? Mr HOPPER: I hear the arrogance of the members opposite with their interjections. They should take the time to go north and meet these people and see in detail the effects this legislation will have on them, but the fact is that they are simply too gutless to do such a thing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! That language is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw it. Mr HOPPER: I withdraw that, but I do note that the minister for transport used those exact words yesterday in this House. This legislation will have a huge impost on these people. Members opposite, including the minister, should go to Georgetown and meet with these people and talk to them in depth about the effects this will have on them. They should fly over the rivers and look at the green beside the rivers. That green beside the rivers is where most of the feed is grown for the cattle, and that is where most of the production comes from in these areas. What we will see with this bill is one kilometre each side of the river and the tributaries locked up. That is exactly what this legislation will do. This will lock up the best part of their land; the rest is just mongrel country. The naming of these river systems will deter any further development. This will put pressure on those people to make a living out of the limited resources that they have, because their hands are now tied. They have just been through the Vegetation Management Act under this government. Their hands are being tied and what has been proposed for them today in this legislation is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable because members on the other side of the House have done a deal with the Wilderness Society and the Greens at the expense of the people who live in the north. Has anyone ever done the sums and calculated what the beef industry and the mining industry in the north pull out of the cape? It is simply amazing that we have to stand here and debate this bill. I will not support this bill today, and I am proud to take that position. I call the people of north Queensland the forgotten people. The week before last, I was in Cairns to listen to the issues of the forgotten people up there. These issues will all tie in with the wild rivers. To me, they bear this name as the new pioneers of our nation. These are the people based in our beautifully pristine north who are forging new territory and suffering the tyranny of distance for the sake of opening up our northern regions. Here we have wounds being forced upon them by this crippling legislation. They are forgotten because, unfortunately, these landowners, farmers, small business people, Indigenous people and families of the area are only being represented by this side of the House; they are only being represented by the opposition. They have been forgotten by the government. They are pawns in a huge game of politics that they cannot control. As I said before, the government has done a deal with the Wilderness Society and the Greens. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 529

I have visited these people in the last fortnight to talk with them, to listen to their issues and to sit down and discuss their hopes and aspirations but also their fears and concerns about living in north Queensland. They are a hardy bunch up there and they do not scare easily as a result. They are good, tough, hardworking Queenslanders. They put up with massive floods, the tyranny of distance, crocodiles, weeds and disease- spreading feral animals. But the one thing they fear above all is the impact of the Wild Rivers Act on their very survival in this beautiful paradise. I stand in this House today as a voice for these forgotten people. I stand today in this parliament willing to have my say on their behalf to try to stop the regulatory tool that they fear the most. It may be at cost to me and the team that stands with me, but it is a cost we are willing to pay for the sake of these noble Queenslanders whose only crime is to live on an island or next to a river. The Wild Rivers Act 2005 is a planning instrument. It is an instrument that allows a person with a map and a pen in a far off place to determine the fate of the economic future of a region and the landowners who live in that region. It is a planning tool that determines the economic future of the Indigenous people of this area. It is a planning tool that determines the fate of the communities in the region. It is also a planning tool that determines the fate of industry in that region. This is a discriminatory planning instrument too, in that it does not apply to all Queenslanders. Instead, it applies only to those who live in a remote or isolated region where the declaration of a wild river is made. It also discriminates between those Queenslanders who have looked after the natural habitat of the area and those who have not. Unfortunately, though, those who have cared for the environment are the ones who will be punished. In saying that, we have property managers and property owners up there who treat that environment as something that provides for them. They and their families have been there for 200 years. If they were the rapists of the environment that they are made out to be, they simply would not be able to make the living that they do, they would not be able to employ the people they employ, and they would not look after their land as they do. Landowners are being punished because they have not raped and pillaged the area and, as such, have allowed the pristine nature of the habitat to be upheld. They then suffer the wrath of being stuck in a time warp because of their care and attention to the environment. These are the people who have not cleared the land. They could have had dozers and chains in there for years, but they have not done that. They have not destroyed the country by development or poor management. Instead, what they have done—as this legislation admits—is kept the land and the rivers in a pristine condition. If they had not then these areas would not be considered for declaration. I refer to the Department of Natural Resources and Water publication Wild Rivers Field Guide for Graziers, where it defines the key terms and especially the wild rivers area as— The area, usually the river catchment or drainage basin, as mapped in the declaration. Generally, these areas are relatively undisturbed, have little development or have been managed sustainably. It is the last two words of that definition that really hit home in relation to the management of these wild rivers areas. The reason they are being declared is because they have been managed sustainably. Wild rivers legislation has not brought about sustainable management of the area, it is sustainable management that has brought about the declaration of the wild river. This is not achieved overnight. This sustainable management has been carried on for generations by the people in this region. Whether they are the Australian Indigenous people or European descendants in the area, their management of this country has been so magnificent that they stand before us faced with the threat of this disgusting wild rivers legislation. Why is this legislation a threat to them? It is because the magnificent management of the area now ends and the restrictions on using and working this land begin. That is exactly what is about to happen through the passing of this legislation today. These forgotten Queenslanders live in a region that the Commonwealth has recently earmarked as a potential growth area for industry. What has it been saying? Australia should move its high water- using industry from the dry south to the wet north. This is a logical premise. We are a nation suffering from the effects of changed climate patterns. We are told that the rainfall is at its lowest on the coast. This is in complete contrast to the rainfall that is plentiful in the north-west of our state. Unfortunately though, the wild rivers legislation that we debate today traps a very wet and potentially productive north- west into a time warp, a time warp that forces infrastructure to stay at 2005 levels. This can never fulfil the logical argument that industry should move to the water rather than the water being moved to industry. Members may ask about the time warp I keep mentioning and how the Wild Rivers Code will keep this area in a time warp. This is the reality of the legislation that holds these rivers to that fate. Under the wild rivers legislation an area is condemned by having any new development stop. The problem arises when we look at the code that has been tabled with the bill for information purposes. The reason I say it is for information purposes is because comment on the code is still underway. We are not seeing the final draft of the code and yet this current form will be the last time we can make any comment on it. 530 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

This code is not subordinate legislation so it is not subject to the scrutiny of the parliament. The code is subject to change at the whim of the minister without any requirement for consultation with producer groups. This is an unacceptable situation because, as the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has pointed out, it is arguable that this could potentially affect rights and liberties or impose obligations retrospectively. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee makes further comments on the process of approving amendments to the code, namely questioning whether the process for approval sufficiently subjects the amendments to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly. The opposition objects to this legislation. This code is long winded and it is complex. It puts the onus of compliance with a complex and long-winded document on the landholder. Therefore, it forces landholders to seek outside advice in making simple property management decisions. What is being put forward in this House today is totally unacceptable to the landholder who will be subjected to the low- level bureaucracy that has been created by today’s decision. This legislation will replace the many generations of self management that have allowed the rivers to be kept in the pristine condition that they are in order to be considered for declaration. Place on top of this compliance with the vegetation management codes, water act codes and in some cases even World Heritage listing codes and the process will make it impossible for a landholder to progress any development, no matter how small. It makes it especially difficult for the landholder to make definite plans when under mandatory requirements the table headings are ‘required outcomes’ and ‘probable solution’. ‘Probable solution’ does not add clarity to the mandatory requirements; it adds grey areas that will make it impossible for landholders to comply without fear of prosecution. It will be impossible for land managers in the area to comply. The question is how will noncompliance be policed. The vast areas of land that this legislation covers will make policing compliance to the code impossible. I do not know if any members have actually been to the cape and know the vastness of it, but it is simply amazing. How many officers will the regulatory department require to police noncompliance with the act in an area where people do not talk in acres or hectares but in thousands of square miles or square kilometres? I take the example of weed management in the cape. Weed management in these areas is not done by a weed wand, a little hand sprayer or a four-wheel motorbike; it is done by aerial spraying. The massive amount of country is incomprehensible. What these people have to do to try to develop the land is unbelievable. This code attached to the bill is not the answer. If I was the minister, the solution to land management in that area would not be a restrictive code but would be a formalised, independent property plan process that was superior to the code. An independent property plan assessed by an agency would provide certainty and clarity to the land manager in making property based decisions. We have not chosen to amend on this basis because it would be deemed contrary to the bill, and so we cannot support the bill without the suitable provision formalising independent property plans. I note the amendment that the minister has put forward and I shall speak about that in the consideration stage. Despite this, I call on the minister to formalise independent property plans to override the code. This problem is not the only issue that the Queensland coalition has with this legislation, but it will go a long way to improve it. I will now discuss the areas themselves and the issues that the Queensland coalition has with them. The biggest issue that our one team has with the declarations themselves is the inaccuracy of the mapping of these areas. I refer to the inclusion of Vanrook Creek in the Staaten wild river area. I need the minister to listen to this because the spatial data used for the Staaten catchment is totally unreliable and has led to incorrect designation of the Staaten catchment and some high-preservation areas. I flew over the exact area that we are talking about. Our information obtained by visiting landowners and land management groups in the Georgetown region is that finer scale data available from the Department of Defence to the EPA and Northern Gulf Resource Management Group, which is being used in property planning activities, has confirmed that Vanrook Creek is part of the Gilbert River catchment, which is consistent with the ongoing understanding of locals in the area. What we have here is legislation drawn up stating that certain things will happen but it is wrong because the maps are wrong. How does the minister think property owners feel having this forced upon them when the boundaries are not even right? Yet legislation is being put in place that is going to constrict their ongoing production on these properties. The first thing someone has to have is faith in the planners who are putting a plan in place that will put so much emphasis on the running of their property. When a planner cannot even get the maps right it is very, very disappointing. It must be of concern to the minister that the mapping of this area is inaccurate when declarations are being made. I have been told that the departmental mapping is at a scale of one to 250,000 whereas the landowners through their voluntary independent property plans are using mapping that ranges in scales of one to 10,000 to one to 25,000. This difference in accuracy has put a tributary of the Gilbert River in the Staaten River catchment when it does not even join the Staaten River. Surely given this one example it must throw into question the mapping process undertaken by this department in this region. I also question the validity of the declarations of certain areas being made in this bill that are already covered by World Heritage listings, in particular the inclusion of Fraser Island and Hinchinbrook Island. Surely World Heritage listing of an island would be the ultimate in protection. Why do we need to 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 531 attach another restriction that is redundant before it is even considered? This questionable decision to add Fraser Island and Hinchinbrook Island surely casts even more doubt on the credibility of areas to be declared as wild rivers. It is also important to point out that Hinchinbrook Island and Fraser Island are actually islands and are not rivers so their declaration as wild rivers seems an oddity unto itself. I know the member for Hinchinbrook will expand on this in his speech. I would like to look at the attitude that industry groups have towards this legislation. Let us look at the attitude of the rural industry towards the wild river legislation declarations. There has been a lot written in the media about the position of AgForce with regard to wild rivers. A lot of the story given to the media has been untrue. I table for the information of the House the following documents: a copy of an article in the Cairns Post titled ‘AgForce does not back wild rivers’ and an AgForce wild rivers update dated 15 February 2007 on the meetings AgForce has held with members and the changes that have occurred. Tabled paper: Copy of an article from the Cairns Post, dated 19 February 2007, titled ‘AgForce does not back “wild rivers”’. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘WR Update 15.02.07’. I note the final line on the second page says— After significant complaints regarding continued poor consultation, AgForce has met with the Premier’s Department to complain again about the Wild Rivers process. Yet we saw members of this government out there saying that AgForce supported this process. AgForce was tearing its hair out trying to get the amendments that are being introduced today brought in. It never supported this legislation. It is obvious that the rural industry does not support the wild rivers legislation. It does not support these declarations. It is a shame that it has been incorrectly linked as a supporter of this legislation when so clearly it is not. AgForce, like the Queensland coalition, has a huge problem with the loss of public control of the declaration process, amendments to the code and the burden placed on landholders by these declarations. These declarations are totally unnecessary. I say that because vegetation management has stopped mass land clearing in Queensland. It has designated areas that are remnant vegetation. It has also stipulated the distance from rivers in which development can take place. Is this not enough? Why is 200 metres not enough for a well managed river? Why is there inconsistency in these declarations of one kilometre? It is simply ridiculous. The Queensland coalition cannot support this legislation. There are a few reasons for that. There are major concerns about the inaccuracy of the mapping processes. One of the creeks may not even flow into the river to be declared. The legislation is redundant because of other legislation that covers the same areas in a more stringent way such as World Heritage listing, vegetation management and the Water Act to name a few. The code that accompanies the bill is heavy-handed, not fully developed and has several grey areas even though compliance is on the head of the applicant. The process of the amendment to this code is given to the minister and so can be changed at a whim and not necessarily with consultation. That puts the minister in a very powerful position. This worries me. The legislation, according to both the explanatory notes and also the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, imposes potentially adverse effects on the rights and liberties of individuals and imposes obligations retrospectively. It is also questionable whether these processes are subject to sufficient scrutiny by the Legislative Assembly. The Queensland coalition would like to see land management in the hands of land managers and not bureaucrats. It is not wild rivers legislation that has made these rivers pristine. These rivers are pristine because of the management of landowners. That is why they find their way to the list. Our team would rather see the introduction of independent property plans that are assessable and see the wild rivers legislation in use overridden instead of this heavy-handed approach that the state government is taking. Finally, AgForce, the peak body of rural industry in Queensland, does not support this legislation. That merely backs up our position that this legislation is still unworkable. I said at the outset of speaking to this bill that I represent the forgotten people out there who are directly affected by this legislation. It is my role and the role of our one team to at least stand up for these people who will be the ones to live with a future stuck in an economic time warp. Recently whilst I was in north Queensland I heard complaints from people that they have members of parliament in government, members of parliament in cabinet, and look what is happening to them. Look at the Burdekin Dam and the massive amount of water flowing over that wall and going into the ocean. We must put stage 2 of that project in place. We must look at the highways up north. We must look at the forgotten people. We must not impose legislation like this upon them. We are in favour of the amendments before the House. We will support the amendments because they weaken the legislation further. But it is still going to put pressure on farmers. They have to come up with a property management plan. I note in the amendments that there is a cost to this. I would like to know what that will be. The legislation is very flawed with regard to mapping. We are very concerned about this. The bureaucrats can sit in their offices down here and wield their big stick, but they have got to get it right because it affects a lot of people who are hurting. 532 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

The amendments formalise the property plans. This is a better situation. I thank AgForce and others for the work they did to get the department to understand this. Property plans will be the key to amending each declaration area—and this is a good thing—as long as the minister and his people who will be providing advice are not as restrictive as this code. If they are as restrictive as this code it will only tie nooses around their necks. There seems to be a discrepancy in the amendments concerning where property plans will be subject to public consultation. That is not the case concerning amendments to the code. That can be done by the minister without consultation. It puts the minister in a very powerful position. We are very concerned that by some chance—I am not saying you are not across it—if you were not across it— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Moorhead): Order! You should direct your comments through the chair. Mr HOPPER: Not a problem. The amendments will relate to 10 years of development on properties. That locks property owners into a time warp of economic growth for that property for 10 years. As mentioned, the Queensland coalition will be supporting these amendments because they further weaken the legislation. I must stress my disappointment with this wild rivers legislation. I believe it is another gimmick by the Beattie government. ‘Wild rivers’ is not a great name. When people think about wild rivers they think of something like the Mississippi or the Murray-Darling. The Murray-Darling should be flowing all of the time. The Murray-Darling would not have any water in it if it were not for the locks and weirs and man-made dams in it. It is a simple as that. The wild rivers legislation is a perception. It is a perception to go along with the dirty deals that have been done with the Wilderness Society and the greens to try to capture the votes and look after the seats of those very few members who do nothing for north Queensland. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (2.59 pm): I rise to support the bill before the House. Let me start by saying that the hypocrisy of the National Party on this knows no bounds. When the shadow minister went out to Georgetown I wonder if he told the people he was talking to that he came into this parliament and supported the wild rivers legislation. I wonder if he was honest and truthful with those people he was consulting with at Georgetown and told them that every time up until today that wild rivers legislation has come into this parliament the National Party and he personally have supported the passage of it through this House. Those opposite have divided on one clause with regard to the wild rivers legislation. One minor clause is all the National Party has divided on in this House, and that had to do with public consultation. Mrs Sullivan: Even the Liberals are supporting it! Mr O’BRIEN: I will come to the Liberals in a minute. I see that Liberal members are on the speaking list again today, but I think we will find that Dr Flegg has been rolled again. I think the member for Moggill has been barrelled over again by the National Party. I would be very curious to know if the shadow minister told those people in Georgetown that he supported this legislation when it was first introduced into the House. The answer is that I doubt it very much. I doubt it very much that he was truly honest with those people and had the intestinal fortitude to tell them that he supported the wild rivers legislation when it was initially brought into this House. I do not know if AgForce supports wild rivers or not, but I do know that the National Party is on the record of this parliament supporting wild rivers—and well it should, because it is important legislation. If it was not unparliamentary, I would give it a clap for supporting the wild rivers legislation because it is groundbreaking, world-leading and important legislation for Queensland. We are going through a debate in this country at the moment about the Murray-Darling Basin and the fact that we have to spend $10 billion to try to repair the Murray-Darling Basin. Why do we have to spend $10 billion to repair that river system? Because the planning was wrong. Because over many decades we did not get it right. Governments of all persuasions at all levels did not get it right. The consequences of not getting the planning right is a $10 billion bill. If we do not get the planning right now for rivers that are not developed and for new areas that can be developed, then the consequence will be that we will leave our children a $10 billion bill. That will be the consequence of the proposal put on the table by the shadow minister today. He is rolling the dice with the future of the children of this country and future generations, and he should be ashamed of himself. He has supported this legislation with the National Party and they are backflipping today, and it is obvious that the Liberals have been done over in the process. The argument that the shadow minister has put forward is that because these rivers are in pristine condition they should not be protected. The essence of the argument is that somehow because they are in good condition we do not have to do anything. I did not quite grasp the logical flow of the debate. The realities of course are that there are increasing development pressures on these river systems. If we give in entirely to that pressure, as the National Party now would have us do, the consequence is that those values will be lost forever until we come up with the $10 billion to fix them. There is increasing development pressure. That is why we have to do the planning now to ensure that it is economically and environmentally sustainable in the long term. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 533

