PROOF ISSN 1322-0330
WEEKLY HANSARD Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/ E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182
51ST PARLIAMENT
Subject CONTENTS Page Wednesday, 26 October 2005
PRIVILEGE ...... 3497 Comments by Premier and Treasurer ...... 3497 PETITIONS ...... 3497 PAPERS ...... 3497 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3497 Health System; State Credit Rating ...... 3497 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3498 Health System ...... 3498 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3499 Wesley Hospital ...... 3499 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3499 Major Facilities Program ...... 3499 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3500 Housing in Aceh ...... 3500 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3500 Building Active Communities Conference ...... 3500 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3501 Brisbane North Community Cabinet ...... 3501 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3501 Windsor State School ...... 3501 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3502 Death of Mr W Allen ...... 3502 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3502 Equine Trade, Korea ...... 3502 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3503 Inner-City Crime ...... 3503 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3503 Department of Public Works ...... 3503 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3504 Mental Health Services ...... 3504
BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2005 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 26 October 2005
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3505 Hanson, Ms P ...... 3505 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3505 Ambulance Service, Special Events ...... 3505 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3506 Taxis Security Camera Program ...... 3506 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3506 TAFE Queensland Hotline ...... 3506 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3507 Positive Learning Centres ...... 3507 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3507 Cherbourg Hostel ...... 3507 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 3508 Public Hospital System ...... 3508 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3508 Public Hospital System ...... 3508 Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 ...... 3508 Electricity Supply ...... 3509 Burringilly ...... 3509 Health System ...... 3510 Wooler, Mr A; Landcare ...... 3510 Skateboarding, Safety Helmets ...... 3510 Public Transport, Night Services ...... 3511 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3511 Public Hospital System ...... 3511 Keliher, Dr L ...... 3512 Forster Review ...... 3512 Government Expenditure ...... 3513 Coalition, Preselection Process ...... 3514 Health System ...... 3515 Health Action Plan, Training Initiatives ...... 3515 Health System ...... 3516 Responsible Gambling Strategy ...... 3517 Country Hospitals ...... 3517 Q-Fleet Auctions ...... 3518 Sugar Industry ...... 3518 Queensland Police Service, Capsicum Spray ...... 3519 Making a Difference Program ...... 3520 Computers for Teachers ...... 3521 Ambulance Service, Personnel ...... 3521 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3522 Kalpowar Station ...... 3522 PUBLIC HEALTH BILL ...... 3522 Second Reading ...... 3522 Consideration in Detail ...... 3543 Third Reading ...... 3553 TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3553 Second Reading ...... 3553 PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM ...... 3562 PUBLIC SECTOR (VICTIMS PROTECTION) BILL ...... 3572 Second Reading ...... 3572 SOFT DRINKS (PROHIBITION FROM SELLING AT SCHOOLS) BILL ...... 3577 Second Reading ...... 3577 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3592 Hospital Charges ...... 3592 Inglis, Miss R ...... 3592 Sugar Industry ...... 3593 Emergency Services Personnel, Awards for Excellence ...... 3594 Residential Development, Moranbah ...... 3594 Web Site Launch, Mudgeeraba ...... 3595 Springfest, In the Bin and SWELL Festivals ...... 3595 Port Douglas Community Services Network ...... 3596 Redcliffe Hospital Foundation ...... 3597 Export Education ...... 3597 26 Oct 2005 Legislative Assembly 3497 WEDNESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2005
Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. T McGrady, Mount Isa) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.
PRIVILEGE
Comments by Premier and Treasurer Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on 19 October 2005 the Leader of the Opposition wrote to me alleging that the Premier deliberately misled the House during questions without notice on 8 June 2005. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition alleges that the Premier said that a travel report tabled by former Speaker Turner comprised two paragraphs when the report was in fact nine pages in length. I have studied Hansard and a copy of the Report on overseas trip to attend the forty-sixth parliamentary seminar at Westminster tabled by then Speaker Turner on 29 April 1997 and again tabled by the Premier on 7 June 2005. It was technically incorrect of the Premier to state that the report comprised two paragraphs; the report was seven paragraphs. However, I find that there is no basis to demonstrate a prima facie contempt of deliberately misleading the House. It must be remembered that the Premier himself had tabled the report for the information of the House the previous day. I intend to take no further action in respect of the matter and consider the matter to be trivial.