It is just absolute basic planning what we are doing here. I do agree with what he said in that this bill is a planning instrument. It is similar to undertaking a development in Brisbane. People have to go to the council and put in their development application. It goes through a process that either accepts or rejects the application and puts conditions on the application if it is approved. That is essentially the process that we are putting in place here today. What the shadow minister would have us believe is that there should be no process. What the shadow minister would have us believe is that there should be no application, that there should be carte blanche ability for those property owners to do whatever it is that they want. That is not a right that is extended to anybody in this country or this state, but the shadow minister would have us believe that because these people live in remote areas or near pristine areas they should have that right. Again, it is a simple failure of logical progression. Mr Hopper: You’re right. Mr O’BRIEN: I am right; thank you very much. That is good, because those opposite have backflipped today. I think it is a terrible shame. I think the National Party did the right thing in supporting wild rivers when it first came into this legislature. It was obviously under some pressure from the Liberal Party to support the wild rivers legislation. But I think it is a terrible shame what it has come in here today to do. It is simply playing politics with these people. It is actually going to remove the certainty of the people that the member purports to represent. This bill provides some certainty and some process for those people to move forward into the future. What the shadow minister is proposing here today would actually remove that certainty for those people to do the property planning that they need to do on their properties. He is playing petty politics with the lives of these people. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (3.06 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007, I want to address the issue of why we need the Wild Rivers Act 2005 at all. Many people have asked this question because they believe there is enough environmental legislation to protect the state’s river systems without this act. Firstly, it is important to understand that rivers are arteries of catchments. The health of the river reflects the health of the catchment. The river and the catchments are very closely interconnected and have to be managed together. This means development and management activities occurring in a catchment can have an adverse impact on a river’s health. How large an impact and how fast that will occur depends on the nature of the activity and its location relative to the river system. Activities that involve altering water flows, removing vegetation, disturbing the soil and releasing pollutants have the greatest impact. If they are located close to the river or its tributaries, the impacts will happen quickly; otherwise it could take years for the impact to become evident. It is true that there are many pieces of legislation that manage the state’s natural resources, many of which impact on the health of rivers. However, none of these pieces of legislation are focused on river health per se. None of them are holistic to cover the wide range of issues that affect river health or to integrate all of the incremental impacts. None of them set threshold limits or target conditions for a river. Most importantly, none of them provide a process for identifying specific rivers of interest for preservation. How are agencies and local governments to know which rivers deserve greater protection than others when applying rules under their acts? How are communities to express their views on which rivers warrant greater protection? It would be impractical to have one set of rules to apply to all river systems irrespective of their condition. Clearly, some systems have been developed to support industry, agriculture and urban communities. Others have less development and so retain much of their natural values. One set of rules cannot be applied to all. No other piece of legislation has this philosophy. Instead, each deals with its own key issues, be it water, vegetation, pollution, fisheries, mining and so on. Although some legislation addresses impacts on rivers, often that power is very limited. For example, the Water Act deals with the taking of water from rivers, aquifers and catchments unless there is a water resource plan—and we all know how long that takes. Applications to take water are dealt with on a case-by-case basis without an overall limit or a cap on the total water take in order to protect the rivers’s health. As members may be aware, the water resource planning exercise is quite major and is not justified for largely undisturbed river systems where demand is relatively low. To do a water resource plan for one wild river system would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Alternatively, the government could administratively set water take limits through departmental policies. But there is no transparent process for doing that, nor would it be legally defensible if challenged. Therefore, the setting of water-take caps in a wild river declaration that is tailored to a particular river system is the best, most transparent process. In another example, the Environmental Protection Act places constraints on developments and operations to minimise their impact on the environment through water, air, or noise pollution. Unless environmental values have been set for a particular river system, there is no threshold limit against which impacts are measured. Setting additional development constraints transparently through a wild river declaration will lift the bar for maintaining water quality in these river systems. The Nature Conservation Act allows national parks and other conservation areas to be established to protect unique natural heritage values in an area. Apart from Hinchinbrook Island, these parks and areas do not cover whole river systems. Also, they are focused on a range of values or 534 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 species rather than on healthy rivers. In the case of Hinchinbrook Island, some people have asked what value a wild river declaration would add to this island, which is a national park. Firstly, it will set a development requirement for any expansion of the resort on the island, including any associated infrastructure such as roads, stream crossings, mangrove clearings, tree clearings, sewage treatments, and water supply. Secondly, it will increase the island’s national and international status as an area of natural heritage and beauty. It is possible to have future developments in a particular river catchment assessed against the five natural values of interest to wild rivers. That would require coordination across several state agencies and relevant local governments, which is possible. However, without caps or threshold limits, the assessment would have limited effect. Again, we would need a separate mechanism to openly list these rivers of interest. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.12 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. This bill will enable the declaration of the Staaten and Gregory rivers, Settlement Creek, Morning Inlet and Hinchinbrook and Fraser islands as wild river areas. Hinchinbrook Island is in my electorate and I intend to speak for some time later about the implications of the wild rivers declaration on Hinchinbrook Island. From the very beginning, there have been considerable concerns expressed by a range of organisations from regional Queensland which oppose this legislation. The first bill, which resulted in the Wild Rivers Act 2005, was particularly punitive legislation that was introduced by the Beattie government to honour a 2004 state election promise that was designed to buy the preferences of the Queensland Greens. It was a political manoeuvre. Without regard for the impact that the legislation would have on landowners and communities in regional and rural areas, the government introduced the legislation in the face of stringent opposition from the Queensland Resources Council, the Cape York Land Council, a number of local councils, especially the Cook shire, and AgForce. At that time, the opposition sought to draw the government’s attention to significant defects in the legislation. Those defects were confirmed last year when this House considered a raft of amendments to the Wild Rivers Act in the form of the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The amendments that were passed last year mitigated some of the oppressive provisions of the original wild rivers legislation. To a degree, those amendments made the act more workable. In developing the amendments last year, the government consulted organisations such as the QRC, the LGAQ and AgForce. These organisations sought a range of changes to the legislation that had increased uncertainty, diminished the property rights of landowners and miners, and limited the potential for development in regional economies and rural shires. The Queensland coalition supported the amendments contained in the bill that was introduced last year to try to give rural industries and rural communities some flexibility and opportunities into the future. The organisations that participated in the consultation process with the government indicated that they welcomed the changes because, to a certain extent, the amendments mitigated the severity of the restrictions that landowners would face when wild river declarations were made. Members could then imagine the surprise of the AgForce organisation, Queensland’s peak rural lobby group, when Premier Beattie, at a community cabinet meeting at Atherton on Sunday, 11 February 2007, said in response to a question from a grazier affected by the Staaten River wild river declaration that AgForce supported and signed off on the wild rivers declarations. I refer members to parts of the ABC’s Far North Queensland Rural Report dated 15 February 2007 titled ‘AgForce denies supporting wild rivers legislation’, which reports as follows— Mr Shine: Where were you? Why didn’t you come? Mr Wallace: Why weren’t you there? Mr CRIPPS: This morning in this House I heard the Treasurer make a whole heap of very supportive comments about the professionalism of the ABC and how it reports its stories. So if the Attorney-General and the Minister for Natural Resources and Water do not want to listen to what the ABC reported in this respect, that is fine. I will continue with my speech. The ABC reported— Contrary to what Premier Beattie said on the weekend, peak rural lobby group Agforce is denying it supports the Queensland Government’s new Wild Rivers legislation. Agforce is claiming part responsibility for ‘unwinding’ the legislation associated with the first Wild Rivers declaration applicable to Gulf river systems. At last Sunday’s community cabinet meeting held in Atherton, some people asked Premier Beattie questions about wild river declarations. Strathmore grazier Scott Harris is likely to be affected by the Staaten River wild river declaration. He asked the Premier if he could tell his employees why they no longer have jobs. The Premier, in his response, pointed out that there were two areas affected by wild rivers legislation. He started his response by concentrating on the first declaration, which includes four rivers in the gulf region, including the Staaten River. Mr Beattie said that AgForce supported and signed off on this first model agreement. He stated further— We sat down with the miners, the farmers, we sat down with the environmentalists and Indigenous people and we came up with an agreement which Agforce supported. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 535

AgForce president, Peter Kenny, admits that he negotiated with the government to ensure that the first wild rivers declaration was changed, but he denies supporting the legislation. He states— We reject the legislation outright and anything associated with it... we’ve had to work with the Government realising that this legislation will not be repealed... and so the only way to alleviate the situation is to negotiate with the Government to try to unwind this legislation to the extent that people can actually live in the country. Those words are no endorsement of the wild rivers legislation. That much is clear. Mr Hinchliffe interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Would the member for Stafford please return to his seat if he wishes to make comment. Mr CRIPPS: Regrettably, the Premier is not the only member of the government to misrepresent AgForce with respect to the wild rivers legislation. In a media statement on Tuesday, 12 December 2006, the Minister for Natural Resources and Water asserted— Throughout 2006 exhaustive stakeholder consultation occurred with environmentalists, Indigenous landholders, miners and graziers and their support was obtained. Amendments to the act occurred last month to implement changes negotiated with stakeholders. Mr Wallace said further that he wanted the declarations of the six wild rivers areas done and dusted, adding— This type of legislation has never been attempted before in Queensland or anywhere else in Australia. We expected it would take time to consult and finetune the act and this has occurred. The Wilderness Society, Agforce and the Queensland Resources Council now all agree about how to protect these pristine rivers. Again, these are half-truths being perpetuated by the government to try to cloak itself in some sort of security blanket that it has done the right thing by landowners. It has not. Just because these stakeholders participated in the consultation process with respect to the recent amendments to the wild rivers legislation last year does not imply some sort of tacit support for the wild rivers legislation. It does not. AgForce does not support the wild rivers legislation because its implementation fails to recognise sustainable development and adds to the increased level of restrictions and regulations that burden landowners and the opportunities of councils and other industries to develop, particularly the mining industry. Speaking of the mining industry, the QRC is also opposed to any further declarations because of the potential for declarations to limit further exploration and development of the mining industry in Queensland. During the debate on the bill amending the Wild Rivers Act last year, I spoke about the implications of the wild rivers legislation on Hinchinbrook Island. Hinchinbrook Island is Australia’s largest island national park. Its unique environment has resulted in both the Queensland government and the Commonwealth government choosing to make a range of conservation declarations on and around the island to preserve its natural values. Hinchinbrook Island’s natural values were recognised early. The island itself was declared a national park in 1932. While I fully the support the ongoing preservation and conservation of Hinchinbrook Island, one has to wonder whether the declaration of the island as a national park, its subsequent World Heritage listing and the fact that it is surrounded by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park would be more than adequate protection for the environment in that area without the island being declared a wild rivers area. A very interesting email arrived at my office recently on Sunday, 11 February from the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook regarding the proposed declaration of Hinchinbrook Island as a wild river area. I understand that it was sent to all members in this place. This is an organisation that has been established by a group of people which focuses its activity principally on opposing the Port Hinchinbrook development just south of Cardwell. As an aside, the Beattie government has periodically been unreasonable in its treatment of the various applications that it has been required to assess regarding the Port Hinchinbrook development, but that is a discussion to have at another time. I do not support the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook and its opposition to the Port Hinchinbrook development. It is an excellent development that has been successful so far and has great potential for the future. However, on this occasion the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook has expressed its opposition to the proposed wild river declaration for Hinchinbrook Island. The Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook argues that Hinchinbrook Island is already adequately protected as a national park. This is the point I argued last year during the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The minister ought to consider, given that misgivings about the wild rivers declaration associated with Hinchinbrook Island are being expressed by a variety of interested parties, whether or not this particular declaration with respect to Hinchinbrook Island is appropriate or whether it needs to be looked at again. There is a range of issues associated with this legislation that need to be put on the record. I understand that further wild river declarations will not be scrutinised by the Queensland Legislative Assembly but will be considered only by the minister. This is a very concerning situation, especially given that already notice has been issued that the Cape York Peninsula moratorium area—comprising 536 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 the catchments and basins of the Jacky Jacky, the Jardine, the Ducie, the Wenlock, the Olive, the Pascoe, the Lockhart, the Watson, the Archer, the Stewart, the Holroyd, the Coleman and Jeannie rivers—is in the firing line for wild river declarations. There will be no provision for an appeal to be lodged against a wild river declaration. This is a fundamental legislative principle. The minister will be the only person who nominates and declares a wild river. No debate about the merits or otherwise of individual declarations will take place here in the Queensland parliament, nor will the declaration be subject to a disallowance motion. This is a blatant and arrogant subjugation of the parliament. Indigenous groups in far-north Queensland have also expressed their dissatisfaction about the wild rivers legislation, although the minister and the government will probably try to claim that they have been subdued by the amendments in last year’s bill and now support the legislation as well. The Cape York Land Council expressed concerns that the wild rivers legislation would have negative effects on far-north Queensland Indigenous communities with respect to the development opportunities that may be denied as a result of wild river declarations. Another matter that deserves some attention is the significant restrictions that will be placed on regional and rural landowners that will result in the locking up of large tracts of land under wild river declarations which, as a consequence, will result in that land being degraded and overrun in many cases by feral animals and pest weeds. That this occurs where access to land is restricted has been well documented, particularly in relation to state forests and nationals parks, especially in north Queensland, where the wild rivers legislation will have its greatest and most significant and most punitive ramifications. There are very serious problems with feral animals on state controlled land in north Queensland. Similarly, there are serious problems with pest weeds. Wild river declarations will cover private land. As such, I assume private landholders will continue to be responsible for controlling the pest weeds and feral animals on the area of their properties affected by wild river declarations. This is another regrettable example of the Beattie government placing significant burdens on private landowners. Private landowners will now be burdened with controlling pest weeds and feral animals, at significant cost, on their land that they cannot use for productive purposes. If it sounds like the government’s vegetation management legislation there is a good reason for that. As I said when this place last considered wild rivers legislation, the Queensland coalition supports sensible efforts to conserve areas of environmental significance. The Queensland coalition supports common-sense conservation and there is no reason why these goals cannot be achieved in conjunction with sustainable economic development. But this bill will inhibit that development. For this reason the opposition will oppose this legislation. The Beattie government has not learnt its lesson about introducing poorly conceived legislation and it has demonstrated that it will continue with its punitive and unfair treatment of rural and regional Queenslanders by failing to take on board the concerns expressed by those in opposition to this bill. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (3.25 pm): I rise to speak to the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The first wild rivers legislation was introduced on 28 September 2005. This legislation was pushed through parliament under the pretence of protecting rivers. However, the development of the code proved that it had nothing to do with protecting rivers but was designed to end sustainable economic and social development in the affected areas. The Wild Rivers Code was completely unworkable in declared areas and it was hard to believe that some bureaucrat was paid to write that nonsense. Mr O’Brien: Why did you support it? Mr Horan: Listen to a real north Queenslander. You might learn something. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Would the member for Toowoomba South return to his seat if he wishes to make comment. Mr KNUTH: I will give members just one example in the Staaten River catchment of the stupidity of the code, which was designed to stop the use of mechanical equipment or chemicals in a wild river area to prevent the spread of weeds. The code only allowed a 20-metre by 20-metre area to be cleared by hand which had to be revegetated back to 100 per cent of its natural state before moving on. This meant that it would have taken every man, woman and child in Australia three years to clear one area of noxious weeds each to satisfy the code for one wild river catchment. Now the government has developed another code which is just as pitiful as the last one. These management practices have been the standard for generations of pastoralists who have managed these rivers and who have kept this land sustainable for years. These rivers have been maintained and protected by these people because their livelihoods depend on their survival. The very people who the wild rivers legislation is trying to kick out of declared areas are the same people and the only people who are dedicated to the protection of the rivers. They manage the weed control and the pest control, and they look after the rivers and keep them clean. This is common sense. If we stop landowners from participating in river usage then rivers will become infested with noxious weeds and feral animals. This is logic and you do not have to be Einstein to work it out. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 537

Mining companies have a legislative requirement not to damage rivers. However, landowners look after the rivers because their livelihoods depend on it. Aboriginal groups are dreading this legislation. Their fear is what we already know—that is, this legislation will result in poor future prospects for them, removing any form of development, removing any chance of employment and removing opportunities to invest in the development of the most important piece of land, and that is the land one kilometre each side of the river system. There are better ways to protect the rivers in the gulf. The goal of protection has already been achieved through various groups such as Landcare and the Northern Gulf Resource Management Group. They are the grassroots people who provide the region with sound, logical advice. Declaring a river is not going to reap the benefits that the so-called experts are telling us it will. Many of these experts have never lived nor participated nor got their hands dirty with real work and would not have a clue about local knowledge or the region’s environment. You will never see members of the conservation movement or writers of this rubbish legislation out there clearing rubber vine or lantana, because it is hard work. Mrs Sullivan: Absolute nonsense. Mr KNUTH: There are a number of questions that need to be answered. I would just like to say that members opposite have never seen a wild river and would not have a clue. Mr LEE: I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The member is misleading the House. Many members on this side have in fact seen wild rivers many times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr KNUTH: If you had seen a wild river, you would be opposing this legislation. But members opposite would not have a clue and the people up there could not care less— Mr LEE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member directly addressed me and made a comment that if I ‘had seen a wild river’ et cetera. I find that an offensive and untrue proposition. I ask him to immediately withdraw it. Mr KNUTH: I will withdraw that comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue. Mr KNUTH: The people up there could not care less, and they are quite happy for you to build sports stadiums and spend money on multimillion-dollar car races and shopping centres. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member address his comments through the chair? Mr KNUTH: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are happy for the government to do that, but why try to take away their livelihood, why stop them from developing, why stop them from improving their land, why stop them from being productive? They are not out there trying to make the government’s life a misery, so why is the government out there trying to make their lives a misery? What have they done wrong? Why doesn’t the government get up there and talk to them? They are very approachable, down-to-earth, hardworking people, but here the government are thinking, ‘We’ll introduce this and we’ll protect our rivers.’ The government would not even have a clue. A number of questions need to be answered about the legitimacy of current mapping and data. Many of these designated high-preservation areas are based on large-scale data which is liable to produce scientific errors on the ground. Neither the department nor the landowners have had the time or the resources to ground truth the boundaries and special features of the proposed declaration. As the member for Darling Downs said, an example is that Vanrook Creek has been included in the Staaten River area. It is very important that the minister listens to this. The Vanrook Creek has been included in the Staaten River catchment. However, historical and scaled data used in property planning has confirmed that Vanrook Creek is a part of the Gilbert River catchment. We flew over the site. We could see as clear as day that the Vanrook Creek is a part of the Gilbert River catchment and not the Staaten River catchment, so that has to be removed. We do not want wild rivers, full stop. We would like it removed and thrown out. We do not have the numbers here to do that, so we want the minister to look at that Vanrook Creek and throw that out. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would members please desist interjecting? Mr KNUTH: Government members should ask the Aboriginal people in their electorates whether they support this legislation. Most of the water that flows in the Vanrook Creek comes from the Einasleigh River, and Vanrook Creek runs into the sea north of Gilbert River. The minister needs to address that. Pastoralists in northern Queensland play an important role by helping to protect our state from massive feral animal problems, noxious weed problems and the threat of exotic diseases. Landowners and pastoralists take their time, spend their money and make sacrifices to clean those river systems. No-one else does this. If the government kicks them out, who will do it? The conservation movement? The green movement? Who is going to get up there and clean those rivers? They will become ‘wild’ 538 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 rivers—wild rivers full of wild pigs, noxious weeds and rubber vine. Does the government have an answer to that? Who will clean the rivers? It will not be the government members and there will be no- one else to do it either. In its June 2002 research report, the Productivity Commission examined the potential social, economic and environmental consequences of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. The commission reported that the worst case scenario would involve key beef and lamb export markets being closed for 15 months, that the cost of a foot-and-mouth disease incursion would be between $8 billion and $13 billion of gross domestic product, and that its consequences would be felt for nearly 10 years after the event. Even an isolated outbreak that was brought rapidly under control was estimated to potentially cost $2 billion to $3 billion of gross domestic product. Land management is about improving the land, sowing the good seed, producing the best beef and, in the end, putting the best food on the family table to give people a good steak—a good rib fillet, a good T-bone—and, if you are a vegetarian, healthy beans, potato and rice. The wild rivers legislation is antirural, it is anticlean rivers, it supports the increase of feral animals and noxious weeds, it is draconian and it destroys people’s livelihoods. I take great pride in opposing this legislation. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.35 pm): I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak in support of this wonderful piece of legislation, the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I did intend to simply say that I feel this is an historic day for Queensland because we are debating this legislation, but I think I should reflect on some comments made by some of the members opposite and say that I think it is an historic day for two reasons—that is, one, we have introduced and are about to pass this excellent Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and, two, today marks the day that the people of Queensland get to see firsthand the complete and utter neutering of the Queensland Liberal Party. What is happening today is what people like me have been saying is the problem with the Liberal Party all over Brisbane and all over Queensland—that is, they do not know what they are doing. They have gone into a negotiation with the fine folk opposite—and I am looking in particular at the member for Darling Downs—and they have been rolled by the member for Darling Downs and the member for Charters Towers. Mr HOPPER: I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find that offensive. I did not roll the Liberal Party. I ask for that to be withdrawn. I also ask you to consider that this has nothing to do with the current legislation before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I ask the member to withdraw. Mr LEE: I withdraw anything the member found offensive. Let me just say this: what is occurring today is the National Party is completely rolling the Liberal Party. This means that people who want to vote for a Liberal candidate in the next state election are really voting for a National Party candidate. If people live in Moggill, St Lucia, Jindalee or Ascot, at the next state election if they vote Liberal they will be voting for— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the speaker could come back to the subject of the bill. Mr LEE: I will, because what I am saying is that those people will be voting for the National Party’s environmental policies. This is the National Party that opposed our historic ban on land clearing, and it is now opposing this great piece of wild rivers legislation. The member for Hinchinbrook came in here earlier today full of bluster, talking about comments that he believed the Premier had made at the Atherton community cabinet meeting about wild rivers—a meeting that the member for Hinchinbrook did not even attend. What was his defence? His defence was, ‘You people claim to believe everything you hear on the ABC.’ I think the ABC is a wonderful organisation. I actually believe a great deal of the things I hear on the ABC, but let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, exactly what you would believe if you listened to the ABC at any time over the last three months when it reported on state politics? You would hear that the Liberal Party and the National Party are at each other’s throats, that they are about to explode and that they cannot govern Queensland. That is what you would hear. I wonder when the member for Hinchinbrook will set forth his views on what the ABC said about AgForce and wild rivers. I wonder if he takes to heart as much the ABC’s fine reporting about the outrageous and dishevelled state of his own party and its relationship with its junior, junior, junior coalition colleague—that is, the Liberal Party. I am delighted to support this legislation. Members will recall that in 2004 the Premier made an election commitment to identify 19 potential wild river systems in Queensland. I feel I must address the comments made by the member for Hinchinbrook when he said it was part of some sort of grubby deal. I think his words were it was part of ‘a preference deal in 2004 with the Queensland Greens’. Can I place on the record that I actually believe I am one of the people in this parliament who has spoken up most ferociously in support of the wild rivers policy. I think I have done a fair bit of work on that. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 539

I inform the member for Hinchinbrook that I did not get the Greens’ preferences in 2004. They were not doing deals with me. This is good policy. This is nothing to do with the way the National Party wants to do things. The problem is that when good policy is placed before the people opposite they are so used to grubby political deals that they just cannot see it. I suspect that the reason the Liberals are not in here supporting this great legislation is that they are trapped in that Santo Santoro, Caltabiano, Michael Johnson view of the world: they have great policy placed before them but all they can see is a grubby deal. It is a disgrace. This is great legislation; it is nothing to do with deals. It is great legislation because it is great legislation. These river systems were selected because their natural value is largely intact due to low-impact land use and low levels of development. They are not all necessarily pristine but they are in pretty good shape. It is widely accepted that the best way to preserve river health is to manage impacts throughout the catchment and along the river itself. This legislation does precisely that. One particular wild river that is very close to my heart is the Gregory River in north Queensland. I took a number of members of this parliament to north Queensland. The member for Redlands will remember the trip well; the former member for Ashgrove was there, too. Together with Larissa Cordner, the wild rivers campaigner from the Wilderness Society, and Rupert Quinlan, the wild rivers campaigner from the Queensland Conservation Council, we spent some days looking not just at the Gregory River, which we looked at in detail, but also other wild rivers in north Queensland. It was an experience for me. I went back to my electorate and spoke with great passion to my community groups and constituents about the importance of protecting these wonderful natural assets. This piece of legislation does that and I am delighted to be able to support it today. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (3.41 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I would like to address the need to manage the planting of risk species in a wild river area. Members will be aware that the act seeks to minimise the adverse effects of development in a wild river area on the natural values of the river system. This is achieved by either preventing certain types of new activity on or near the river or by conditioning these activities in the rest of the catchment. This is a precautionary approach. Establishing new agricultural areas to grow fodder and other crops is one type of development of concern. Not only does this activity significantly disturb the soil; it involves the use of pesticides and herbicides, all of which can adversely affect the natural values of a wild river. In addition, there is a risk that the species being planted could escape into nearby waterways and adversely affect the natural values. This could be through clogging of the waterway, outcompeting native riparian species or removing habitats necessary for wildlife migration. For this reason the use of certain species will be limited or prohibited in a wild river area. A range of pasture, grain and woody species will be assessed for each wild river to determine their risk of posing a high or moderate adverse effect on natural values. It is well recognised that there are a number of planted fodder species that have become environmental pests, for example, para grass. Many landholders and local governments involved in controlling pest species wish that these wonder crops had never been introduced in the first place. High-risk species are considered as posing too great a risk to the natural values of the wild river and so will not be allowed to be planted in the wild river area. This may sound tough, but it is necessary to make tough decisions to protect our environment and the long-term livelihoods of pastoralists in these catchments. Moderate-risk species will be those identified as having a risk that can be safely managed in certain conditions. Planting these species will not be permitted in a high-preservation area but can be planted in the rest of the catchment. However, any new plantings of these species will require a permit which will be subject to the conditions of the Wild Rivers Code to minimise their impact. By listing these species in a declaration they can be area specific and local community views can be sought throughout the consultation period. There have been a number of species that have been suggested to the government for listing in the first six wild river areas. However, these declarations on the table today do not include any species. Why? Because to date the government has not had the opportunity to fully consult the affected communities and other stakeholders in relation to them. However, it is intended to propose these species be added to the declarations later this year through a formal declaration amendment process. This will include public consultation. To ensure that everybody has a good understanding of the issues and can make informed submissions on the declaration amendment proposal, details of the species and why they are proposed will be circulated. This will include the best scientific advice, such as the history of each species in terms of invasive potential and the potential threats to the natural values of the wild river. As well as this, the community will have the opportunity to put forward its concerns and provide any local knowledge through consultation and submissions. The management and control of pests is an expensive and resource-hungry process. Any effort to treat the problem at the source should be supported. That is what this proposal does. It reduces the potential for pest plant outbreaks through sensible management. I commend the bill to the House. 540 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.45 pm): I rise to speak to the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. This bill is presented as another fix-up job because the notices this government issued for the declaration of the Staaten, Hinchinbrook, Settlement, Gregory, Morning Inlet and Fraser river systems were flawed seriously enough that their validity was questioned. Of course, if the first step in the process of declaring wild rivers was invalid then the entire process became invalid. That was a risk that this government decided it did not want to take. We are here today, just three months since the last time this legislation was before the House for correction, fixing mistakes yet again. The first time was to make the legislation somewhat more workable; this time it is to gloss over errors in process. One has to wonder how many other mistakes this government is going to make on this vexed issue. What is galling about this to far-northerners is that this government keeps claiming it consults, that it involves stakeholders and ensures the community is heard. But these claims are wide open to questioning and the waters are very murky indeed surrounding this debate. During the recent community cabinet visit to my electorate the Premier was reported as saying that the farm lobby group AgForce had ticked off on the issue. I have a copy of a letter from the president of AgForce, Mr Peter Kenny, which reads— Any assertion that AgForce is in any way supportive of the wild rivers legislation is totally incorrect. At the same time the Premier is reported as having said that only one pastoralist with an ideologicial bent had objected. Again Mr Kenny stated— AgForce member, Barry Keough, was right when he stated that you would be lucky to find one grazier who agreed with wild rivers. There is a huge difference between the government’s claims that wild rivers is widely supported and the enormous opposition to it from those it affects, including the Indigenous population. Before I go any further, it is interesting that the president of Agforce claims that he has never supported wild rivers when in actual fact we all know that the National Party did support the initial legislation. Mr O’Brien: You did not divide either. Ms LEE LONG: I opposed the legislation. Mr O’Brien: That is not what the record shows. Ms LEE LONG: You can have a look at my speech and you will see where I opposed it. The legislation is still being rammed down people’s throats just so that city folk and urban cowboys can feel warm and fuzzy about something they know nothing about—so that they can feel warm and fuzzy while they clear and expand their urban areas. That is what is going on here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Would the member direct her comments through the chair. Ms LEE LONG: I do acknowledge that there is a legitimate interest in having our environment protected from rampant overdevelopment such as we see happening every day in south-east Queensland and in most other urbanised areas. However, while never-ending kilometres of trees are cleared and bitumen, tar and cement takes their place, other parts of the state are faced with this kind of ridiculous legislation. In addition to the six river systems that are being declared in this amendment there are 13 other catchments in the cape that are now under moratoriums as a prelude to being declared themselves. This will expand the wild rivers process. After the cape and gulf country it could be the whole of western Queensland itself. After all, there have been about 60 rivers mentioned so far as targets of this process. The wild rivers impact will be similar to when World Heritage was slapped on to the far north, including parts of the tablelands. It devastated industry and obliterated many, many jobs. As a result of that we now import those same products from Third World countries. Not only is this area facing wild rivers impacting on their livelihoods, they are also facing the double whammy of World Heritage listing over the area by the federal government. While the minister in his second reading speech discussed the listing of risk plants, it should noted that it is rhetoric because the truth is that in the whole of the cape there is only one person dedicated to pest plant control and that person is employed by the Cook Shire Council and not the state government. This shows the real commitment to environmental issues by this government. Those in areas affected by this bill cannot take any comfort from the integrity of the declaration process because, as we can see today, even when the process is wrong it is going to be rubber- stamped thanks to the ALP majority in this place. The technical flaw in this case was in the very earliest stages of the process and so could potentially have affected any stakeholder input. However, stakeholders were not advised and, in fact, no member of the public was advised. As the explanatory notes say, ‘Members of the public have not been consulted.’ So not only do we have a mistake, but we have a deliberate process of hiding that mistake from the very people who will be affected. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 541

While this government was busy erecting a wall of secrecy around this, it did find the time to ask itself 12 times—that is, each of the 12 different departments—if it was doing the right thing. Of course, 12 times it told itself that, yes, it was. Yet in the same explanatory notes the terms ‘community consultation’, ‘stakeholders’, ‘public comment’, ‘transparency’, ‘extensive consultation process’ were used seven times in just four pages. Some of these related to earlier processes but nevertheless clearly show how desperate this government is to appear as if it is actually talking to people and actually listening to their input. But, of course, it does not talk to the people and it does not listen to the stakeholders. That is not just my assertion; I am frequently receiving representations, phone calls and even in the streets having this issue raised with me and it is almost universally in opposition to this proposal. This broad opposition is perfectly summed up in an article in the Advertiser, a local newspaper, following the community cabinet meeting where protesters were vocal in their opposition to the wild rivers process and the brutal disregard for their interests on this issue. The article says in part— Graziers Scott and Anna Harris, from Strathmore Station northwest of Georgetown, said they may no longer be able to develop their property for future cattle enterprise. “Our biggest burden is that we’ve come to a standstill over this Wild Rivers,” Mr Harris said. "Everything (cattle and staff) will have to be scaled back. "They (government) send me dummy letters saying the department will look after us but we’ve had no consultation. As soon as we throw savage questions at them, they run and hide." Mr Beattie said he gave an election promise to protect Wild Rivers but graziers said the Government was locking it up. "We will not be able to develop the property and it will be a slow death," Mr Harris said. He said if the Government implemented the legislation, he would be forced to relocate because there would be no income from the land. "We’ll go to the Northern Territory or some other state where we’re welcome," he said. "We manage the land and we keep the feral pests and weeds out and now they say we can’t develop it." Cook Shire Council Mayor Bob Sullivan said there was not a council in the Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Council Cape York area that supported Wild Rivers legislation. Abingdon Down Station owner Barry Keough and Highbury Station owner Collin Hughes said the legislation was ripping graziers of their rights. "We’ll be in the time warp with Wild Rivers," Mr Keough said. "’They’re closing the country down by stealth." Hopevale Shire Council Mayor and ROCCY chairman Greg McLean said there were too many organisations representing the Cape’s people. "The residents of Cape York are to be kept in light and consulted, not the Cape York organisation that is based in Cairns that claims to represent them," Cr McLean said. "The residents need to have a voice." The wild rivers legislation is a lethal millstone around the future of Cape York and it is anathema to the people who will be affected by it. I will be opposing the bill as I have done before. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.54 pm): We come into this parliament to make rules and legislation for all Queenslanders. In this case, the people of the far north are being discriminated against. They are being put in the situation where the hard work that they put into their properties and their environment, the remoteness that they suffer, the characteristic toughness they show, the contribution they make to the economy of Queensland through looking after and being guardians of the environment is being brushed aside by the crass politics of a government that has, from the outset, set out to simply glean preferences from the extreme greens in the populated areas of the state. That is not the right way to govern. The government should be fair and should have good and sensible policy. We all believe, and particularly those on this side, in looking after the environment. It can be looked after in a sustainable way, mankind can exist within that environment and areas can be set aside for national parks and looked after properly. Those who have the guardianship of large areas of grazing land or farming land play their role in looking after this land. I want to make some comments on the contributions of a couple of previous speakers, particularly that of the member for Cook. He continues to bark out that we supported the original bill. If he took the time and trouble to read the speeches of those of us from this side of the House during that particular debate he would have seen our strident opposition to that bill. He would see the problems with the practical aspect of it that speakers could foresee. They knew that this was simply crass politics. Within the Labor Party, I wonder what those in some of the groups who purport to stand up for working class people or purport to stand up for north Queensland were saying behind closed doors before they came in here like little pussy cats and supported that legislation. The member for Cook also referred to the destruction of the Murray River. He has probably never seen some of the photos of paddle steamers, decades before there was ever any irrigation in the upper reaches of the Murray River, stuck in the mud for years because there was no water. That is simply the way the Australian environment is. When there were droughts the Murray used to dry up and it was a string of waterholes. The paddle steamers with the wool bales on them would be stuck for two or three years. 542 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

I would like the House to take notice of speakers like the member for Hinchinbrook who knows his area so well, particularly for a young man, and the member for Charters Towers who understands that lower gulf country area and the issues for the families who live in that area. The member for Charters Towers spoke about some of the stupidity of some of the codes of practice that have been put in place. The House should take notice and the minister should take notice of some of those codes. As he pointed out, it is absolutely stupid to have some of these rules in place. He talked about the hand clearing of a patch 20 metres by 20 metres. That is not possible when one has hectares with hundreds of rubber vine plants or other pests that have to be properly controlled. That is the logic of this place. Now all of these people are going to be tangled up in this red tape. They will throw their hands in the air in absolute frustration and say, ‘Who on earth thought this up? This is only going to degrade the area not lead to an improvement in the area.’ The low point of the afternoon has been the contribution by the member for Indooroopilly. He, like many of his other Labor colleagues, is obsessed and concerned about the new unity that we have on this side of the House—which is the best that I have seen in the long time that I have been in parliament—and the way we have been able to demonstrate our strength in standing together. There can be a lot of contentious issues in government that the right wing or left wing or the centre—the different groups—might not like. Mr Lee interjected. Mr HORAN: The member should have a look at the speaking list. What does he think the member for Clayfield is? He should have a look at the map. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Mr HORAN: I am just responding to the little leprechaun over there and putting him in his place. Mr LEE: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker— Mr HORAN: I take that back and apologise to him. Mr LEE: That description was grossly offensive and I insist that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you withdrawn? Mr HORAN: I have, totally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr HORAN: As I said, the four groups in the Labor caucus are privileged in that, because they are in government, if there is something they do not agree with they modify it, change it or do not bring it into the parliament. Members on this side of the House are showing great unity, and that has been upsetting people like the member for Indooroopilly. There is one common factor in the people of the far north—their ability to work hard, the contribution that they make to the state and the remote area in which they live and the difficulties they face in terms of being able to access services and so forth. The Aboriginal people of the area need to have opportunities to be able to develop within their own communities, and of course they play a custodian role in that area. Together with this side of the House, a major opponent of the original wild rivers legislation was AgForce. I want to bring before the House some issues that AgForce has raised in my capacity as the shadow minister for primary industries. These are issues that we have spoken about in previous debates in this House with regard to wild rivers. AgForce believes that the Wild Rivers Act and the code will only allow limited agricultural, urban or industrial development in the catchments of a wild river. When we talk about wild rivers, it is not just the river itself but all of the creeks and all of the catchments that run into these rivers. So for some of these rivers we are talking about over 1,000 square kilometres, because every little tributary and creek right up into the ranges and one kilometre either side of that will come under these codes. Future water allocations and extractions would be strictly limited and regulated. Who knows: if the climate change predictions are accurate, it may well be that future generations of Australians will move more towards the north where rainfall has slowly increased and water supply is plentiful rather than trying to grow lemons and limes on the banks of the Darling at Bourke which does not have the water. These days we know how to manage our environment better. We know how to put in place irrigation systems and farming systems that are sustainable and can coexist with the environment. When the original systems were put in place in the 1900s, it was pioneering work. No-one knew. It was the first time. Now we know and things have flowed on from there where we have far better systems. AgForce also believes that new dams and weirs would not be permitted in a wild river or its main tributaries. Future flow control activities such as stream alignment, desnagging—other than for navigation reasons—and levy banks would not be permitted. Any future developments on flood plains must not restrict flood plain flow. Any future developments must not degrade associated wetlands. Exotic plant species cannot be introduced into existing or new ponded pastures. Any new off-stream storages would be limited in capacity and primarily would be for stock and domestic purposes. All developments in the catchment of a wild river would be assessed on the basis of their impact on the river and managed so that any effect is minimised. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 543