PETITIONS
The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—
Deaths of Arnold, Ms V and Leahy, Ms J Ms Lee Long from 2,943 petitioners requesting the House to appoint an independent investigator and investigation team from outside the State of Queensland to fully investigate all the known facts surrounding the deaths of Vicki Arnold and Julie-Anne Leahy and new evidence recently released and to prepare a full and comprehensive report to be placed before the Chief Coroner of Queensland for his investigation, assessment and compilation of a report to be placed before this House.
Driver Testing Services, Malanda Ms Lee Long from 120 petitioners requesting the House to ensure driver testing services are restored to the level of service Malanda and district was receiving, that is one-day-a-fortnight testing by a Department of Transport testing officer, operating in Malanda.
Driver Testing Services, Dimbulah Ms Lee Long from 295 petitioners requesting the House to ensure driver testing services are restored to Queenslanders in places such as Dimbulah to ensure residents are readily able to be tested and to acquire their driving licences as readily as possible
Heritage Listing, Civic Theatre Mrs Liz Cunningham from 2,664 petitioners requesting the House to remove the Civic Theatre from Heritage listing in order that the dilapidated, uninsurable and unsafe building can be demolished and enable Mr and Mrs Upton to enjoy their retirement.
PAPERS
MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— • Minister for Education and the Arts (Mr Welford)— Response from the Minister for Education and the Arts (Mr Welford) to a paper petition presented by Mr Briskey from 669 petitioners requesting the House to replace the external roof of the Birkdale State School at the same time as the planned replacement of the internal roof which would decrease the chance of any asbestos powder coming down onto the students of Grades 1 & 2 • Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (Mrs Lavarch)— Electoral Commission Queensland—Annual Report 2004-05
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Health System; State Credit Rating Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.34 am): This week signals a new beginning for our public health system in Queensland. As part of yesterday’s mini budget, our government has provided a groundbreaking blueprint for reform, better patient care and a healthier Queensland. It is supported by the largest health funding injection in the history of Queensland. We will 3498 Ministerial Statement 26 Oct 2005 provide close to an extra $6.4 billion over the next 5½ years. This will grow to an extra $1.5 billion a year every year. It will be used to cut waiting lists, maintain and improve our hospitals and buy new technology— Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, I warn you. Mr BEATTIE: It will be used to cut waiting lists, maintain and improve our hospitals and buy new technology and equipment that will help save lives. Highlights include $463.7 million for cancer services, $280.3 million for emergency departments, $259.7 million for elective surgery, $229.8 million for intensive care units, $210.9 million for cardiac services, $201 million for mental health services and $127 million for work force training. It will also help recruit around 1,200 additional staff to the public health system during the next 18 months. We are committed to getting the basics rights and building a better health system for Queenslanders. Notwithstanding that funding, obviously one of the issues we have been concerned about is to protect the state’s AAA credit rating, and I want to advise the House today in relation to the latest assessment by Standard and Poor’s. Our government has been able to fund the largest ever commitment to the public health system—$6.4 billion in just over five years, as I mentioned before— without any major tax increases or cuts to services. We are able to do this because over the past seven years our government has worked extremely hard to build the wealth of Queensland and we have a proud track record of disciplined financial and economic management unprecedented in Australia. We have spent taxpayers’ money wisely, and the results of our hard work have put us in a very strong position. That is what respected international rating agency Standard and Poor’s said yesterday about our mini budget after it had been released. It said that our AAA credit rating is not threatened. It said that our balance sheet remains one of the strongest in Australia. In fact, it said that it was one of the strongest in the world. Standard and Poor’s said that our balance sheet is one of the strongest in the world. I want to repeat that, because often it is hard to get this message through to those opposite: Standard and Poor’s said that it was one of the strongest in the world. Strong economic and financial discipline is the reason our state budget bottom line remains in surplus. It is also the reason we can afford the largest amount of funding ever committed to health in the history of Queensland. So there is no misunderstanding, I table the ratings direct release from Standard and Poor’s for the information of all members.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Health System Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.37 am): Today I want to talk about Commonwealth health funding. What we saw yesterday was the Queensland government do its bit on behalf of all Queenslanders. Now the federal government needs to meet the challenge to do its bit. It would be nice if those opposite stopped simply trying to wreck the positive things we are doing and got out and actually persuaded the federal government to do its fair share. As I have already stated, our government has committed to the biggest health funding package in the history of Queensland, and the numbers are worth repeating—$6.4 billion in just over five years growing to an extra $1.5 billion a year every year. We are clearly playing our part. But what about the Howard government? Under the Australian Health Care Agreement, Queensland must match growth in Commonwealth funding. We have matched it. In fact, we have exceeded it, and now the shoe is on the other foot. By our calculations, if the Howard government was to even come close to matching our level of commitment it must provide at least another $1.6 billion— $1.6 billion—over the life of the current Health Care Agreement. Imagine what we could do with that money if the Commonwealth did its fair share. I am not confident, because the difference between the Howard government and ours could not be more stark. We are one of the lowest taxing states in the country yet have funded a record infrastructure program and injected billions of dollars into services for Queenslanders. The Howard government is the highest taxing government in the history of Australia, yet it has cut spending in key service areas and has almost halved real spending on infrastructure. So we will be pursuing with the federal government the 21 recommendations that Peter Forster made about improving health. Today, I call on the Prime Minister and the federal minister for health to put aside politics and work with us to improve Australia’s health systems—not just in Queensland but around the nation. We want to see a reappraisal of the federal government’s approach to health funding and for Queensland to get a better go than it is getting now. 26 Oct 2005 Ministerial Statement 3499
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Wesley Hospital Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.39 am): This does not relate just to the public health system; we want to see the private health system improve. I am delighted to say that tomorrow I will be opening an operating theatre complex at Wesley Hospital. As I said, yesterday I delivered this government’s first mini budget, which will see an extra $6.36 billion injected into the Queensland health system in just over five years. I have mentioned that the mini budget includes extra funds for cancer services, emergency departments, elective surgery, intensive care, cardiac services, mental health and work force training. However good our public system is—and the five-month review by Peter Forster found that it is the equal of any in Australia—we also need a first-rate private sector. Tomorrow I will officially open the new operating theatre complex at the Wesley Hospital. This new development continues a long and proud history of health service delivery by the Wesley. Its origins date back to 1896 when Dr Charles Kebbell set up a private hospital in South Brisbane. After a number of mergers and moves, the hospital located to its current home at Auchenflower in 1977. The Wesley Hospital is now one of the state’s largest private hospitals, with more than 2,000 employees and more than 800 visiting and full-time medical staff. On any given day, the hospital will be caring for up to 600 patients. The four new state-of-the-art operating theatres that I will be officially opening tomorrow afternoon take to 17 the number of operating theatres at the Wesley Hospital. In addition, there is also a new 20- bed recovery unit which meets the highest clinical standards. The four new theatres will focus on orthopaedic and major general surgery, including plastic surgery. The new facilities were built at a cost of $9 million, all raised by the Wesley Hospital. The facilities are a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the Wesley Hospital management and staff. The contribution of organisations such as Uniting HealthCare through complexes such as the Wesley Hospital is invaluable in ensuring that Queenslanders have access to the best available health care. I welcome their investment in the new facilities and the significant new health services that those facilities will deliver. While I am there, I will be highlighting the extra funding that we have provided in the mini budget. I would also be highlighting to the staff of the Wesley Hospital that we intend to recruit around 1,200 additional staff to the public health system during the next 18 months, including 300 doctors, 500 nurses and 400 allied health professionals such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists. We are seeing in Queensland the most significant funding allocation to the health system in the history of the state. We are seeing a significant injection of money into the private sector. We are determined to ensure that we restructure health to ensure that we have the best health system in Australia.