If one looks through speeches made in this House when the legislation was first introduced, they will see that our concerns mirror the AgForce position. AgForce believes the code is wide reaching and places controls on developments in the category of forestry, vegetation management, overland flow, agriculture and animal husbandry. The code adds to the increasingly regulatory nature of the Queensland government by placing further restrictions on producers with little consideration or cooperation. AgForce believes that the current draft codes attached to the wild rivers legislation are unacceptable and believes that, in order to produce a workable code, NRM needs to show that the requirements are proven scientifically and are practical to implement. AgForce goes on to say that the code as it stands is an amalgamation of various overlapping codes which affect landholders in different ways. The implementation of the vegetation management codes, the Water Act, the new forestry code, various environmental protection regulations, the petroleum and gas act, the Mineral Resources Act and the Integrated Planning Act all combine under the Wild Rivers Act to produce a legislative framework which is neither understandable nor implementable. This is against what the Prime Minister’s direction has been to the Council of Australian Governments in that the states must reduce the red tape that their legislation forces on the community. One real problem is that the Wild Rivers Act is going to hold up sustainable development, and we should be looking at sustainable development. It is development that can contribute to family life, development that can contribute to the economy, development that can contribute to the decentralisation of our huge and vast state, and development that can contribute to the ecology and the preservation of the environment of our state. AgForce goes on to say that, with future development heavily restricted, landowners in the area will continue to be economically disadvantaged and will suffer expensive living conditions. By not considering ecologically sustainable development, the Wild Rivers Act is incompatible with other Queensland legislation which recognises that conservation can be achieved through sustainable development. AgForce makes comments about the restrictions for the cape and the gulf and asks: what about urban areas? People in remote areas of Queensland do not object to major developments happening in the south-east of the state. One only has to drive down the Logan Motorway to see the clear-felling on both sides of the road of massive areas for huge warehouse complexes with their shiny tin roofs which will only send heat back up into the atmosphere. But that is part of servicing south-east Queensland in terms of providing food to the grocery stores and in terms of promoting industrial development and jobs. If we can offset that with national parks and good areas of green space and so forth throughout south- east Queensland and the rest of the state, then we all understand that we need those developing areas just as much as we need houses. People in remote areas do not complain about that and do not interfere. They just go about their life and work. They work hard, make ends meet and keep that area populated. One thing we have to consider for the future is that we need some of these vast remote areas of the state decentralised. We do need some people living in those areas. There are extreme concerns with biosecurity regarding the literally thousands of kilometres of foreshore throughout northern Australia and northern Queensland. We do not want to see the dumping of animals there by people illegally fishing or other means. We do need control. If the feral pig population in the cape got a particular disease, it would be almost impossible to control it. However, if people were to live in the area there would need to be some form of control, some form of management and some system of roads and structure. If that were to happen, then the nation and our state in particular would be pretty well covered and well served. We have to think about the future and about future diversification. With climate change it may be that the orchards or vegetable growing or horticulture in Australia will have to take place in the north where there is water. In future decades—it might be 50 or 100 years away—we may need people through that area: families who understand the area and people who work in the service industries in that area who understand the area and who have learnt to live in the difficult climate and the depravation of the area. For that reason it is important. In a state like Queensland it is just essential that we maintain that decentralisation. This bill is not good legislation because it restricts sustainable and balanced development in a remote area of the state where so many hardworking Queenslanders, all of whom we admire, have done their best for generations to work in that area. I give credit to our united team for the way that we have worked together on this particularly difficult issue. In a vast state like Queensland, there are issues in the far north faced by some very good representatives that are vastly different to the issues faced by those of us who represent the south. That means that we have to take notice of those good, hardworking members who truly understand the area and the people they represent. We come to this parliament to represent people from various areas. Madam Deputy Speaker, you represent people in an area just to the north of Brisbane. I represent people from the Darling Downs. We have to take notice of our members who represent those areas in the far north that are affected by these wild river declarations. They are charged with the responsibility to speak up on behalf of the people they represent, and they have done 544 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 that. Our united team has listened to what they have to say. We do not want to support legislation that we believe is bad legislation—legislation that was introduced for reasons outside of what it purports to do. The wild rivers legislation was really introduced for the crass reason of appealing to the extreme greens. At the same time, it walks over those good, hardworking people and Aboriginal communities in the far north of this state. Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (4.10 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I would like to address how the declaration of wild rivers will impact on the way people carry out their business in affected areas. There is no doubt that the declaration of a wild river will change the way people do business. But the important issue to understand is that usually that declaration will not stop business. The wild rivers policy ensures that the living standards of communities in remote areas of the state will not be impeded. The legislation also ensures that essential services, such as water and sewage treatment, the construction of roads, the storage of chemicals and fuel, even if close to the river, can be advanced. Industry will also be able to undertake low-impact mineral exploration. This afternoon, members of the opposition have presented the argument that somehow this legislation will stop development and that it will not allow people who live in the affected areas to carry out their normal activities. Everybody knows—and those members know this in their own hearts—that such things are rubbish. As I said, low-impact mineral exploration, mining under rivers and fodder protection will be allowed to maintain or increase the economic base of these communities. That will be achieved by striking a balance that still affords protection of these wild river systems. That is what this legislation is all about: balance. The effect of a wild rivers declaration will have four outcomes on the way people do business. Some development activities will require a permit when previously this was not the case. Some activities which previously required a permit will need to comply with the wild river requirements as set out in the code. Some activities will need to comply with the rules as set out in the declaration. The essence—and the reality—is that some activities will be prohibited. Agricultural activities, as defined by the Wild Rivers Act, will require a permit in a wild river preservation area. It is important to understand that existing activities do not require a permit. The term ‘agricultural activity’ refers to new activities that cause extensive soil disturbance, require significant infrastructure or irrigation, or involve species that may pose a threat to the natural values of the river. It does not include producing crops for domestic needs, baling or cutting pasture, or low-impact pasture improvements. The term ‘animal husbandry’ refers to intensive feedlot type establishments, for example, a piggery, dairy or feedlot. It does not include the usual supplementary feeding for typical grazing operations. For landowners to start a new agricultural activity or animal husbandry activity, a permit will have to be applied for and approved prior to the commencement of that activity. That is what we would expect. I think that is reasonable. The application will have to demonstrate that the activity will comply with the required outcome, that is, to preserve the natural values of the wild river area. For most landowners, these rules will not be anything different from their current good practice, but they mean that all people must comply and that people are not disadvantaged by doing the right thing if their neighbour chooses not to do so. The Wild Rivers Code applies to a range of activities. The Wild Rivers Code will stipulate certain rules that must be complied with before applications will be approved. There are already a range of existing activities where a permit is required and certain conditions must be adhered to. These activities include removing riverine quarry material, building upstream waterway barriers and aquaculture development. So if an area is declared a wild river area, for these activities there will be extra requirements that must be met. The agency that assesses applications will be the same as it is now. The agency will have to assess the wild river requirements only as an add-on to the existing application. The government believes that that measure will add very little to the existing workload and will not increase the time frames for decisions. Then there are the wild river declarations. Each declaration may have sections that regulate the taking of water from the wild river area and will state conditions that will apply to mining tenements and mining environmental management plans and environmental authorities for petroleum activities. A wild river declaration can state the total volume of water that may be taken from a wild river area and reserve it for particular purposes. The declaration cannot impact on existing entitlements. A wild river declaration may also provide conditions to apply to mining tenements and can also be put in rules that must be considered in determining an environmental impact statement and an environmental management plan for mining activities. The wild rivers declaration will state conditions that must be complied with and issues that must be considered in approving an environmental authority for petroleum activities. Obviously, to protect the natural values of the wild river areas, some developments and activities have to be prohibited. The government has consulted widely on these provisions. Some previously prohibited activities are now permitted as a result of the changes to the act that were made last year. These include low-impact developments that are necessary for the economic development of wild river 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 545 areas. Those activities that are prohibited include in-stream dams and weirs, mining in high-preservation areas, mining within nominated waterways, planting or harvesting a crop or pasture if the species is at a high risk of becoming a pest, and the release of non-indigenous fish into the waterways of the wild river area. I would think that all the members of this parliament would support all of those measures. It is basic and obvious that those sorts of activities should be prohibited, particularly in wild river areas. These prohibitions apply only to new development activities. Developments and authorisations existing at the time of a declaration are not affected by these rules. In general, although the Wild Rivers Act creates more rules for the development of wild river areas, it needs to be recognised that this legislation is not retrospective in any way. Existing developments and authorisations can continue to operate as they have done prior to a wild river declaration. For example, existing agricultural activities will not be required to apply for a permit to continue their operations. The wild rivers policy recognises these existing operations and it has put in mechanisms to identify them as registered areas of agriculture. This registering will enable landowners to apply for clearing of regrowth in these areas. The rules relating to wild rivers are to protect the natural values of these unique areas. I think, in most part, they are common-sense rules that most good land managers would already comply with. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (4.18 pm): I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which I will, of course, be supporting because it is very good legislation. I congratulate the minister, who is in the chamber today to watch the passage of this important legislation that will further protect Queensland’s pristine rivers. I wanted to clarify and place on the record a point of contention that has been floating in my electorate of Hervey Bay for a while. Among the river areas that the minister has declared in the first group of six are some of the creeks on Fraser Island. I strongly support the inclusion of those creeks in the wild rivers declaration. There has been some misinformation in my local media about the effect of those declarations and what they might or might not mean in relation to how those creeks could be used. I want to get it clearly on the record today once and for all that the Wild Rivers Act does allow for the taking of water from declared wild rivers for domestic consumption. The act accordingly does not in any way, as has been suggested many times—perhaps mischievously—in the media in Hervey Bay, stop the taking of water from Fraser Island. The second thing that I would like to put on the record is that there is absolutely no plan whatsoever to take water from Fraser Island, but it is important to note that this act does not stop that happening. Two factors stops that from happening. The first factor is that there is neither a plan nor a need to take water from Fraser Island for Hervey Bay’s purposes. Hervey Bay is in the enviable position of having just raised its principal water supply, Lenthalls Dam, by two metres thereby doubling its water supply and providing a secure water supply for a population up to 80,000 or out to 2020, whichever comes first. So Hervey Bay has a secure water supply for the next 15 to 20 years, and therefore there is no particular need to be looking at this point with any desperation towards our future water supply. The second factor that would have to be overcome if water were to be taken from Fraser Island is not the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill; it is the Commonwealth’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That act would provide a hurdle that would need to be overcome by anyone who was proposing to take water from Fraser Island. It is too early at this point to speculate on whether taking water from Fraser Island would ever be necessary to provide for Hervey Bay’s population growth. In 15 years or 20 years it may be easier to raise Lenthalls Dam by another four metres, as was the original proposal by Wide Bay Water some 10 years ago. It eventually settled on raising the dam by two metres. It may be that advancement in desalination makes that a more preferable option. I will leave that issue for another member for Hervey Bay to wrestle with at a later time in this place. Mr Johnson: You won’t be here much longer. Is that what you are telling us? Mr McNAMARA: I think 15 years is pushing it. Mr Wallace: They said you were going to be a oncer. Mr McNAMARA: That is right. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions that I am a oncer, I am enjoying my third term and I do intend to hang around just a little longer. But it is my considered opinion that hanging around in this place for 25 years or more is a thing of the past. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.22 pm): In speaking to the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 this afternoon naturally I will be supporting the stand taken by the opposition, especially the shadow spokesman, the member for Darling Downs. This legislation talks about environmental responsibilities. The wild rivers of north Queensland, or any part of Queensland for that matter, are no different from any other river system in this great state. With all the controversy in recent 546 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 months and weeks over the water grid for south-east Queensland—and I know there is a terrible drought raging in south-east Queensland—have we heard it mentioned at any time that the Mary River could be declared under the wild rivers legislation? No, because we are going to build a dam on that river. That has not been thought through properly. I believe that the same is applicable to this legislation that we are debating this afternoon. When we talk about channels and tributaries of those main river systems in north Queensland— the Staaten, Hinchinbrook, Settlement, Gregory, Morning Inlet and Fraser river systems—we are talking about very important regions in a very fragile area of Queensland. We are talking coastal areas, we are talking gulf areas, we are talking peninsula areas. It does not matter what part of Queensland we live in; I believe that we all live in a fragile environment. We would not have survived in this country for the last 219 years if we had gone out there and blatantly savaged, raped and pillaged the land for our own advantage. I think our forefathers and foremothers had a better and more responsible vision than that. When we look at those northern rivers—and I am talking about the peninsula and gulf streams here—and at the settlements in those areas, we see that they are mainly Indigenous settlements. There are cattle properties on the deltas of those rivers, and there is the opportunity to run magnificent operations that turn off fat bullocks, or stores for that matter, and bring them into some other area of Queensland for fattening to send them to abattoirs in Queensland or for live export into Asia. As the shadow spokesman for Indigenous affairs in this place, I will certainly be standing up for what is right for the Indigenous people of Queensland. We had a magnificent meeting a couple of nights ago, hosted by the Speaker of the House. There were Aboriginal elders and leaders from right around the state, members of parliament and other interested groups present. I thought the exchange of dialogue was very fruitful and very purposeful in trying to get genuine outcomes for our Indigenous brothers and sisters. The fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation is going to affect and hinder the progress of some of those communities in the far north. We should be giving Indigenous communities purpose—giving them the opportunity to go forward themselves and develop operations in some of those magnificent deltas that we are talking about. For example, let us look at the Mitchell River. We are not talking about the Mitchell River in this legislation as such, but the Mitchell River catchment has the capacity to receive 77 times more rainfall than that which falls over the whole Murray-Darling system, and that water just goes out. Indigenous people live in those areas and there is the capacity to harvest that water and bring it back to the south. It is about giving those people that opportunity. But what is this legislation doing? It is shutting them out. It is shutting that opportunity down. We do not need to put any more impediments or obstacles in their way. We need to go with those people. I believe that if we are going to get reconciliation to work in this state and in this nation we have to have practical reconciliation where we take these people with us. Let them have a voice. They have councils. They are part of our community, and they have been there for thousands of years. I say this to the minister here today: the consultation process for legislation is done by government departments and the make-up of those government departments a lot of times does not include good practical people. There are many theory type people in those departments. I respect those people but often the consultation process is not done properly. I believe that, if you are going to negotiate with the Wilderness Society or other conservation groups, you are not getting a real gauge, a real measure, of what we should be determining here in relation to getting genuine outcomes for the future development of this region. I stand by those people in the far north, whether they be Indigenous communities, agricultural operations or whatever. They have survived for the past 150 years because they have been good managers of the environment. We have talked about noxious weeds in those northern river systems and estuaries. Let us talk about rubber vine for a minute. Rubber vine is out of control. The minister might like to tell us in his summary how that is going to be controlled. I see that leucaena cannot be grown there. That is a magnificent cattle crop and it has certainly stood by the industry in recent years. But all of these issues are going to retard future development of that region and put those people back a long way further. We talk about the population explosion in south-east Queensland. In the Redlands, for example, there is all that magnificent farming land, but most of it is now under residential estates. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker English, because you live there and represent those people. The sad fact of the matter is that, whilst a lot of new homes are being built, the real problem is that they cannot get water into the homes because we have a drought on our hands. It is about planning and getting the environmental measures right. I know the Premier has a plan for water at the moment, and I hope it works. No-one hopes more than I do that it works, because it is sad to see what we have on our hands. As the honourable member for Toowoomba South said this afternoon, there is the potential to get the population to live in other regions and develop other regions—not shut other regions down through stupid legislation like this that will retard growth in those regions. Diversification is what it is all about. It is about letting these people develop in other regions and live in other regions. All our population centres and centres of growth are along the coast, but where is the wealth generation capacity in this state? It is 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 547 out in rural and remote Queensland. It is out where about two or three per cent of the population live. It is the old adage again, and I ask the minister to take a long hard look at what the government is doing in this state. We talk about the greens movement, and look at what the greens want to do with the coal industry. Queensland would be shut down if we let the green movement have their way. I know the federal Labor opposition is out there trying to stand up for the coalmining industry, and I hope it can do that. But, at the end of the day, if the greens give their vote of support to the federal Labor Party at the next federal election, we can bet our bottom dollar there will be a bargaining tool in the deal after the election is over and the Labor Party wins government. It would be looking after the greens—which is exactly what the state government is doing here now. The government is looking after the greens, the wilderness people and the environmental people. The real environmental people in this state are the people who live and work this state and have done so for the last 200 years. I represent an area in far western Queensland where it rarely ever rains. When it does rain, we make use of that land; we do not go out and abuse it, overstock it and do all of the ridiculous things that a lot of people think we do. The same is applicable to far-north Queensland and this wild rivers legislation. I urge members on the other side of the House to show some sanity, some support and some responsibility when they configure this type of legislation in the future. If they are going to play into the hands of two or three minority groups that are out there voicing their opinion, at the end of the day we will have a total shutdown of this state. Do members remember what happened in north Queensland when the government shut down the timber industry in the Tablelands area? That area had been milled for probably four generations, but that industry was shut down because of the World Heritage listing. We saw what happened to those towns and they will never grow again. The same is applicable right along the coastal areas where we saw the timber industry shut down. This will shut down the opportunity for development in these regions in question. I do not want to talk for too much longer. The fair dinkum issues here are those deltas in those river systems. The Indigenous population want to change their lives, they want to progress their future, they want a future for their children and their children’s children, and they want to get out of this slimy, scum society they are living and working in. That is exactly what the speakers forum came up with last Tuesday night. They want true representation and purpose in what they are trying to do. I urge the members of this parliament—especially the government members—to show some leadership and direction. When this government formulates legislation and policy, we need genuine outcomes that will be advantageous to the majority not just the reckless minority. I think we are all in the same mould when it comes to looking after what we have got, whether it is here in south-east Queensland, whether it is in the far north, whether it is on the coastal strip or whether it is in remote areas and desert inlands like I represent. It saddens me to think that we are debating issues such as this in this state when there are other more meaningful and positive things we could be discussing and putting in place for the general benefit of the four billion people who live in our great state. Look at our Indigenous people. There are 5,200 people in prison in Queensland and 25 per cent of our prison population is made up of Indigenous people. This is retarding them again. We have to give them purpose. I can assure the House, because I have said it in this House before, that, while I represent those people in my area of responsibility, I will stand up for them to get that genuine resolve and genuine outcome they want to progress their cause in this state and nation as productive citizens in the region, state and country where they live. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (4.34 pm): I rise to support the opposition’s view with my contribution on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. A wild river is a river system that has all or almost all of its natural values intact—and I will speak about that a bit later—that is, the river system is virtually untouched and in almost pristine condition. This bill seeks to amend the original act, the Wild Rivers Act, after the declaration of wild rivers was successfully challenged in the courts by a landholder, Mr Scott Harris. The purpose of the act was to regulate most future development activities within the declared wild river, its major tributaries and catchment areas. The act outlines a process in which a river can be declared wild. Firstly, the minister for natural resources can propose a river for declaration, which then must go through a process found in the act to be declared wild. The act does not list any rivers as wild, as the process is required. The proposal is then announced through a public notice of intent which is published in state and local newspapers. The community is invited to comment also on the proposal, which they have in this case. Six river areas were then proposed to be declared as wild rivers—Gregory River, Settlement River, Fraser Island, Hinchinbrook Island, Staaten River and Mornington Inlet. Since the declaration of these rivers as wild was successfully challenged in the courts, Labor members want to have another shot at declaring them wild by attempting to circumvent the guidelines set out in the act that they themselves introduced with the bill. This amendment sets out to declare those previously mentioned areas as wild river areas, to validate all notices published under the act in regard to these wild river 548 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 areas, to declare the code made by the minister on 30 January 2007 to be the Wild Rivers Code and to provide a statutory process to amend the Wild Rivers Code for the purposes of the act. The Queensland coalition supported the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 on the grounds that it weakened the original legislation. However, the Queensland opposition opposes this bill for many reasons, and I would like to enlarge on some of those. Firstly, the legislation is already redundant because Fraser Island and Hinchinbrook Island are already covered by World Heritage listing. In addition, the Vegetation Management Act 1999 already regulates the clearing of vegetation, meaning important environmental areas are already protected by legislation. The question must be asked: what really are the values that this legislation is trying to protect? The declaration of wild rivers is inconsistent with the federal government’s Murray-Darling plan, which is moving high-water consumption industry from low-rainfall areas to high-rainfall areas. This is obviously to help ease the burden on areas of low-water availability, even more so considering the current water situation in Queensland. AgForce does not support the wild rivers legislation because it says its implementation fails to recognise sustainable development, adds to further an increasing amount of regulation burdening landholders and severely hinders future aspirations and rights to develop. The declaration of a wild river effectively hamstrings economic practices and the use of technology to improve management practices by locking any development into the 2005 technology. The Queensland Resources Council will oppose any future declarations of wild rivers, especially in the cape area where large deposits of bauxite have been discovered. The Northern Gulf Resource Management Group Ltd is also opposed to the bill and it would like to see a different system that allows for the formalisation of the process of independent property plans that override legislation. Coalition policy differs greatly from Labor policy, as the coalition believes that conservation and sustainable economic development can coexist. The coalition is concerned that the legislation has the potential to prevent far-north communities from future social and economic development. The simplistic view of this bill does not take into account many collateral effects which could cause problems in the future. For example, this legislation does not take into account weeds, which are a serious problem due to the climate of the area. This legislation will prohibit large-scale weed management from taking place. It also does not take into account why the river is in such pristine condition in the first place. It is undoubtedly the land management efforts of generations of local farmers, local graziers and the local Indigenous population which have kept the wild rivers in such good condition. Further problems, such as the impact of the tourism industry, also have not been fully realised. The development of low-environmental-impact tourism infrastructure could be brought to a halt under this act, which once again shows the oversimplified policy of the Labor Party which presents the idea that development and conservation cannot coexist. Not only can they coexist; ideas can be presented that actually further conservation of wild rivers and the environment in general. The development of a tourist industry that has its visitors spend even a small amount of time taking an active role in conservation is just the tip of the iceberg of what can be achieved. Most, if not all, people who visit the rainforest come back with an elevated respect for nature and conservation. Why are the farmers and residents who dwell on or near the proposed wild river areas treated with such contempt? In addition to these problems, the actual mapping of declared areas also comes into question. The state department uses maps to a scale of one to 250,000 while local landowners are using maps to a scale of one to 10,000 and one to 25,000. This creates the obvious problem of incorrect mapping by the department. Landowners could have their rights infringed due to nothing more than sloppy mapping. This coincides with the fact that this legislation would be almost impossible to police. The likely outcome of this would be that the act could be ignored by some and, on the other side of the coin, affected landowners would be able to battle the government in court where they can prove by using more detailed maps than are currently being used by the government that the state has infringed onto their land. It seems that this legislation is targeted at low-population and low-development areas—areas that are populated by more conservative people who are thought to be less likely to protest. The hypocrisy of the situation is that these are the people who have managed the rivers for three and four generations. The rivers have now been determined by the current government to be pristine or near pristine even though these rivers have been locally managed for decades. Let us face it, it is the people who own the land who love the land. It does not matter whether people live in the city or in the gulf—if they own the land, they love the land; they protect it and they conserve it. Further legislation on wild rivers is, at best, pointless and, at worst, highly damaging, especially when the World Heritage Act and the Vegetation Management Act already protect what needs to be protected. I am concerned the explanatory notes state that the code arguably has a legislative character. It is arguable under the Legislative Standards Act 1992, section 4 subsection 4 part B, that the process for approving amendments to the code does not provide sufficient scrutiny by the Legislative Assembly. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 549