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Major Facilities Program Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.42 am): I would like to encourage Queensland clubs, councils and other eligible organisations to take advantage of $20 million that is now available through the state government’s Major Facilities Program 2007. The program provides funding for new or upgraded facilities, from the grassroots to the elite, helping more Queenslanders discover the benefits of lifelong participation in sport and active recreation. A more active Queensland is a healthier Queensland. So whatever we can do to encourage that is a smart investment in our future. In the last round over $20 million in grants were approved for more than 40 projects right across the state—from a new swimming pool in Muttaburra to a rodeo arena in Mount Isa. Mr Speaker, I knew that you would be pleased about that. I seek leave to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. This program benefits everyone from suburban joggers to elite athletes and is a key element in building stronger, healthier communities in the Smart State. Applicants can seek funding for a number of projects and if successful will receive up to 50 per cent of project costs. Funding is open to not-for-profit sport and recreation organisations, local governments, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander councils, Indigenous organisations and universities. I strongly encourage any organisation planning a sport-related facilities project with a total cost of $200,000 or more to look at the guidelines and make an application. We want more Queenslanders to discover the significant health and social benefits of getting active and staying active throughout their lives. 3500 Ministerial Statement 26 Oct 2005
One of the most effective ways to make that happen is to ensure as many people as possible have access to quality venues and places for playing sport or for recreational activities. Better facilities also help develop our talent pool of future champions by supporting training and competition across the State. Guidelines can be downloaded from Sport and Recreation Queensland’s website at www.sportrec.qld.gov.au, and full applications close 10 February 2006.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Housing in Aceh Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.43 am): I would like to report to the House on the $3 million donation from the Queensland government in relation to the tsunami. That money has already delivered nearly 100 homes in tsunami-ravaged Aceh and there are nearly 400 homes being constructed. The International Organisation for Migration was aiming to construct around 770 homes with the $3 million from Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. However, increased costs of basic construction materials such as cement and reinforcement bars, as well as increased infrastructure requirements, means that the revised estimate is closer to 500. With 97 houses completed and another 25 currently under construction it is clear that the donation, made earlier this year, is delivering real improvements on the ground for the Acehnese people. The organisation is overseeing this project which, apart from delivering these houses, is also providing jobs for around 1,200 local people. These homes are part of the total 11,000 temporary shelters that the organisation is building in Aceh. Restoration of government services has been a priority to help the reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts, and the Governor of Aceh had requested that some of these homes be allocated to civil servants to assist with that. Housing the civil servants helps make sure services are back up and running as quickly and efficiently as possible, and the Queensland government’s $3 million is helping to meet that request. The organisation has also advised that the expanding number of shelter projects was allowing them to reduce administration costs by sharing them over similar projects. This ongoing project demonstrates Queensland’s commitment to helping our northern neighbours. In January we sent our all-Queensland Team Foxtrot to Banda Aceh to help at a public health level in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami. This housing project builds on that early assistance, helping with the long-term relief and rebuilding process. Altogether the Queensland government has donated $10 million to tsunami relief. This includes funding from the immediate aftermath with emergency humanitarian assistance, through to long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction, like this housing project.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building Active Communities Conference Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.43 am): My government is committed to helping more Queenslanders discover the benefits of lifelong participation in sport and active recreation. This commitment will receive a boost next month, with up to 300 representatives of sport and active recreation groups expected to take part in the Building Active Communities Conference in Brisbane. Peter Forster has said that Queenslanders are among the most obese people in Australia and that we need a healthier Queensland to make sure we have a sustainable health system in the future. We intend to pursue those strategies. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard. Leave granted. This is something we need to tackle as a community, and the first step to a healthier lifestyle can be through getting involved in sport and active recreation. A more active Queensland is a healthier Queensland, so whatever we can do to encourage that is a smart investment in our future. Physical activity can help prevent, manage, and treat a range of diseases—by encouraging healthier lifestyles we can reduce the risk of chronic health problems and help Queenslanders live longer and enjoy better health. Sport and active recreation organisations help achieve this at a grassroots level, and we want to help them develop the skills and services needed to continue to improve the opportunities for Queenslanders to get involved. The conference will provide practical information for the wide range of people involved in sport and active recreation organisations. From coaches, administrators and officials, through to volunteers, facility managers and community members, this conference is an opportunity for organisations to improve their capacity to deliver programs to the local community. 26 Oct 2005 Ministerial Statement 3501
Sport and active recreation organisations provide a fantastic service to communities right across Queensland, not only nurturing the talent of our future champions but also building social networks and strengthening community ties. This conference is packed with valuable information designed to assist them lift participation levels and improve service delivery. The topics address issues that impact on all sport and active recreation groups, such as staying financially viable, providing a safe and fun environment for young people, improving skills and managing volunteers. The conference is just one part of our Building Active Communities strategy. We also run a range of complementary workshops right across the state throughout the year. The Building Active Communities conference will be held on 4 November at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Brisbane North Community Cabinet Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.44 am): This weekend state cabinet returns to Brisbane’s northern suburbs for our ninth community cabinet of the year. This will be our 88th community cabinet since 1998 and the second in Brisbane north, giving locals the chance to meet ministers and directors-general. I seek leave to have the details of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. This is part of a program in which we go out of our way to meet and listen to Queenslanders wherever they live and work around the state. Community cabinets are about keeping in touch with Queenslanders and making it easy for them to talk to us because we’re on their turf. Community cabinet will be held on Sunday 30 October at Craigslea State High School, Hamilton Road, West Chermside. The informal part of the afternoon is from 1.30 pm to 3.30 pm, followed by formal deputations from 3.30 pm to 5.00 pm. On Monday, 31 October, cabinet will meet from 9.30 am at the City Christian Church, 1910 Gympie Road, Bridgeman Downs. This year cabinet has met at Charleville, Ipswich, University of Queensland—the Smart Queensland launch—Kawana, Gold Coast—Gaven—the Ekka, Redlands/Cleveland, and Gracemere Saleyards.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Windsor State School Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.45 am): I also want to pay tribute to the Windsor State School’s 140th anniversary celebrations. I want to do this because it shows what has happened in education since Queensland became a state. When this school was established, Queensland was only six years old and the population of the state was about 30,000 people. Of the first 18 acts passed in the Queensland parliament, three related to education. These are the sorts of schools that are building the children of tomorrow. I seek leave to have the rest of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Mr Welford: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: I know that the Minister for Education agrees. Leave granted. These first acts included one to provide government funding for communities wanting to set up a school. There were plenty of them and there were dozens of schools established before education became compulsory in Queensland in 1875. My government today is just as passionate about education as the first Queensland government. Following successful trials, we are introducing a prep year. There are currently 96 schools with prep years and 25 more will introduce them next year before they open statewide in 2007. We are lowering class sizes in the middle years of schooling. We have the highest rates of school based apprenticeships in Australia. And from next year, students starting year 10 will be required to stay at school until they finish year 10 or turn 16, whichever is first. All these developments are designed to enable every young Queenslander, no matter what their circumstances, to reach their full potential. And with the knowledge and skills they obtain, they will be well-placed to earn a living for life and to gain one of the long term, new- age jobs created by our Smart State strategies. Many of them could find work in exciting new industries developing in Queensland like aviation or Information Communications Technology or biotechnology. 3502 Ministerial Statement 26 Oct 2005