This legislation is purely a diversionary tactic to direct attention away from Labor’s real problems of water management and corruption. This legislation would amount to the third layer of legislation on Fraser and Hinchinbrook islands, making it overly cumbersome and completely pointless. It was just this week that I questioned the minister about the Beattie Labor government’s plan to close vehicular beach access to an 18-kilometre stretch of Fraser Island north of Hook Point. This closure would force up to 34,000 cars a year to use the alternative inland route, which is more dangerous and has the potential to cause far more environmental damage. Mrs Reilly: What does this have to do with wild rivers? It is not wild rivers. Mrs MENKENS: Yes, but Fraser Island is now coming under the wild rivers legislation. Stopping local and visiting families and fishers from using cars on a stretch of Fraser Island beach has the potential to put lives in danger and cause much more environmental damage than would be prevented by taking those vehicles off the beach. Hundreds of cars a week are dropped off by the barge at Hook Point on Fraser Island. Closing the beach access will instead divert this traffic to the inland logging track. This is not equipped to handle the high volume of traffic. Even with heavy traffic, one tide change washes away tyre marks on the beach. Yet I understand the inland roads have had to be closed in the past due to erosion. Locals fear that there will be more accidents as a result of this traffic diversion and they are worried that this is the first step in an insidious Beattie Labor government plan to gradually close down the access to Fraser Island by Queensland families and fishers. Fraser Island is one of Australia’s iconic destinations and recreational fishing, boating and camping must continue because this is the major use and economic driver of the island, regardless of wild rivers. It should be the role of the state government to encourage outdoor recreation. There seems to be no reason why the minister is locking up the Fraser Island beach. These visitors to places such as Fraser Island are responsible people. They are aware of the superb natural environment and its pristine condition. They are the people who have helped preserve Fraser Island and keep it in its pristine condition. The wild rivers legislation is not popular with many groups, including AgForce, the Queensland Resources Council and the Northern Gulf Management Group. This bill does nothing more than score political points at the expense of the residents of low-population areas who have already shown diligence in the maintenance of their local river systems. The major problem with this bill is that it restricts development. The term ‘wild rivers’ will truly come into being in about 10 years time. Because there is no effort to actually manage these rivers, they truly will be wild in years to come once feral pests and weeds invade. Staff from National Parks and Wildlife are struggling to keep weeds and pests out of the national parks they currently manage. By locking up these rivers they will no longer be kept in the pristine condition they are in. I will not be supporting this bill. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (4.46 pm): I rise to support the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 which highlights this government’s determination to preserve the natural assets of our majestic wild rivers for this generation of Queenslanders and for generations to come. A critical aspect of the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill has been the amendments that provide a process for making and amending the Wild Rivers Code. Members of this parliament will be aware that the bill approves the Wild Rivers Code made by the minister, provides a process to amend the code, and allows plant species that pose a high or moderate risk to the natural values of a wild river to be listed in the declaration rather than in a general regulation. The Wild Rivers Act achieves its purpose of preserving the natural values of wild rivers in a number of ways. One of these is to apply conditions on certain types of future developments in wild river areas to minimise their impact on the natural values of the river system. The code outlines those conditions that must be applied during the assessment of a development application. The conditions will be applied by the state agency or local government presently responsible for that particular type of development assessment in that area. The conditions are linked to the wild river natural values through a number of required outcomes that must be met before the application can be approved. For example, a required outcome for a new agricultural development is that contaminated run-off and tailwater must not degrade the quality of receiving waters. These types of rules are a common- sense approach to preserving the natural values of the wild river system. In many cases these common- sense rules are already applied voluntarily but by having them in a code it means that all new developments have to comply, making it a level playing field for everyone in the area. It would be unfair if those doing the right thing were disadvantaged by others who are more interested in short-term profits rather than sustainability. With each of the required outcomes the code provides a number of probable solutions which will achieve the outcome if used. For example, to protect water quality in an adjacent stream new developments may be required to be set back 200 metres from the stream. This assists developers to choose to implement a probable solution as part of their application and know it will be acceptable. Alternatively, the developer can offer another solution which will be accepted if it achieves the required 550 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 outcome. For example, the development could be located closer than 200 metres from the stream if measures such as bunds were installed to prevent polluted run-off reaching the stream. This provides flexibility for the developer and allows innovation to be used to achieve the required outcome. The code applies to 12 types of development activity that may be captured by a wild river declaration. These activities include agricultural and animal husbandry activities; aquaculture development; those works deemed as environmentally relevant activities by the EPA; works in tidal areas; residential, commercial and industrial developments; works for taking or interfering with overland flow; waterway barrier works; in-stream works; extraction of quarry material from the river; native forest production on state lands; and native vegetation clearing. For each development activity the code provides a range of required outcomes. These outcomes are aimed at trying to preserve the natural values of the wild river area. That is what this legislation is about. It is about protecting those natural values not just for now but for the future as well. The code will be used with other existing codes by assessing agencies under the Integrated Planning Act, hence applying the code will not be a large impost for assessing agencies which could be state government departments or, as I said before, local governments. The bill will add provisions to allow the minister to amend the code as needed subject to Governor in Council approval. This will ensure that the code remains relevant and workable. For example, if better ways of achieving a required outcome are found they can be included in the code. The Governor in Council’s approval with the amended code has to be gazetted and tabled in the House. The bill does not outline a formal consultation process for amending the code; however, the minister has committed in this House to have the department undertake such consultation as needed. Clearly if the change is minor or of little consequence it is pointless to consult widely. Similarly the bill outlines a few circumstances that would not require an amendment to be tabled in the House. These are changes to a definition used by the code, changes to a probable solution and any changes needed to reflect approved changes to a regional vegetation management code. The bill will approve the code and introduces a process for amending the code in the future. Under the existing legislation the minister can make and amend a code without any formal steps. These amendments provide for more rigour and transparency in the approval process. I commend the bill to the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (4.51 pm): The Liberal Party is absolutely committed to the protection and maintenance of our environment. In fact, the Liberal Party has a very proud and long track record of commitment to our environment. Who was it that protected Fraser Island? Who was it that declared the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Natural Heritage Trust, mandatory renewable energy targets, regional forestry agreements? The list goes on and on. The Liberal Party is very committed to the protection of the environment. Government members interjected. Dr FLEGG: I hear those opposite with their highly predictable interjections. Ms Nolan interjected. Dr FLEGG: Even the members not sitting in their own seats are carrying on. Where was their carry-on when their own leader proposed this week to devastate a bunch of rivers in tropical Queensland that for millennia have fed the Great Barrier Reef and divert that water out where it will evaporate, where it will soak in and where it will be completely wasted? There is more damage in that proposal than what the farmers and the Indigenous people have done over hundreds of years. Those opposite had nothing to say. In fact, the Premier’s proposal is nothing worse than environmental vandalism. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The member for Darling Downs, a member of your own party is on his feet. Please give him some courtesy. Dr FLEGG: The Premier’s proposal that he is touting nationwide and that he is spending thousands and thousands of dollars on in national newspapers is nothing more than environmental vandalism on a multibillion-dollar scale. To take the rivers of north Queensland that depend on their monsoonal rain that have fed the Great Barrier Reef for millennia, and dam them up, spend billions of taxpayers’ money, and pump them out where they are going to evaporate— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Liberal Party, I have given you a couple of minutes to make this point. It is not directly relevant to the bill. Please come back to the bill. Dr FLEGG: The proposal I am speaking about is in relation to the rivers of north Queensland, which is exactly the same as in the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are roads in north Queensland as well. You cannot talk about those unless they are relevant to the bill. Please come back to the bill. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 551

Dr FLEGG: In this House over coming times they will see the Liberal Party working with its coalition partners to support and commit to sensible and responsible environmental policy. But sensible, responsible environmental policy involves working with the people that it affects. This bill does not. In fact, this bill punishes those who have done so much to maintain their land in as close to pristine form as possible. We hear proposals from the other side about climate change, about some regions becoming drier and other regions becoming wetter, and here we go wanting to take some of that land and make sure that it is locked away. We must consider the fact that there is significant change in our climate and that may well dictate what future land use is environmentally safe and environmentally sustainable. There has been widespread concern about this bill, particularly among people who are directly affected by it and our Indigenous communities. This minister and this government need to go back to the drawing board. When they bring something in here that is properly considered, takes into account the needs of the local people and will achieve their stated aims then we will be able to consider it more seriously than this particular measure. They need to give people more time. In the time that this bill has been out I have not had a single submission or a single contact in relation to it. Clearly they have not got it right and it is dangerous to let it go through in this form at this time. My own attitudes and comments in this parliament in relation to environmental issues and, in particular, predecessors to this bill speak for themselves. I introduced a bill yesterday that I will not talk about because it is a bill before House. I have a very real commitment to protecting the environment of this state. Perhaps those who are making so much noise opposite might consider that when that particular bill is considered. What I would say to them on this occasion is to go out, do their homework and get it right and then we may be able to consider it. If we make it sustainable and consider the people who are affected by it then we may be able to consider it. This government is all too quick to want to grab a sectional interest and all too quick to want to ignore the rights of people who are impacted by their actions. On this particular occasion the government does not have it right. For that reason we will not be supporting the bill. I look forward to it bringing something better considered to the table next time. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (4.58 pm): I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. There have been very interesting contributions made in the debate on the wild rivers bill. I note the particular rivers that are being declared along with Hinchinbrook Island and Fraser Island. It amazes me why islands, and particularly Hinchinbrook Island, would become wild rivers. As I understand, Fraser Island and Hinchinbrook Island have a lot of covenants over them. Certainly Fraser Island has. As the member for Burdekin pointed out, the future locking up of the Hook Point area of Fraser Island is one more step in eventually keeping people out of the area altogether. Earlier the member for Hervey Bay talked about the fact that there is no restriction on any water that may come from Fraser Island to the mainland. I hope I have not ruined your day. I think you were quite sincere when you were saying this. You said that there will be no restrictions. When you look at the wild rivers policy— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will not refer to the member for Hervey Bay as ‘you’. You will refer to him as the member for Hervey Bay. You should be directing your comments through the chair. Mr HOBBS: I will do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Member for Hervey Bay, I am being sincere about this. The minister’s web site states— The policy also severely limits future water allocations in a declared wild river area ... That is what it says. Therefore, I would think that there would be little chance that we can get water from Fraser Island in the future. Mr McNamara: What? Mr HOBBS: That is what it says. That is exactly what it says. It is taken from the minister’s web site, so maybe the member should take it up with the minister. This legislation relates to these rivers that are being declared and other rivers that potentially could be declared. There is one river in my electorate that people have been talking about declaring as a wild river—that may happen in the future—and for other purposes, and that is the Paroo River. People have talked about this pristine river which has abundant wildlife, wild ducks and other animals. It is in an area that has rainfall of about 13 inches a year. It has been in exceptional circumstances for the last four years. There is hardly a water hole that has any water left in it. It is just not one of those magic running rivers that needs all that much protection. Its location in itself protects it enough. The people who live there are doing a wonderful job, and they have big hearts to be there. We do not necessarily need to go out there and protect it again. They have done a magnificent job looking after it themselves. One of the very scary things is that most of these declared rivers are a long way from Brisbane and I doubt whether anyone has been to see them, but I am sure some members opposite have been to see them. However, many members opposite have not. Let me give the House some examples. There 552 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007 was an intellectual giant in this House who said that we should stop eating meat for two days a week because the cattle are drinking too much water. This is one of the intellectual giants on that side of the House. That person again today— Mr LEE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Hopper: Good on you, mate! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Member for Darling Downs, this is your bill. If you would like to get thrown out, I am quite happy to oblige. I have called for order. There is a point of order. Mr LEE: The member is once again misrepresenting my position on an issue, as he well knows. But can I say that I take his comment about being an intellectual giant. I am more than happy with that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr HOBBS: Obviously if the cap fits. What is scaring people is that people who have no idea are making important decisions on legislation. Another bright spark over there said that because of all of the tree clearing going on in Queensland all of the crows are moving to her electorate. These are the people who are making these decisions, and we wonder why people are concerned when intellectual giants like that— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr HOBBS: That is right. As the member for Darling Downs said, someone also talked about birth control for feral pigs. How on earth! Mr Hinchliffe interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Stafford, if you wish to keep interjecting please resume your seat. Mr HOBBS: There are many issues that need to be improved. The wild rivers policy talks about providing a basis for sustaining healthy ecological processes. We have no problem with that. We certainly can improve. We want to make sure that the river systems run well and are healthy. However, it is quite contradictory, on the one hand, to want to lock things up and then, on the other hand, to provide unique recreational opportunities. So the government wants to lock these areas up and then wants people trampling all over them. These rivers are so-called pristine rivers now and have been kept that way for generations, yet the government wants to use them for recreational opportunities as well. It cannot have it both ways. I will give the House an example from my electorate involving Coopers Creek. Even if people did not know what they were doing, they were quite entitled and loved to go out and have a look at the country. However, as they crossed Coopers Creek on the flood plain areas of the rocks in their four- wheel drives they would inevitably swamp their vehicle and the local station owners had to drag them out all of the time. Eventually we built the bridge over Coopers Creek and that made a big difference. Sometimes there has to be development in those areas. In fact, this legislation will now restrict much of that development that may be required. As was mentioned before, the Beattie-type Bradfield Scheme means that we will have to use rivers for different purposes. For instance, suddenly running water down rivers that are normally dry changes the whole ecosystem. It is like the Darling. It was principally a dry river in the past. It would run for a number of years during the wet but would then stop. For example, from Longreach to Tambo there is a 1,000 foot rise if we want to pump water up there. There is no logic to what is being done. It seems to be grabbing at ideas. I wonder if this wild rivers legislation is just grabbing at ideas to try to get through the moment and perhaps appease the conservation groups that the government is doing something. However, this legislation is not exactly doing what the government needs to do. The minister’s web site goes on to say that the policy outlines strict controls on future development activities in a declared wild river such as prohibiting flow control activities such as desnagging. There may be instances where there may be towns, buildings, homesteads or station homesteads. Let us take Charleville, for instance. Years ago when the drovers went through the sheep and cattle ate all of the underbrush along the Warrego River. When they did not do that, it built up and of course now all of those waterholes are full of sand and silt. In fact, when the flood came along it was not able to get away as fast as it normally would. I was able to provide some funding when I was minister to help clear that. We got the WORC camp people out there and they opened it up a bit, which will certainly help. We can put a system in place to help those river systems remain the way they were, but if nature changes what has happened and they clog up it just changes the whole profile of those rivers. By putting in place these rules the government may in fact be making it worse and changing the whole nature of the river. Rivers move. People in north Queensland would know where rock walls have been put up, and when it floods the river will cut its way through a new channel. There are numerous examples of that. That is just nature taking its course. But at the end of the day if we have to try to protect some building or structure it is not hard to do. However, that needs to be able to be done in a reasonable way. This legislation would in fact restrict that. We have to ensure that the legislation does not restrict people too much. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 553

There are 12 development activities that this legislation covers. I will not read them all out, but some are agriculture and animal husbandry, aquaculture, environmentally relevant activities and so forth. It covers many areas. There are numerous restrictions in this legislation that will be placed on people who live in those areas—areas which are far away from people sitting in their comfortable chairs here in Brisbane or the leafy suburbs they come from. That is the difference. While we make these decisions, in many instances it is very hard to really comprehend the changes and restrictions that this will place on those people. I disagree with this bill. We certainly do not want any more wild rivers legislation, but I think there will need to be a lifting of some of these restrictions down the track so that we can manage these areas in a reasonable and sustainable way. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (5.09 pm): I am happy to speak to the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. At the outset, let me make it perfectly clear that the coalition supports the responsible and sustainable protection of the environment and has a proud record of doing so. Nothing exemplifies that more than the $10 billion plan for the Murray-Darling, which the Premier is trying to hijack; the $1 billion Natural Heritage Trust, which was endorsed by the Australian Conservation Foundation back in 1996; the World Heritage listing of Fraser Island by the Fraser government; the reversal of Labor’s proposed Snowy River privatisation—members opposite will remember when they wanted to sell that off; the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; working on eventually stopping dredging in the Brisbane River; the acquisition of land for national parks; and the list goes on. So the coalition has a proud record of properly protecting the environment for the benefit of all people. This bill identifies six river systems to be declared and locked up as wild rivers. It seeks to validate notices that may be invalid and which are the subject of a legal challenge because the minister and the department could not get them right. They could not get the notices to comply with their own legislation. This legislation also shortens the time period required for the second set of notices that were issued because of the mistakes in the first set of declarations. In doing so, it guillotines the consultation period that was specified in the original legislation. Again, this government is riding roughshod over people’s rights. This legislation also declares the Wild Rivers Code and provides a process by which the code can be amended in the future. Finally—and we will not find this in the explanatory notes—this legislation fulfils this sleazy Beattie government’s deal with the greens for preferences at last year’s election. The coalition supports practical, responsible action that gets the people who live around the land and who love and use the land and resources to be part of the plan for its preservation and use. The people who know an area best are best placed to sensibly protect it. The coalition is about talking to all of those who are likely to be affected by any changes to the rights of use—rights that have been in existence for many generations. The coalition is not about locking up a resource at the behest of the green elites, who are safe and secure with their income supported by government grants. The coalition is not about locking up land as part of a sleazy government deal to get green preferences in an election. The coalition’s support does not extend to restrictions designed to see large tracts of land and our natural resources reserved for the occasional viewing of the fly-in, fly-out chardonnay swilling green elite. It is important that we have some understanding of the background of the wild rivers legislation in Queensland. The wild rivers imperative was recognised by the Commonwealth and state governments in the early 1990s with the launch of the Wild Rivers Project. A definition of a ‘wild river’ was formulated in 1992, which identified a wild river as one in which the river flowed in its natural state and where the biological, hydrological and geomorphological processes have not been significantly altered by modern or colonial society. Wild rivers legislation was first enacted in the United States in 1968 with the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That act protects free-flowing rivers with scenic, recreational, scientific, historic and cultural values. So far, 158 rivers have been protected from dams and other developments in the United States. It should be noted that a large number of the so-called wild and scenic rivers in the US are still used heavily for recreational activities, including boating and camping. The argument for the protection of wild rivers is for the conservation of biologically diverse and productive systems that provide both clean water and a home to unique plants and animals. Wild rivers are also important in the maintenance of basic ecological functions, such as nutrient cycling, energy flows and the breakdown of toxins. Wild rivers support diverse aquatic ecosystems as well as having educational, aesthetic and intrinsic values for local and external communities. After strong lobbying from groups such as the Wilderness Society and others, this government enacted legislation to protect the so-called wild rivers of Queensland in 2005. The legislation was introduced after both the New South Wales and Victoria parliaments legislated for the permanent protection of some of the rivers in their states. The protection of a natural environment for its recreational, cultural and scientific value is a good thing and is to be supported. But locking away a natural environment and allowing only a bare minimum of activity in that environment is neither responsible, reasonable, nor appropriate. The protection of those environments must follow extensive consultation with the local communities who know the environment, who have already been preserving it, and who stand to be most affected by any restrictions or alterations to their rights. 554 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

The Gulf of Carpentaria and north Australia in general have been described as potentially the new food bowl of the world owing to its reliable rainfall and fertile lands. The federal government has identified north Queensland as an area of outstanding opportunity for development owing to its abundant water supplies and vast land. The area also has the opportunity to provide meaningful opportunities for the Indigenous people of the north. To lock up access to water in this area will choke the ability of the people in the north to bring this prediction to fruition. Scott Harris, the owner of Queensland’s single biggest pastoral lease, Strathmore Station, is reported as saying that his farm will not survive this legislation. Media reports say that he has been fighting hard to try to ensure that that situation does not eventuate. Scott Harris has spent over $100,000 drafting an environmental management plan for Strathmore Station to accord with the requirements of the legislation. Sadly, his efforts to save the station have been ignored by the government in favour of the blueprint of the Australian Wilderness Society to lock up the region’s waterways. Mr Harris estimates that, under the proposal, 60 per cent of Strathmore Station will be lost to productive use. The minister has promised 12 months for consultation. Yet he has locked up the cape’s rivers after just one month. The moratorium is justified by the minister as avoiding panic development before the legislation is passed. The moratorium affects 13 river basins: the Jardine, the Ducie, the Wenlock, the Watson, the Archer, the Holroyd, the Coleman, the Jacky Jacky, the Olive/Pascoe, the Lockhart, the Stewart and the Jeannie river basins. So much for consultation and due process. In this minister’s opinion, obviously communities in the cape cannot be trusted to act properly. Clearly, the minister is standing by his word when he said in mid-December— I am not prepared to see any delay in the Wild Rivers Act on the basis of a legal technicality. That legal technicality was brought about by his own department’s and this government’s incompetence. The threat of a class action by the people of Cape York is certainly a legal technicality and one that the minister could well have avoided if he had stuck by his word and not deprived the residents and farmers of that precious resource—the water of the cape—before it was legislated for and due process was followed. One has to ask the minister: what does he say to the farmers of north Queensland who will possibly lose their livelihoods because of the imposition of the moratorium and the legislation? What does the minister say to the Indigenous communities of the north-west that stand to lose job prospects and possibly housing developments in these areas? What does the minister say to those in the mining industry who will be prohibited from exploring high-preservation areas? It is important to note that if this legislation had been in force 10 years ago Queensland would not have the Century Mine in the far north—one of the world’s largest zinc mines—and neither would we have the flow-on economic and social benefits that arise from the development of that mine. The government needs to pay attention to the development of a competitive, innovative and growing resources sector that is capable of accessing, developing and managing Australia’s resources in an environmentally responsible manner. The blanket protection of these rivers does not adhere to the principles of ecologically sustainable development, which rely on the three pillars of economics, environment and society. An ecologically sustainable strategy would display an ability for the community to benefit from a strategy that also provides for the conservation of the environment. Clearly, this legislation does not. Queensland needs well thought out legislation that brings farmers, landholders and government together in sturdy legislation that supports Queensland communities. Queensland requires legislation that works in economic, social and cultural harmony—not one-sided laws that elevate conservation, scenery and relaxation above all else. This government’s inability to get the process right is demonstrated by the fact that we are again debating this legislation after having amended it only last November. What do we have today? Another set of amendments to the amendments. No-one should be under any illusion that this government knows what it is doing with this legislation. This government does know what it is doing—it does not want the community to have a chance to pick up the mistakes in its flawed legislation. The government does not want the community to know how badly it has fouled up this legislation. So what does the government do? It cuts short the consultation. Because of all of the flaws in this legislation, the coalition cannot—nor could any reasonable parliamentary group—support this amending legislation. It does nothing except cause problems, confusion and heartache. When this government can introduce legislation that works for the benefit of all and not just for the green urban elite, it will be supported. However, I have to say that it is extremely doubtful that this government will ever be able to do that. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (5.19 pm), in reply: First of all, I thank honourable members for their participation in this debate. I will give a summation of the issues and respective amendments. The bill will declare the first six wild river areas in the state. This is a historic milestone in protecting Queensland’s natural heritage for the benefit of current and future generations. It is something that everyone on this side of the House can be extremely proud of. These declaration 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 555 proposals have been consulted upon for over 13 months and, where possible, stakeholder views have been taken on board. The consultation process resulted in related act changes late last year that had broad support. This government does listen. While this bill will truncate by a few weeks the extended consultation period for the Staaten proposal, Staaten landholders and other stakeholders have had over 13 months to put their views forward and substantiate them with supporting information. The revised proposal is essentially the same as the original proposal, other than to clarify that Vanrook Creek is, and always was, part of the Staaten wild river area. It is now time to act and finalise these declarations so that communities and businesses within these areas can get on with life with certainty. The declarations will be posted on the department’s web site and available at departmental and relevant local government offices for public inspection. Greater detail on the management area boundaries can be obtained from the department if needed. The bill validates all the notices published over the past 13 months in relation to these six wild river areas. The bill will put the notices and associated moratoriums beyond legal challenge—again, to provide certainty for the communities in these areas. While it was never established if the notices had any flaws, I am taking this step to put the issue beyond any doubt and to prevent lawyers from capitalising on the situation. The bill will approve the Wild Rivers Code so that the six wild river declarations can become operational without further delay. The draft code has been out for public comment for over 13 months. Again, the government listened to earlier comments and revised the code in December 2006. While the bill will cut short the consultation period for the revised draft by a few weeks, there has not been any negative comment on the draft code up to when the bill was introduced. The bill also adds provisions to formally amend the code if needed. Hence, the code approved today is not set in stone. Having a formal process to amend the code should give comfort to stakeholders, knowing that the Governor in Council has to approve all amendments. While there is no formal requirement to consult affected stakeholders on amendments, I repeat my earlier commitment to have my department consult on major amendments. The department has consulted on the draft code without any formal requirement so it is willing to be transparent. Minor and prescribed amendments which are generally straightforward will not require consultation. The code will be published on the department’s web site for all to see and use. The bill also amends the definition of high and moderate risk species to include plant types other than pasture and grains. It is quite possible that someone may want to plant a woody species that will adversely affect the natural values of a wild river. Also the bill now requires the risk species for a particular wild river area to be listed in the relevant declaration rather than in a general regulation. This will ensure that all of the wild river requirements for a wild river area are included in the one document and can be easily accessed. There are no species listed in the six declarations on the table here today. I will seek to formally amend these declarations in a few months to include a list of species. This will involve consultation and submissions on a proposed list of species before I make a final decision on the amendments. I will not need to amend the Hinchinbrook declaration as the establishment of new agricultural areas is not permitted in that national park. The member for Darling Downs raised a number of concerns in his speech. The member advised that he and the ‘one coalition’ sitting on the opposition benches had ‘one’ view on these issues. The Nationals say that they are opposed to the bill. However, it was interesting to learn of the member for Moggill’s support of his coalition partners in this position—considering the Liberal Party’s general support for wild rivers during last year’s election. Indeed, all of the Liberal Party speakers have boasted of their proud record of protecting the environment as if to justify their changing position. Why don’t they support this bill, which allows for sustainable development in the wild rivers areas? It is because they have been rolled by the National Party. But allow me to focus on some of the issues the member for Darling Downs raised. These included the honourable member’s concerns about public consultation on property development plans. These plans go to public consultation once they have been through an approval process. This involves the usual process of public consultation that is involved in the amendment of a wild river declaration. This is outlined in the provisions of the existing legislation. I would encourage the honourable member to refer back to the relevant sections of the current act. A number of members also raised the issue of Vanrook Creek being included in a wild river area. Their claim is based on the fact that floodwater from the Gilbert River system overflows into Vanrook Creek. This may be true but the wild river area is based on the drainage basin—that is, where the water drains to, not where it comes from. Vanrook Creek drains into the Staaten River, as clearly shown on aerial photographs. In high flows it overflows back into the Gilbert but that does not alter the drainage basin. To put this issue beyond doubt, the revised declaration proposal listed Vanrook Creek as a wild river in its own right. Vanrook Creek has unique, intact natural values that deserve protection. If Vanrook Creek was to stop draining into the Staaten as a result of a large flood, it will remain protected as a wild river. 556 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

The members for Hinchinbrook and Darling Downs both raised some concerns about the consultation process. I am advised that AgForce—the real AgForce, not its eccentric northern representative—has been instrumental in relation to the amendments that I will move in consideration in detail regarding the property development plan. The AgForce organisation’s denial of support for the wild rivers declaration was made by the AgForce northern representative, Mr Elmes, whose ill-informed statements have added nothing of note or intelligence to the debate on the issue on the cape or in the gulf. The concerns raised by the member for Darling Downs in relation to compliance with the code suggest that he believes that landholders in the gulf cannot be trusted to abide by the laws of Queensland. I do not support this contention. As a proud north Queenslander I believe these people, like all Queenslanders, are more generally law abiding and prepared to comply with legislation than to act like the gangsters the member for Darling Downs believes them to be. The member for Hinchinbrook raised a number of issues on the islands that have been declared under the Wild Rivers Act. First of all, allow me to point out that this legislation is about protecting pristine or near pristine river systems. Such systems exist on Hinchinbrook and Fraser islands. The concerns raised by the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook related to the possibility that a wild river declaration would promote mining and development. Obviously this is not the case. Nothing can occur on the islands without the approval of the government—and national parks are already protected areas. Rules in the declaration would apply to any proposed expansions of existing resorts or other developments. As the opposition is aware, the wild rivers legislation does not lock up land to all possible development. However, where a wild river occurs in a protected area such as a national park, any approvals would need to go through the processes that already apply to these areas. The comment that the alliance does not support wild rivers is also incorrect. In the last line of the letter that my office has received it actually states that the alliance supports wild river declarations in-principle. The member for Gregory raised concerns about development and alleged that this legislation panders to the greens by preventing economic development in the region. I would argue that these amendments—the amendments we have been debating today—do quite the opposite. These amendments do not pander to the greens. In fact, they allow for assessable development in these areas wherever landholders can demonstrate their actions will comply with the codes and preserve the natural values of these river systems for future generations. These amendments are the result of this government’s listening to affected landholders and taking on board the concerns that have been raised. Considering the groundbreaking nature of the original legislation, it is reasonable to expect there will need to be amendments in response to concerns raised by the community. The member for Burdekin raised some concerns about a legal challenge from a landholder in relation to the validity of a declaration. She has claimed that the state has been forced to take this action as the result of ‘successful court action’. In fact, the relevant court application was withdrawn in January and never went before the courts. The opposition has raised concerns about the scales of the maps. These are catchment scale maps, not property scale maps. Landholders should not use catchment scale maps to manage their properties. I also propose to move two amendments during consideration in detail of the bill. These arise due to some last minute requests and requirements. One amendment relates to the property development plans in a wild river area and the other relates to customers for water services. It is proposed to allow landholders to submit a property development plan after a wild river area is declared as the basis for amending the declaration to facilitate the development planned. This is not about watering down the government’s commitment to preserving these unique river systems. However, it does provide the opportunity for future development to occur in a wild river area where it would otherwise be prohibited provided it results in a net environmental benefit for the wild river. This can be achieved by undertaking all set actions that enhance the natural values of the property, for example, addressing weeds and pests, removing disused works in streams, replanting riparian zones, taking less water and so on. A proposed plan would have to be submitted with a fee and assessed by an independent panel of scientists who are expert in hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, riparian function and wildlife movement. If I approve the plan, with or without conditions, I can then seek to amend the declaration through the current formal process, including public consultation and submission. Based on submissions, I will then make a decision whether to amend the declaration. If the declaration is amended the landholder will then have to submit applications for each development and go through the normal assessment process under the Integrated Planning Act or other relevant act. This means that the developments will have to meet the wild rivers requirements. Also, all developments on the property over the next 10 years have to be in accordance with the plan. This is to prevent the landholder later choosing to capitalise on the amended declaration and apply to do something else. 22 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statement 557

The second amendment is to clarify the definition of ‘customer’ of a water service provider, other than a local government, for restriction of water supply by the Queensland Water Commission under the Water Act. For the information of members, I table the explanatory notes relating to those amendments. Whilst some people feel aggrieved by the fact that the extended consultation periods for the Staaten proposal and the code will be truncated by the bill, at the end of the day these documents have had extensive consultation and a few more weeks is unlikely to uncover any major new issues. This bill delivers on the Beattie government’s commitment to declare these wild rivers. This will end the uncertainty and allow people in these areas to get on with their lives and businesses. Local communities can now explore the opportunities that a wild river declaration brings, such as marketing clean and green exports and ecotourism ventures. These communities will also benefit from the good quality water as well as culture heritage and recreational values that will be retained by our declaration. All Queenslanders will benefit from the environmental and scientific values that will be retained in these areas. I want to thank a number of people and groups who were involved in this. I wish to thank the Wilderness Society, the Queensland Resources Council, AgForce and the LGAQ for their input into the wild river declaration process. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of my officers in the Department of Natural Resources and Water who have developed this bill. Debate, on motion of Mr Wallace, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Nuttall, Mr GR: Memorandum Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.32 pm), by leave: I have already spelt out the exhaustive process undertaken in my own office in an attempt to locate a memo sent to the former Director-General of Health, Steve Buckland. This search was undertaken because it has been alleged the memo was cced to myself and the former Director-General of Premier and Cabinet, Dr Leo Keliher. As I have indicated, as far as I am aware I did not receive a copy of this memo. I have checked and double-checked. Dr Keliher also advised that he has no recollection of receiving this memo. I spoke to him about this today. However, I can report that I was advised by the current Director-General of Health today that a copy of the memo was located this morning at Queensland Health. The director- general forwarded a brief on the process— An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: It is no big deal. The director-general forwarded a brief on the process used to locate— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Mr BEATTIE: This is just for completeness. There is no big deal here, digger; no big deal. Mr Hobbs: You’re talking to us now. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, I know, and I speak very slowly when I do. The director-general— Dr Flegg: You don’t need; we have heard it before. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, if you wish to interject please resume your seat. Mr BEATTIE: And so should the former leader of the opposition. The director-general forwarded a brief on the process used to locate the memo. The memo and a status report on the projects referred to in the memo were forwarded to the Acting Minister for Health who, in turn, has forwarded the documents to me. This afternoon I have forwarded all of this information to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I table a copy of my letter to the head of the CMC. Tabled paper: Letter dated 22 February 2007 from Mr Beattie MP, Premier and Minister for Trade to Mr Robert Needham, Chairperson Crime and Misconduct Commission relating to Queensland Health memo. I want to make the point that I do not think there is any big deal, to be frank, but I did indicate to the House yesterday that officers of Health had sought to try to find the memo. They had not found the memo; they were still looking. Officers subsequently found the memo, and they have provided the material to the acting minister, who provided it to me, and I provided it to the CMC. I have advised the House of this as soon as I was able so there is nothing untoward with this. I simply want to advise the House of this because of what I said yesterday. My government is honest and transparent. Members now know the full truth and the full circumstances. 558 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

WILD RIVERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 557. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 46—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr HOPPER (5.41 pm): Minister, we all know about the code and its release and the 28 February time frame. Will the opposition have access to that code before it is released and after the 28 February comment time frame as part of the consultation process? Mr WALLACE: Do you mind repeating that question because I cannot hear over this noise? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): I ask members wishing to carry on a conversation to please leave the chamber. The minister could not hear the question. Mr WALLACE: I apologise to the member for Darling Downs. Mr HOPPER: It is not a problem at all, Minister. Will the opposition have access to the code before it is released and after the 28 February comment time frame as part of the consultation process? Mr WALLACE: Yes, I have no problems making that available. Mr HOPPER: Minister, what guarantee can we get from you that there will be consultation with industry? Mr WALLACE: My word. Honourable members: Ha, ha! Mr HOPPER: Well, that is a guarantee and we are pretty happy with that answer. Will the minister formalise the process for consultation so that there is some guarantee that the industry is consulted? Mr WALLACE: I gave that word last November. I have actually been on radio and spoken to interest groups and stakeholder groups a number of times and said that I will have plenty of consultation. Before we proceed with anything on the cape, for instance—I know it is different to these codes in the gulf—I have said that we will begin consultation after the wet season. I see no problem with the government consulting with people affected and stakeholders. I am certainly very keen to do that and we will be out there consulting as widely as possible. Hopefully, the member for Darling Downs will be involved in the process as well. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr HOPPER (5.44 pm): We know that leucaena has been one of the great cattle feeds, and I know people who did their thesis on it at university. It is used by many farmers around Townsville, on the Darling Downs, in western Queensland and in the north. Buffel is also a very great cattle feed in some areas. We are very concerned about this. The content of the declaration process is dealt with in this clause. Will species such as leucaena and buffel be considered if they are included in the property management plans? Does the minister understand what I am saying? If they put that plan forward, they have it in place and they have explained exactly where, what and how much, will the minister then consider that and allow them? Mr WALLACE: We have not made any list of species, be it buffel or leucaena. I certainly understand the importance of leucaena up in my area. With regard to buffel and leucaena, it is correct to say that these species have been mentioned and they will be discussed as part of the consultation process before I declare those species. We have to be very careful with these wild rivers that we do not have an outbreak of a foreign species that can hurt the natural values of those very important areas. Before I declare any of these species, we will be speaking to AgForce and a lot of people in the area, and we will also be taking advice from DPI. Whether we declare leucaena, buffel grass or anything else on that list, it will only be done after a lengthy, lengthy process. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 559

Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr HOPPER (5.47 pm): Minister, why do you consider that the current legislation on vegetation management, the Water Act and World Heritage listings are unsuitable in retaining the natural values of the area? Mr WALLACE: Sorry? Mr HOPPER: Why do you consider that the current legislation on vegetation management, the Water Act and World Heritage listings are unsuitable in retaining the natural values of the area? Mr WALLACE: Are you referring to clause 6? Mr HOPPER: Yes. Mr WALLACE: Those three pieces of legislation that the member for Darling Downs has mentioned are not a holistic approach to the protection of these pristine areas. We as a government took to two elections—the one in 2004 and then the election last year—our wild rivers legislation and we are immensely proud of that legislation. We have brought about this wild rivers legislation as a focused measure on river health, and that is why we are making those declarations and that is why we are in the House today. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr HOPPER (5.49 pm): Minister, will the public notices of intention to amend wild rivers declaration still apply with the amendments that have been put through the House today? Mr WALLACE: This validates all of those notices. That is what we are debating in the House today and that is what we will be declaring once this bill is passed. Mr HOPPER: In my speech I spoke about meeting with the property owners at Georgetown and Staaten River. We flew over those catchments. They showed me in detail where the water runs. We also met with some very progressive people who possessed detailed mapping and were absolutely adamant that the department’s mapping was wrong in that river catchment. This clause deals with public notices to amend the wild rivers declarations. Will the minister give a guarantee to look at the validity of the mapping of Staaten River in relation to Vanrook Creek? Will the minister guarantee to the House that he will look at the validity of that mapping and come back and tell us whether those fellows are right or wrong? Mr WALLACE: In my speech I spoke extensively about Vanrook Creek. I would ask the honourable member to refer back to my speech. The honourable member should be aware that this bill also brings in a number of amendments to allow property management plans. If any landholder believes that they can have a development in that area that will not impinge on those wild river values, they can put in a property management plan which will be assessed accordingly. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr HOPPER (5.50 pm): This clause deals with the moratorium period. Will the property development plans be applicable on rivers where a moratorium is in place? Mr WALLACE: No, they will not be applicable where a moratorium is in place, only once or if a river is declared. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13 (Amendment of s26 (Content of wild river amendment declaration))— Mr WALLACE (5.51 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 13 (Amendment of s 26 (Content of wild river amendment declaration))— At page 9, lines 15 to 19— omit, insert— ‘13 Replacement of s 26 (Content of wild river amendment declaration) ‘Section 26— omit, insert— ‘ ‘26 Content of wild river amendment declaration ‘(1) A wild river amendment declaration must include, but is not limited to, the following information— (a) the title of the wild river declaration to which the amendment relates; 560 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