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Death of Mr W Allen Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.45 am): Sadly, the nation has lost another link to our past with the death of the last Australian to fight in World War I. As we all know, William Evan Allen passed away last Monday night at the age of 106 and was buried yesterday. I seek leave to incorporate a tribute to him in Hansard. Leave granted. Born in Bega NSW in July 1899, as a fourteen year old Mr Allen enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy. He remained in the navy after the war, and went on to serve throughout World War II, before retiring with the rank of lieutenant. Service through two world wars speaks volumes for his dedication and commitment to his country, which was reflective of many of his generation. Mr Speaker, last year Queensland lost our last World War I veteran with the passing of Mr Ted Smout. The death of Mr Allen leaves the nation with just one Australian World War I serviceman still alive, Mr Jack Ross. The men and women of Mr Allen’s generation showed a remarkable strength of spirit throughout a difficult and trying chapter in the history of our nation. Although their numbers may be few, their example will stay with us all forever. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of this House to Mr Allen’s daughter Judith Blake, his grandchildren Duncan and Philippa, and their extended family.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Equine Trade, Korea Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Finance and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.45 am): This week Queensland celebrates Export Week, with showcases rolling out throughout the state, at a time when it has never been better to be in the export business in Queensland. As we enter the period of the running of Australia’s premier horse race, the Melbourne Cup, I would like to inform the House that one of our newest and more successful exports is to Korea, with the sale of Queensland bloodstock and a range of equine products and services. Korea is already Queensland’s second largest export market, but this exciting new area has opened up a range of new opportunities. Since the first export of racehorses to Korea in January 2003, Queensland studs have earned $3.88 million in export income. The total number of horses sold so far is 194, comprising brood mares, yearlings and two-year-olds. Importantly, many of the sales have been generated by companies new to the export market—27 in fact—and many located in regional Queensland. As a result of these sales, Queensland is now the Southern Hemisphere’s biggest supplier of bloodstock to Korea. Horse racing is the largest gambling sector in Korea, valued at $6.79 billion. The size of the industry in Korea and its partial deregulation in 2002 have enabled private owners to import their own horses for the first time, which has helped expand export sales for Queensland. This export success in what is a relatively new market has also come about through close partnerships between Magic Millions and the government’s Trade and Investment Office in Seoul. Austrade has also been a close partner in Queensland’s export success. Working closely with Magic Millions to attract Korean buyers during its four major annual sales has been a winning formula to advance the government’s strategy to increase our number of exports and our export income. Early this month, our Trade and Investment Commissioner in Seoul, Matthew Kang, led a strong group of 35 buyers, including members of the Korean Racing Association, to the October Magic Millions sale on the Gold Coast. This resulted in sales of 37 horses, valued at $688,000 and one influential owner purchased six Queensland horses for his premier stud in Korea, the highest number purchased by a single Korean owner to date in Queensland. The bloodstock sales have helped build the reputation of Queensland as a source of other equine products and services. In June this year, in conjunction with Magic Millions and Austrade, Trade and International Operations organised a successful equine trade showcase to help promote buyers from Korea and other Asian markets. Another trade showcase is being planned for the June 2006 Magic Millions sales. On 30 September 2005, a second thoroughbred racetrack opened in Busan, South Korea’s second largest city. The Queensland government, industry and our Korean partners have sourced a large number of horses to race at this track, several of which have already won trial races. The Queensland government remains committed to providing support to the industry, Magic Millions and our partners in Korea, including the Korean Racing Association, so that we can continue to build on this great success story. 26 Oct 2005 Ministerial Statement 3503
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Inner-City Crime Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (9.48 am): Six months ago this government made a commitment to crack down on violence in inner-city Brisbane. On the beat and behind the scenes, the Queensland Police Service has had a very significant role in helping to deliver our commitment to improve inner-city safety. Last Sunday morning at 4.15, police responded to a potentially volatile situation outside the Underground nightclub in Edward Street. The rapid response ensured no-one was injured, despite 34 people allegedly being involved in the brawl. Police are no longer tolerating public disorder in the CBD and the Valley. Drunken and violent revellers are on notice: if they want to fight police, they will end up in the watchhouse. The message is clear: obey a police direction or be arrested, taken to the watchhouse and end the night with a criminal record. Two weeks ago the district began a one-month trial of a ‘speed processing system’. This keeps more police on the beat on Friday and Saturday nights, and not tied up doing paperwork processing offenders in the watchhouse. Instead of issuing drunken and violent offenders with a notice to appear in court, CBD police are now arresting these offenders, filling in pre-prepared carbon copy forms and having these offenders transported in vans to the watchhouse with the assistance of civilian watchhouse handlers. The system provides police with a time saving of up to 90 per cent—as it speeds up the handling of law breakers. The trial is only halfway complete, but already the results have been so good that police have committed to implementing the speed processing system every Friday and Saturday night. The new Summary Offences Act, which this parliament unanimously supported, came into effect this year and the police Public Safety Response Team has been targeting public disorder offences. As well, police rostering has been reorganised in keeping with the government’s 17-point plan, and this has resulted in additional police giving attention to the entertainment precincts of Brisbane city and the Valley. A police officer is now rostered to watch the CitySafe cameras each Friday and Saturday night between 10 pm and 6 am. The senior officer acts as the city forward commander, and directs police to situations and enables the early identification of potential problems. Among the initiatives outlined in the government’s 17-point plan was the introduction of a 12- month trial of the 3 am lock-out laws, supported by changes to police rostering and patrols. The 3 am lock-out trial involves 67 licensed clubs, hotels and restaurants in the Brisbane city, Fortitude Valley and Caxton Street precincts. To date, police have conducted 29 operations, inspected 349 premises and identified 60 breaches of the Liquor Act and 37 breaches of the Security Provider Act. Police have also issued 58 liquor setons and made 31 arrests during patrols. I expect the statistics for arrests and public disorder offences will increase over the next few months as this new proactive approach continues. I intend to again accompany the police during the early morning hours in the Brisbane CBD to see for myself the effects of the new policing strategies. We will not tolerate alcohol and drug-fuelled violence. People should feel safe to walk the streets without being accosted by drunks and without a minority ruining it for those people who are law-abiding and just want to enjoy a night out. In a few weeks time, when schools and universities break up, there will be a new wave of young people on the streets. We need to get a message to them that, after working so hard to get good academic results, it could all turn very sour if they end up in a watchhouse or with a criminal record. In conclusion, I would like to also extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of North Rockhampton Constable Malcolm Mackenzie, who died on his way to work yesterday. I particularly extend my sympathy to his wife, Anne, and children Sean and Elis. He was a very popular and highly regarded officer and he will be sadly missed.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Department of Public Works Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (9.53 am): I also want to place on record my condolences to Constable Malcolm Mackenzie’s family. He was a very well-respected officer who served the North Rockhampton police district very well. The Department of Public Works is currently managing more than $800 million worth of capital works projects right across Queensland for the state government. These range from the iconic $277 million Millennium Arts Project at South Bank through to the refurbishment of the former health and welfare building in George Street. 3504 Ministerial Statement 26 Oct 2005
I am pleased to inform the House that construction work has commenced on the $2.2 million upgrade of the Maritime Museum dry dock. This delicate project is being managed by Project Services in the Department of Public Works, with construction work undertaken by JF Hull. The upgrade will see the century-old caisson at the mouth of the South Brisbane dry dock replaced with a new semipermanent concrete dock gate to protect the Diamantina. Dredging outside of the dry dock is now under way and workers are clearing silt from inside. Demolition of the old caisson has also commenced. However, under the heritage conditions of the project, some of the old caisson is being salvaged. It is planned that in the first week of December, the HMAS Diamantina will be floated out of the caisson so vital works inside the dry dock can progress. It is expected that the restoration work will be completed in March 2006. There is good news for the Gold Coast, too, with the Premier announcing yesterday that one of Queensland’s leading construction companies, Watpac, is set to join the team developing the new multimillion-dollar Gold Coast Stadium at Robina. Watpac has considerable experience in building sports stadiums and did the design management and construction of Suncorp Stadium and the Gabba stage 6 redevelopment. Watpac will team up with the state government’s project team and architects HOK Sport and Venue and Event to develop the design and operational aspects of the Gold Coast