(b) details of the amendment to the declaration including— (i) any changes to the existing boundaries of the parts of the wild river area; or (ii) any addition of an area to, or removal of an area from, the wild river area; or (iii) any amalgamation of the wild river area with all or part of another wild river area; or (iv) any activities or taking of natural resources to which a property development plan relating to the amendment applies. ‘(2) For subsection (1)(b)(iv), it is sufficient if the property development plan is identified, whether or not the activities or taking are specifically stated in the amendment.’.’. Mr HOPPER: Clause 1 of the amendment allows for the property development plan. What costs will be involved for a property management plan? Mr WALLACE: Property management plans are generally drawn up by property managers—that is, the owners of the property. We do not carry any of those costs. In fact, I was looking at a property management plan today drawn up by a particular landowner and they had incurred the cost for that particular property management plan. Mr HOPPER: What the minister is saying to the House is that there will be no charge by his department to do with property plans; is that correct? Mr WALLACE: Is the member talking about a fee for a property management plan or drawing up a property management plan? Mr HOPPER: Drawing it up, lodging it, anything to do with it. Mr WALLACE: There will be a fee that the department will charge but we have not set that fee. I thought the member was talking about drawing up the plan itself. My apologies for that. Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr WALLACE (5.53 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 Before clause 14— At page 9, before line 20— insert— ‘13A Amendment of s 31 (Minor amendments of wild river declaration) ‘Section 31(3), definition ‘owner’— omit. ‘13B Insertion of new pt 2, div 2A ‘After section 31— insert— ‘ ‘Division 2A Property development plans ‘Subdivision 1 Applying for and obtaining approval of proposed property development plan ‘31A Application of sdiv 1 ‘This subdivision applies if— (a) a person proposes to carry out activities on, or take natural resources from, land owned by the person within a wild river area; and (b) all or some of the activities or the taking of resources is prohibited under a wild river declaration. ‘31B Application for approval of proposed property development plan ‘The person may apply to the Minister for approval of a proposed property development plan (the proposed plan) that, on approval, will for the purposes of subdivision 2, apply— (a) for a period of 10 years from the approval; and (b) to stated activities that may be carried out, or natural resources that may be taken from, the land that is within the wild river area. Note— An approval of a proposed plan is not in itself a development approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997, or another approval under another Act, for carrying out an activity or taking a natural resource. See also sections 43A and 43B. ‘31C Requirements for application ‘(1) The application must— (a) be in the approved form; and (b) attach a copy of the proposed plan; and (c) be accompanied by the fee prescribed under a regulation. ‘(2) The proposed plan must comply with section 31D. 22 Feb 2007 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 561

‘31D Required information for proposed plan ‘(1) For section 31C(2), the proposed plan must state each of the following— (a) the title of the wild river area; (b) the activities, or taking of natural resources, to which the plan applies; (c) the nature, extent and location of the activities or the taking; (d) the time frame for completion of the activities or the taking; (e) the land (relevant land) owned by the person within the wild river area; (f) any other land owned by the person that is contiguous with the relevant land; (g) the infrastructure on, use of and types of vegetation on, the relevant land; (h) whether or not the person may reasonably carry out the activities, or the taking, without an amendment of the wild river declaration; (i) the nature and extent of any adverse impact that is likely to result from the activities, or the taking, on the natural values of the relevant wild river, and how the adverse impact may be minimised; (j) the nature and extent of any other thing proposed to be done in addition to the activities, or the taking, that would result in a beneficial impact on the natural values of the relevant wild river; Note— The inclusion of the other thing is only for the purpose of satisfying the requirement under section 31E(b) for approval of the proposed plan. The inclusion is not in itself a development approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997, or another approval under another Act, for doing the thing. (k) any other restrictions applying to, or approvals needed for, the carrying out of the activities or the taking. ‘(2) In this section— ‘relevant wild river, in a wild river area, includes— (a) the wild river and the major tributaries of the wild river; and (b) any nominated waterways and special features of the wild river area. ‘31E Approval of proposed plan ‘The Minister may approve the proposed plan, with or without conditions, for the purpose of subdivision (2) only if the Minister is satisfied— (a) the carrying out of the activities or the taking under the plan— (i) may not reasonably be carried out without amending the wild river declaration; and (ii) is likely to be completed within 10 years of the grant of the approval; and (b) the carrying out of the activities or taking, and anything mentioned in section 31D(1)(j), will not have an overall adverse impact on the natural values of the wild river to which the plan applies; and (c) the environmental benefits of the plan justify the approval of the plan. ‘Subdivision 2 Operation of property development plan ‘31F Amendment of wild river declaration ‘(1) The Minister may, under division 2, amend the declaration for the wild river area mentioned in a property development plan to accommodate the carrying out of the activities, or taking of the natural resources, to which the plan applies. ‘(2) This section does not limit section 19. ‘31G Application of property development plan ‘For the purposes of sections 43A and 43B, a property development plan is taken to apply to the land, within the wild river area mentioned in the plan, that was owned by the person who applied for approval of the plan when the application was made. Note— See also sections 43A (Effect of property development plan on particular development applications) and 43B (Effect of property development plan on particular applications under the Water Act 2000).’.’. Mr HOPPER: The proposed requirements of the plan are that it must state the title of the wild river area; the activities, or taking of natural resources, to which the plan applies; the nature, extent and location of the activities or the taking; the time frame for completion of the activities or the taking; the land, relevant land, owned by the person within the wild river area; any other land owned by the person that is contiguous with the relevant land; the infrastructure on, use of and types of vegetation on, the relevant land; whether or not the person may reasonably carry out the activities, or the taking, without an amendment of the wild river declaration; the nature and extent of any adverse impact that is likely to result from the activities, or the taking, on the natural values of the relevant wild river, and how the adverse impact may be minimised; the nature and extent of any other thing proposed to be done in addition to the activities, or the taking, that would result in a beneficial impact on the natural values of the relevant wild river; and any other restrictions applying to, or approvals needed for, the carrying out of the activities or the taking. Is the decision of the minister one that has code attached or is it just a whim decision? Mr WALLACE: A which decision? 562 Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 22 Feb 2007

Mr HOPPER: One made off-the-cuff. Mr WALLACE: One off-the-wing? Mr HOPPER: Yes. Mr WALLACE: No, it will be assessed. It will not be a decision I make off-the-wing. Mr HOPPER: Will there be a sunset clause on the time that property plans have to be agreed on? Mr WALLACE: No. Mr HOPPER: How much involvement will landholders have in the code of property plans? Mr WALLACE: They are under the declaration which landholders can avail themselves of. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 14 and 15, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr WALLACE (5.56 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 After clause 15— At page 10, after line 4— insert— ‘15A Insertion of new ss 43A and 43B ‘After section 43— insert— ‘ ‘43A Effect of property development plan on particular development applications ‘(1) This section applies to a development application that— (a) relates to land to which a property development plan applies; and (b) is for assessable development under any of the following provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, schedule 8, part 1— • table 1, item 2 • table 2, items 1, 8 and 11 • table 4, items 1A to 1G, 3, 5, 6 to 8 and 10 • table 5, items 1 and 4. ‘(2) Despite the Integrated Planning Act 1997, section 3.2.1, unless the application is consistent with the property development plan— (a) the application is taken not to be a properly made application for that Act; and (b) the assessment manager must refuse to receive the application. ‘43B Effect of property development plan on particular applications under the Water Act 2000 ‘(1) This section applies to an application under the Water Act 2000, section 266 or 280, that relates to land to which a property development plan applies. ‘(2) Despite the Water Act 2000, unless the application is consistent with the property development plan, the chief executive of the department in which that Act is administered must refuse to receive the application.’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17 (Amendment of schedule (Dictionary))— Mr WALLACE (5.57 pm): I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 17 (Amendment of schedule (Dictionary))— (1) At page 12, after line 26— insert— ‘owner, of land, means any of the following, and includes the occupier of the land— (a) the registered proprietor of the land; (b) the lessee or licensee under the Land Act 1994 of the land; (c) the holder of a mineral development licence or mining lease under the Mineral Resources Act 1989; (d) the person or body of persons who, for the time being, has lawful control of the land, on trust or otherwise; (e) the person who is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land.’. (2) At page 12, after line 27— insert— ‘property development plan means a plan approved under section 31E. proposed plan, for part 2, division 2A, subdivision 1, see section 31B.’. 22 Feb 2007 Order of Business 563

Mr HOPPER: This clause defines who is the registered proprietor of the land, the lessee or licensee under the Land Act, the holder of a mineral development licence or mining lease, the person or body of persons who for a time being has lawful control of the land on trust or otherwise and the person who is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land. Will the minister commit to a time frame of approval for development plans? Mr WALLACE: We will certainly try to expedite any applications put in but I will not commit to a time frame. Mr HOPPER: Will the registered proprietor of that land include a person who has purchased the land after the property development plan has been approved and, if so, will they be able to put forward further amendments? Mr WALLACE: Yes, we can combine them both; that is correct. Amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 22, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr WALLACE (6.00 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 After clause 22— At page 14, after line 14— insert— ‘22A Amendment of s 360ZD (Restricting water supply) ‘Section 360ZD— insert— ‘(7) In this section— customer, of a service provider, means— (a) if the service provider is a local government—a ratepayer of the local government who enjoys registered services supplied by the local government; and (b) if the service provider is other than a local government—a person who enjoys registered services supplied by the service provider.’. ‘22B Amendment of s 360ZE (Notice of commission water restriction must be given) ‘(1) Section 360ZE(4)(a), ‘for a non-residential customer’— omit, insert— ‘if the contravention relates to non-residential premises’. ‘(2) Section 360ZE(4)(b), ‘for any other person’— omit, insert— ‘otherwise’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to.

Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.01 pm): I move— That government business orders of the day Nos 3 to 16 be postponed. Motion agreed to. 564 Motion 22 Feb 2007

MOTION

Revocation of State Forest Area Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (6.01 pm): I move— 1. That this House requests the Governor in Council to revoke by regulation the setting apart and declaration as state forest under the Forestry Act 1959 of those areas as set out in the proposal tabled by me in the House on 7 February 2007;

Description of the area to be revoked

Beerwah State Forest (SF561) Area described as Lot 300 on SP195863 and containing 35.039 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked “B”

2. That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament forward a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism for submission to the Governor in Council. I only support the revocation of land from the forest estate for alternative uses if it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposed usage is in the broader public interest and that there is no practical alternative to the proposal. Careful consideration has been given to this proposal and detailed consultation has occurred with affected state and local government agencies and stakeholders. Native title issues have also been considered in relation to this proposal and it has been determined that the action should proceed in the broader public interest as there is no practical alternative. I will now outline the background for the proposal. This proposed revocation will enable the start of expansion plans to the existing Australia Zoo site to create Steve and Terri Irwin’s dream of a standalone world-class tourist destination right here on Queensland’s beautiful Sunshine Coast hinterland. Australia Zoo plans to continue to invest to expand its facilitates over the coming years. This will prove to be a major contribution to the economy of Queensland. With parliament’s seal of approval, Australia Zoo can now concentrate on moving forward and building what it hopes will be the biggest and best tourism attraction in Australia. The late Steve Irwin and his partner Terri Irwin’s commitment to wildlife conservation led to their vision that Australia Zoo become the biggest and best wildlife conservation facility in the world. Australia Zoo has international acclaim and directly employs over 550 staff. This number is expected to grow to 1,000 over the next five years and to 2,000 by 2015. This proposal involves the excision of about 35 hectares from Beerwah State Forest. This land is located to the south-east of Australia Zoo and is essential for the first stage of the zoo’s expansion. The extraordinary growth of Australia Zoo in itself has taken up much of the suitable privately held land available in the immediate locality. The area to be revoked largely comprises exotic pine plantation with no significant conservation values. The CAMCOS rail corridor will isolate the subject land, currently in forest production adjoining Australia Zoo, from the larger forestry area to the south. To meet the needs of Forestry Plantations Queensland the zoo has purchased land of equivalent forest production value adjacent to the Peachester State Forest. As part of the overall package the zoo will also pay the state the difference in land value for the land swap. The land at Peachester will be used for plantation purposes to offset the land required by the zoo from Beerwah State Forest. Forestry Plantations Queensland has been actively involved in negotiations with the zoo and is very supportive of the proposal and arrangements. Existing forest resources from the Beerwah State Forest will be harvested before works occur. A native title assessment has been undertaken for the 35- hectare area proposed to be revoked from the state forest and it has been determined that native title has been extinguished. In summary, this action is the most appropriate way to provide for the expansion of Australia Zoo. There are a number of processes which Australia Zoo must implement to realise Steve and Terri’s dream, but the revocation of the forestry land will bring expansion one step closer. I hereby recommend that parliament, by notice of motion, approve the revocation by regulation of that part of the Beerwah State Forest specified in this proposal. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (6.05 pm): I rise this afternoon to second the motion to revoke the setting apart and declaration of certain land as state forest under section 26(2) of the Forestry Act 1959. This proposal involves the revocation of 35 hectares from part of Beerwah State Forest, SF561, located directly south of Australia Zoo. The area proposed for revocation is exotic pine plantation with little conservation value and it should be noted that native title has been extinguished. The revocation is required for the first stage of Australia Zoo’s expansion project. The project has significant benefits to the state and has the support of all relevant state government agencies. In exchange, the zoo is transferring to the state a larger piece of land adjacent to Peachester State Forest, SF313, for forestry purposes. Forestry Plantation Queensland supports this proposal. The staged revocation and land swap has been requested by Australia Zoo as it requires the land dealing to be 22 Feb 2007 Motion 565 completed prior to commencement of negotiations for an Indigenous land use agreement for the remaining stages of the zoo expansion project. I would just like to explain to the House the large investment that Australia Zoo is making to expand the facilities at the zoo. Steve and Terri Irwin’s vision has always been to make Australia Zoo the biggest and best wildlife conservation facility in the entire world. It is a vision which I have been happy to support through my involvement with the Australia Zoo task force. It has been very exciting to watch the zoo’s plans start to move ahead rapidly over the past couple of years. It must be remembered that we are not just talking about a physical expansion. Australia Zoo currently employs 550 people and also utilises the services of many volunteers. Over the next five to 10 years this number is expected to grow to 2,000 staff. The economic boost to the local economy will be about $90 million per year and this is seen by their ‘buy local’ policy which ensures that Beerwah and surrounding areas are assisted by the growth in visitor numbers at the zoo. I think everyone here in the House would understand that Australia Zoo holds its head up high on the international tourism stage and is a premier destination for overseas visitors. Indeed they come to Australia to visit Australia Zoo and plan the rest of their trip around this. That is why it has been vital to have state government support to ensure that the expansion of Australia Zoo proceeds in a timely and efficient manner so that economic benefits can flow to the state, as well as more job opportunities for local residents. The Coordinator-General is providing direct assistance in negotiating with government departments and other agencies to facilitate these plans. The total revocation is proposed to be actioned in stages with parcels of land being transferred to Australia Zoo as native title issues are resolved. The first stage of the total proposal involves revocation of approximately 30 hectares of land to the south of the zoo where native title consultation has been completed. This revocation includes the portion of state forest planned as the site for an Australia Zoo railway station as part of the CAMCOS routes from Beerwah to Caloundra. I will be really thrilled to see that CAMCOS line go through and, very importantly, to have an Australia Zoo train station. It is one of the major generators of car movements in that part of my electorate. If we can get some decent public transport that will get people directly from the coast to the zoo or from Brisbane to the zoo it will ease the congestion on Steve Irwin Way and surrounding road networks. It will mean that we can get people there very quickly and very safely. I am looking forward to seeing that come to fruition. After the completion of this first stage of 30 hectares, the remainder of the revocation proposal can be considered by government. The forest estate adjacent to the zoo which is part of that revocation proposal has some amazing plans that Australia Zoo is going to bring forward. This includes an open range safari experience like nothing else in the world, incorporating the landscapes and animals of the world’s most famous wildlife and national park areas from places like Africa, South East Asia and North America. Before Steve Irwin’s death he said— I want people that come here from all over the world to not only be entertained and educated about wildlife but to go away excited enough to make a definite contribution to saving the world’s endangered species. Mr Reeves interjected. Ms MALE: I take that interjection. It is a fabulous zoo. It is great place for the animals to be. Their conservation work is noted worldwide. It is an amazing facility. Mr Reeves interjected. Ms MALE: Indeed. It is very important to pass on that message of health and wellbeing. By everybody working together we can make this happen. Australia Zoo will work with both the traditional owners and the state to realise its dream and this will include preparing an Indigenous land use agreement. Community consultation, as always, will be an important part of the zoo’s plans to ensure that all relevant issues are identified and managed. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Natural Resources and Water and Forestry Plantations Queensland, along with the Caloundra City Council, have all responded favourably in progressing the revocation and expansion processes. I want to point out that Australia Zoo under the guidance of Forestry Plantations Queensland has purchased land of equivalent value to replace the land it is buying from the government. Australia Zoo will swap approximately 200 hectares of land that it owns at Peachester plus the cash difference in land values. The land will be used for forestry purposes which ensures that continued pine plantation production can continue, and that also means that jobs are protected within the local forestry industry. I have had a long association with Australia Zoo as the elected state representative, and I can only speak highly of its dedication and commitment to its zoo facility, its staff, the community and the wider conservation movement. Steve and Terri’s patronage of Wildlife Warriors Worldwide has seen the establishment of conservation programs both in Australia and overseas, as well as the Wildlife Hospital, which is located in the zoo’s grounds. The complementary work that is done by the Warriors has cemented conservation ideals into a whole new generation of children. I know their commitment to conservation through exciting education, not to mention sheer hard work and large amounts of money, has set the benchmark for us all to try to reach. Steve, Terri, Joy, Frank, Wes and the entire Australia Zoo family have worked very hard over many years to establish Australia Zoo and all of its attractions. I am glad that the state government is able to help facilitate the continued growth of this marvellous facility. I commend the revocation to the House. 566 Adjournment 22 Feb 2007

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (6.10 pm): I support the motion for the revocation of 35.039 hectares of Beerwah State Forest—SF561—described as lot 300 on SP195863 and located directly adjacent to the southern boundary of Australia Zoo. This initial revocation is the first part of a total 130 hectares of the Beerwah forest to allow the further expansion of the Australia Zoo complex. The revocation of lot 300 will allow the first part of an expansion at Australia Zoo and cater for a rail station servicing Australia Zoo on the proposed Beerwah to Maroochydore railway as part of the South East Queensland Regional Plan. The area under consideration is forested with exotic pine trees and therefore has little to no conservation value. During a briefing provided by the department on the eighth of this month it was explained that these trees will be logged prior to the handover to realise their commercial value. It was further explained that, in exchange for the eventual revocation of the total of approximately 130 hectares proposed, Australia Zoo will transfer a larger area of forest totalling some 200 hectares and directly adjacent to the Peachester State Forest. Australia Zoo will also make a further cash settlement to the state equal to the difference in value between the two areas. The proposed land swap is supported by Forestry Plantations Queensland and will have no adverse environmental impacts. The staged revocation and land swap has been requested by Australia Zoo to finalise land deals prior to commencing negotiations for an Indigenous land use agreement for the remaining stages of the Australia Zoo expansion. I want to pass on my thanks to the minister for the briefing offered by her department and again indicate my support for this initiative that will allow one of the state’s premier tourist attractions to achieve its true potential in recognition of and as testament to the vision, drive and passion of the late Steve Irwin. Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (6.12 pm): I want to thank the member for Burdekin for her comments and I am glad that the briefing worked for the opposition. I also want to acknowledge the support for this by the member for Glass House, who has a real passion for Australia Zoo and is very supportive. I commend the motion to the House. Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.13 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 6 March 2007. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.13 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Gladstone, Rental Prices Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.13 pm): On 25 January this year I was stunned to read in the local newspaper that houses were available through a real estate agency in the town. One of the ads stated— Gladstone—brand-new home, four bedrooms plus study, two baths, separate lounge, air-conditioned, tiled living area, rear patio, backing on to the golf course. Includes pay TV and ADSL—$880 a week The heading for the advertisement was ‘Attention corporations—fully furnished, maintained and serviced short- and long-stay accommodation’. There were approximately six ads and each of those ads had a price tag of $880 a week or $770 a week. One was $750. A constituent rang up about the advertisements to find out the technicalities in relation to the ads and was advised that the houses were not yet constructed. I guess the appropriateness of the advertisements—in fact, the legality of the advertisements—is something that I am still trying to determine. This highlights the difficulties that people in the electorate have in relation to affordable housing. Other real estate agents have been contacted by owners of properties with complaints that as their agents they are not getting enough rent, yet I think that anyone in this chamber would agree that $880 for a standard house, albeit a nice new home, is above the affordability of many people. The housing commission waitlist in the electorate is growing. Seniors are waiting up to five years; for other homes in the central district it is one to two years but most likely two years. People who get into housing commission houses stay there for absolutely as long as possible. The issue of the federal government enlarging its subsidy for private rentals will not help that situation, but it cannot be overlooked that both state and federal governments have responsibilities in terms of making a contribution to affordable housing. While one may be doing the wrong thing, the 22 Feb 2007 Adjournment 567 federal government will undermine the availability of affordable housing with its proposed new initiative. It needs to review that proposal. However, the state government also needs to invest more in building affordable housing for those many people in our community who cannot afford commercial rents that are listed at the levels that those six advertisements in Gladstone are. As I said, they may not be built, but they do place pressure on the already pressured housing availability. They also put upward pressure on the actual rents that are expected and charged into the future. Park-and-Ride Station, Aspley Hypermarket Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (6.17 pm): I am pleased to advise the House that it was my pleasure recently on behalf of the Minister for Transport and Main Roads to open another on-time, on-budget infrastructure project in the electorate of Aspley. The opening of the $1.3 million Aspley park-and-ride station at the Aspley Hypermarket is part of TransLink’s bus infrastructure rolling program to upgrade bus facilities which will improve access to public transport and is a vital part of the northern busway. The Aspley park-and-ride is a 41-space car park and air-conditioned transit lounge with up-to-date information on bus timetabling. It is at the busy Aspley Hypermarket and encourages people to leave their cars and catch a bus to the city and has the convenience of being at a large shopping centre so that on their return visit home they can collect for their family’s needs. Buses leave the station at peak times every 15 minutes. The funding of $900,000 from the state government was complemented by $400,000 by hypermarket owners Yu Feng Pty Ltd and is a valuable partnership that benefits my community. I want to thank the minister and Yu Feng owners for their commitment to this facility. Aspley is the gateway to Brisbane from the north. Over 90,000 cars pass my office each day from the west and from the north of the city. Getting people out of their cars and on to public transport is critical, not only for the environment but for the quality of life for the people who live in my electorate and all of Brisbane north. I understand that over 60 per cent of workers from Pine Rivers shire and Caboolture travel to the city centre in Brisbane every day for work. Each trip they will drive over 25 kilometres to work and this will produce up to 3.1 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually as well as urban air pollutants. The more people using public transport means that there will be fewer cars on our roads. Each kilometre that you save by not driving to work means less fuel burnt, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases. It is a worthy goal that each of us can strive towards. So I say to people who travel to the city: stop at the Aspley park-and-ride, enjoy the facility, enjoy the convenience that this great urban facility has to offer and do their bit to save the planet. I want to thank the minister, Paul Lucas, Yu Feng, all the team at TransLink, and the people at the Aspley electorate for their patience. I encourage people to use the Aspley park-and-ride. Depression; Breast Cancer, Comments by Deputy Premier Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (6.19 pm): On Wednesday of this week, Dr Gregory Levenston and Jeff Kennett addressed the National Press Club on the topic of ‘Men’s health—no more secrets’. Dr Levenston is a Deputy Grand Master of the Freemasons in Australia while Jeff Kennett is chairman of beyondblue. The Freemasons have been running a men’s health campaign across Australia over the past couple of years with two being held in Caloundra in 2006, which I was honoured to open. Jeff Kennett has been very successful in raising the awareness of depression, depressive illness and mental health. Jeff Kennett spoke at length about health and staying healthy. He stated— If you stay excited, if you stay connected, if you stay relevant, it is the greatest act of preventing illness you can possibly imagine. Both organisations have made a commitment to continue the battle to bring depression and all issues associated with that illness to public attention and to sweep away the secrecy and stigma associated with it. Increasingly, more and more sufferers are speaking up and it is good to see the issue being tackled openly and honestly. I contrast that approach with what we saw in this House this morning. In a shameful exhibition, the Deputy Premier used breast cancer as a political tool. I did not believe that the government could sink any lower. The Deputy Premier managed to do exactly that in trying to extract political mileage out of an illness that affects many thousands of women across this country. In 2001, 11,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. In 2003, over 2,000 Queensland women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Also, in 2003 alone, 465 Queensland women died from this disease. Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer related death among Australian women. It is against these shocking statistics and the incredible pain and agony that women and their families must go through that the Deputy Premier stood up and used this illness as a political tool. In an article in QWeekend on 5 October 2005, Lisa Backhouse states— For weeks you wake up in the morning and the first thing you think is ‘Oh my God, I’ve got cancer’. There’s that disbelief that goes along with it. And the fear that is so real, you can almost taste it. It stays with you. In the same article, Nadia Farha describes chemotherapy as— ‘Hellish. I lost my hair. I had to have a blood transfusion every month because my blood cell counts would drop. I had to give myself an injection in my stomach every day to try to keep up the white cell count. I was in hospital with infection three times. 568 Adjournment 22 Feb 2007

There is not one member of this House whose heart does not go out to these women and all other breast cancer sufferers as well as to those men who suffer from prostate cancer. I add that there is not one member in this House who does not feel for every single person who is diagnosed with cancer of whatever type. But this House cannot condone the attempt by the Deputy Premier to score cheap political points in regard to such a sensitive and personal issue as breast cancer. Time expired.

Breast Cancer, Comments by Deputy Premier Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (6.22 pm): I was going to speak on another matter, but I want to take this opportunity to correct the member for Caloundra. Lisa Backhouse is my cousin. I spent a lot of time talking to Lisa about her illness. My sister-in-law has also been a sufferer of breast cancer. I spoke to the Deputy Premier about her speech this morning. I commended her for the support that she was giving those people. I am appalled that you sit over there and use cheap political points. It is actually— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The member will direct his comments through the chair. Mr WEIGHTMAN: It brings the plight of these people to the notice of this House and to the wider community. Mr McArdle: I am bringing to notice the plight of cancer, not trying to score political points. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Member for Caloundra, you have had your three minutes. Mr WEIGHTMAN: I am appalled that the opposition will use cancer as an opportunity to have a cheap shot at the government when the government is showing support, which the federal government has failed to do, to people who are in this position. I know firsthand from talking to these people that they appreciate the support that this government has given and the comments that were made by the Deputy Premier this morning.

Gold Coast Spit; Gold Coast City Wind Orchestra Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (6.24 pm): Tonight I would like to draw the attention of the House to the recent grants that were made under the Legacy Infrastructure Program. As a resident of the Gold Coast, I am most pleased that south-east Queensland received a generous share of the grants made under the Labor government’s $100 million Legacy Infrastructure Fund. I support many of the projects that received funding, such as the Southport Broadwater Parklands redevelopment. I believe that grant will go a long way towards improving the amenity of the Gold Coast, as other grants that were made to other parts of Queensland will improve their amenity. Having said that, I am disappointed that another important public area on the Gold Coast has again missed out on important funding by this state government. Since the Labor government abandoned plans for a cruise ship terminal at The Spit, it seems that beautification plans for that neglected area have fallen to the bottom of this government’s agenda. The Spit at Main Beach is one of the tranquil and naturally beautiful recreation areas for families, boaties and beach goers on the Gold Coast, but it needs some attention. Gold Coasters rely on the tireless work of volunteer groups to keep The Spit and scenic Federation Walk up to standard. As the member for Surfers Paradise, I can understand their frustration when their pleas for funding are ignored by this Labor government. I am fortunate to be a member of Friends of Federation Walk Inc. Recently, I attended its annual general meeting. This organisation has gone from strength to strength. It evolved from a subcommittee of the Main Beach Progress Association, of which I am also a member, to a fully fledged dynamic group that is committed to improving the amenity of The Spit. I want to acknowledge the group’s president, Lyn Wright; the secretary, Arnold Wolthers; and the treasurer, Hyla Gimblett. I call on the government to support the Friends of Federation Walk Inc. by ensuring that this picturesque coastal reserve continues to be protected, maintained and adequately funded. My own vision and ambition for the area is another people’s parkland like the one that exists on the Broadwater, which will encourage more people to utilise this fantastic natural facility. The second organisation that I would like to draw to the attention of the House is the Gold Coast City Wind Orchestra. This week, despite my lack of musical ability, for the third year in a row I was once again made patron of the Gold Coast City Wind Orchestra. This group operates on little funding but a lot of enthusiasm from its members. As a result of their enthusiasm, hard work and talent, the Gold Coast City Wind Orchestra will attend the national championships in Melbourne in April. Last year it won a national award. I am looking forward to later in the year when the orchestra will host its annual concert and compete in the Gold Coast Tropicarnival Eisteddfod. 22 Feb 2007 Adjournment 569

I am honoured to be involved in the Gold Coast City Wind Orchestra and I support it in every one of its endeavours. I want to acknowledge the award winners: the 2006 Certificate of Attendance, Junior, Gemma Walker and Senior, Stephen Walker; the Most Improved Player, Junior, Jessica Brake and Senior, Jodie Michael; and the Bandperson of the year, Sally Gregory. I also acknowledge the director of music, who has done a lot of hard work, Alan White, and the president, Melanie Woodley.

Ignatians Musical Society Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (6.26 pm): The Ignatians Musical Society was formed in 1973 in Toowong and since then has produced no fewer than 65 shows throughout Brisbane and south-east Queensland. The Ignatians’ motto is ‘For the sheer fun of it’ and it takes its motto very seriously. Recently, it was an absolute pleasure to attend the opening night of the Ignatians’ performance of Cats at the University of Queensland’s Schonell Theatre. I must say that it was a stellar performance by the Ignatians. Cats is not a particularly easy musical to perform. I understand that the Ignatians is the third theatre group in Australia to stage Cats. I think the Ignatians did exceptionally well. From the moment the lights dimmed, with the audience purring with anticipation, it was a wonderful show. I would like to mention Simone de Haas, the director of the Ignatians. She does a truly wonderful job. Harmony Lentz is the musical director and should also be congratulated. Cathy Gunton is the choreographer. Scott Bagnell is the set designer. David Law is the conductor. The music was wonderful. Aerlyn James was the director in development and also the stage manager, Natasha Hendrick was the production manager, and Derek Griffin was the sound designer. I think Ingrid Cameron did an exceptional job as dance captain and Matt Jess should be particularly congratulated on his work in lighting design. I want to also mention some of the performers. At the outset, as a TS Eliot fan, I was very pleased with Brad Ashwood’s portrayal of Bustopher Jones. I thought he played that role absolutely wonderfully. The set was stunning. Dean Prangley is a very tall man, but in playing Old Deuteronomy he was dwarfed by the large chair that the Ignatians had produced as part of the set. Alice Barbery’s performance was wonderful in the role of Grizabella. I think Robert Butterworth deserves some mention, too, as Rum Tum Tugger and Craig Anderson as Skimbleshanks. Stacey Muller was Demeter. Also performing on the night, I thought particularly well, was Janet Devlin. I could go on and on, but instead I want to say that the Ignatians are performing Cats until St Patrick’s Day, 17 March. I would like to invite any member in the chamber to the performance. In light of some of the events today, I would like to extend a special invitation to Mike Horan to attend the St Patrick’s Day performance of Cats with me at the Schonell Theatre.

University of Southern Queensland, 40th Anniversary Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (6.30 pm): I rise to speak about the significant milestone celebrated this year by the University of Southern Queensland. I am very proud to have this world- renowned tertiary institution within my electorate of Cunningham. In 2007 the university is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Celebrations kicked off earlier this month, and I was fortunate to be invited to attend the ‘Founder’s Dinner’ in February. This was just one of the many events and activities planned for the year and, if that was anything to go by, I am sure they will all be a success. I would like to congratulate USQ’s new Chancellor, Mrs Bobbie Brazil, Vice-Chancellor, Professor Bill Lovegrove, senior management and all staff at the university on this significant milestone. Also, to the students both past and present, I applaud you for choosing such a wonderful tertiary institution to continue on the path of academia—many of whom were the first in their families to study at a tertiary level. USQ’s antecedent institution was established in Toowoomba in 1967 as a regional branch of the Queensland Institute of Technology and developed as an autonomous college—called the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, or DDIAE as many of us remember—during the 1970s and 1980s. The institution broadened higher education access for groups that were otherwise underrepresented in the sector, such as the socioeconomically disadvantaged and people from regional areas. As distance education proved more and more popular as a major mode of study, student enrolments continued to increase dramatically. In particular, there was a high number of adults in the student population undertaking part-time study while also working. This popular mode of study also enabled the DDIAE to become an early entrant in transnational education. From 1986 to 1987 the institution actually boasted three-quarters of Australia’s offshore international student enrolments. Several years later in 1990 the DDIAE became the University College of Southern Queensland and then in 1992 the University of Southern Queensland, or USQ as it is commonly known today. 570 Adjournment 22 Feb 2007

While many of the foundation values remain, USQ has experienced many changes over the years. It continues to expand its postgraduate coursework programs, develop its research profile and is becoming a major transnational educator teaching students in more than 70 different countries. Apart from the Toowoomba campus, there is also USQ Fraser Coast and USQ Springfield just outside Brisbane. In its 40th year USQ continues to reach new heights and student enrolments are well exceeding 26,000. There is a strong vision to succeed as a major regional university, to provide academic programs that position graduates to secure fulfilling careers and to build upon its reputation as a transnational education provider. USQ is a leader in open and distance learning, enabling students to access its programs from anywhere in the country and around the world. Despite this, the university still manages to engage in meaningful ways with businesses and the broader community. Through its involvement on the world stage, the university is able to bring that knowledge and those benefits back to its communities. USQ connects the local to the national and international. This vision of being a transnational educator parallels the vision of its founders—a university on the Darling Downs able to provide the opportunity for prosperity through access to knowledge. Time expired. Gawula Aboriginal Land Trust Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (6.33 pm): At the outset I echo the words of the member for Cleveland in relation to the comments by the member for Caloundra. What motivates such a despicable action? The Deputy Premier tried to support women who suffer from breast cancer. One in 11 women in Australia will suffer from breast cancer. I do not know whether he has ever had anything to do with it. What would I know? My wife is a survivor of breast cancer and I sat beside her when she got the message. I did not feel insulted in any way by what the Deputy Premier said this morning. I turn now to the matter that I wished to speak about this evening. On 20 January 2007, the Minister for Natural Resources and Water came to my electorate and performed what I perceive to be a great healing between the white and Aboriginal races in central Queensland. For the first time in the electorate of Keppel, and for the 56th time since the Aboriginal Land Act came into effect in Queensland, the Darumbal people—the local Aboriginal landholders—had 137 hectares of land returned to them around Mount Wheeler, which was their traditional initiation grounds. The land handed back will be known as Gawula and will be used by the Darumbal people to support their young people, to get them out of town and to get them back to some of the traditional actions of their people. Mount Wheeler must be a fairly healing place because at another location at the base of Mount Wheeler is Cockscombe, which is a retreat set up by the Vietnam veterans, with the assistance of Bruce and Elizabeth Acutt. In relation to Gawula, the land will still be open to all people, but the Gawula Aboriginal Land Trust was set up on 20 January 2007. It had a meeting and elected a chair, secretary and treasurer, and it will hold that freehold land in perpetuity for the Darumbal people. It was instructive to listen to the people that day—I attended with the minister—when they stood up and said that this was the easiest negotiation that had taken place. They had had their traditional land returned to them. The people there were a cross-section of the central Queensland community. They were from families who have lived there since time immemorial and who formed part of the backbone of the central Queensland community. I would like to say a big thanks to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water and his staff for the way they have dealt with the Darumbal people. I would also like to say ‘watch this space’ because there are five more blocks of land on Great Keppel Island to be returned to the Darumbal people. Time expired. Ecotourism Mr GIBSON (Gympie—NPA) (6.36 pm): Tonight I rise to speak about ecotourism. Ecotourism is tourism that goes beyond good environmental management to ensure a triple bottom line program ensuring economic, social and environmental sustainability is being achieved. Ecotourism is travel that involves interpretation of the natural environment and education to advance the cause of conservation. It is a driver of social change through the experiences people have when connecting with nature. Research by Tourism Australia reveals that 84 per cent of all international tourists come to Australia to undertake nature based activities, contributing $9.3 billion to Australia’s economy. In addition to international tourists, 67 per cent of all domestic travellers also travel to take part in nature based activities. Queensland leads the way in ecotourism. We gave birth to the Ecotourism Association of Australia and have developed the current international standard for ecotourism operations. Our icons of tourism are in fact ecotourism icons. We are at the forefront of ecotourism and have a proud record of creating some of the world’s great ecotourism experiences. However, due to a disgraceful bureaucratic bungle, ecotourism is now off the agenda in Queensland for the next three years at least. 22 Feb 2007 Adjournment 571

The Office of Urban Management has recommended the rejection of an ecotourism proposal at Kin Kin because it falls outside the office’s ‘urban development footprint’ of the regional plan, which says that buildings used for urban purposes cannot be constructed outside urban areas. Ecotourism, by its very nature, is not an urban purpose. Thankfully, Tourism Queensland staff have the common sense to realise that ecotourism is not an urban activity and have come out against the Office of Urban Management. At a time when the world’s consciousness is moving to sustainability, environmental care and conservation and travellers seek natural experiences, why has this government decided that ecotourism cannot exist outside of its ‘urban footprint’? This Labor government’s bungled implementation of the Queensland regional plan would actually have prevented there ever being a Kingfisher Bay, a Daintree EcoLodge, a Carnarvon Gorge, O’Reilly’s Guesthouse or any other similar ecotourism development. The government’s own Queensland Tourism Strategy is founded on the development and support of nature based tourism. On page 48 it states— The State’s natural areas draw over 16 million visitors per year and support more than 6,000 jobs ... The challenge for the next decade is for Queensland to become recognised as a leader in sustainable tourism. Why then does the Office of Urban Management’s regional plan deny this opportunity for the development of ecotourism in areas outside the urban footprint? This is a bureaucratic bungle and makes a mockery of our so-called Smart State credentials. AusLink 2 Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (6.39 pm): I rise to express my concerns over the federal government’s AusLink 2 funding believed to be $19 billion. If we are lucky—I say ‘if we are lucky’—we might get $2.9 billion. From AusLink 1, which had a budget of $15 billion, Queensland received a paltry $2.1 billion over five years, including the 2006 announcement of $268 million extra funding allocated in the 2006 federal budget. Only $66 million was provided to maintain the National Highway. The average funding of some $430 million per annum represents only about 20 per cent of Queensland’s total road funding. It fell far short of the expenditure required on the National Highway system to meet the high growth in Queensland. Compare that to the $7.3 billion the Beattie government will spend on road construction and maintenance over the same period. In addition, the state government will spend a further $2.95 billion on rail and public transport. The Howard government collects $14 billion in fuel excise every year, yet existing funding levels only return around 17c in every dollar collected back to Australian roads. Queensland spends much more on state funded roadworks than it collects from motor vehicle registration revenue. This financial year $846 million will be collected in rego with Queensland’s expenditure on state and local roads exceeding $1.5 billion. Particularly disappointing for me is the federal government’s failure to fund its share of the $1.8 billion Gateway Motorway, the upgrade and the bridge duplication. Rather, Queenslanders have been advised that these major AusLink roadworks should be funded by road users through increased tolls. Despite the federal government’s lack of commitment, work has started on Queensland’s largest road and bridge construction project, the Gateway upgrade project to duplicate the Gateway Bridge and upgrade 20 kilometres of the Gateway Motorway between Mount Gravatt-Capalaba and Nudgee roads, much of which falls in and around the great electorate of Chatsworth. There have been decades of federal underinvestment in the Smart State. Queenslanders expect the Howard government to use its surplus to redress its neglect of Queensland’s road network. This equates to a $5.2 billion shortfall in AusLink funding for the Queensland network over the next eight to 10 years. As Queenslanders, we deserve a commitment by the federal government for an urgent increase in road and rail investment in this great state of ours, and that is well beyond Queensland’s anticipated paltry share of AusLink 2. On a brighter note, I say a very happy birthday to Roy Gray, who is the father of the member for Gaven. He turns 91 today. Also, we say a final farewell to Ian Thompson, our long-serving attendant in the chamber, the Sergeant-at-Arms. We salute you with three cheers. Hip hip. Honourable members: Hooray! Mr BOMBOLAS: Hip hip. Honourable members: Hooray! Mr BOMBOLAS: Hip hip. Honourable members: Hooray! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Following the adjournment, as has already been noted, the Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr Ian Thompson, will march the mace out for the last time after 34 years loyal service to parliament. I would ask all members to join me in acclamation as Ian marches the mace out for the last time. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.44 pm. 572 Attendance 22 Feb 2007

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

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2007