Stadium. Construction of the stadium is expected to begin in the middle of next year. It is great to see this Queensland company involved yet again. Q-Build is also working very closely with Education Queensland to manage the accelerated asbestos removal program and to ensure facilities are ready for the introduction of the prep year. After the successful trial of new work methods to remove asbestos roofs during weekends Q-Build has continued to work with Education Queensland to speed up removal. Q-Build is involved in ongoing capacity development with industry to improve the efficiency of asbestos roof removal, and we are gearing up for a busy Christmas holiday period. I am also pleased to inform the house that works to prepare facilities for the introduction of prep year—the biggest education capital works project in Queensland’s history—is on track. Public Works business units—Q-Build and Project Services—are working with private contractors to build or refurbish about 1,600 state school classrooms to accommodate prep classes. Bovis Lend Lease has been awarded a $52 million contract for the south-east Queensland area while the Department of Public Works will manage about $40 million worth of work in regional and rural Queensland. Further, Evans Harch has been awarded a $9.7 million contract to design and construct nine two-storey prep year buildings in south-east Queensland. Mr Speaker, as you can see it is business as usual in the Department of Public Works as we continue to build the Smart State. I want to finish by congratulating everyone who was involved in the construction of the $135.5 million Magistrates Court, which has just won the construction category at the 2005 National Project Management Achievement Awards.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Mental Health Services Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.58 am): The Beattie government is committed to providing ongoing care and support for the many thousands of vulnerable Queenslanders who suffer mental illness. We demonstrated that commitment in yesterday’s mini budget by delivering an extra $201 million over five years for community mental health services. This extra funding will stimulate a comprehensive expansion of community services to help Queenslanders who suffer mental illness. The five-year package includes an extra $90.8 million for more doctors, nurses, case managers and therapy staff; $70 million extra to address existing pressures on community mental health services; $25 million in financial support for non-government mental health services; and $15 million to improve access to mental health services for people in the criminal justice system. The package builds upon the record $472 million already being spent this year by the government on mental health services in Queensland. It comes on top of the $13 million package I announced recently to address immediate pressures on community mental health services. And, importantly, we have delivered this massive increase in investment in services just one week after receiving the Not for service national review of mental health services in Australia. The Beattie government’s response to the demand for increased funding for mental health services is in stark contrast to what the Howard government has offered in response to the apparent national crisis in mental health services—which is actually nothing, not one extra dollar. In typical fashion, the federal health minister, Tony Abbott, has offered no leadership and no money—not one red cent for mental health despite, I am told, having received a copy of the Not for service report some eight weeks before its official release. Instead, all he has tried to do in response to the most damning report 26 Oct 2005 Ministerial Statement 3505 on mental health funding since the Burdekin report of over a decade ago is shift blame to the states and shamelessly suggest that the Commonwealth could do better by going it alone. Abbott’s parliamentary secretary, Chris Pyne, even had the temerity to claim that the Commonwealth had been calling for action for years but he, too, offered no new solutions. It finally took the Prime Minister to inject an element of honesty into the debate when he threw his hands in the air and admitted to the Australian newspaper on 21 October that ‘no one level of government can escape responsibility’. On that point, we could not agree more. Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne can squirm and point fingers and try to shift blame to the states as much as they like, but that will not help address the growing pressures on mental health services in Australia. The Commonwealth has primary responsibility for mental health, and addressing these issues requires Commonwealth leadership and Commonwealth money. Queensland is doing its bit through this additional $201 million investment in community mental health services. It is about time Abbott and the Commonwealth showed some national leadership on mental health and showed us the money.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Hanson, Ms P Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (10.00 am): On 8 September, the Queensland government received a letter from lawyers for Ms Pauline Hanson. The letter sought an ex gratia payment from the Crown arising from the quashing of electoral fraud charges against Ms Hanson on 6 November 2003. I wish to inform the House that this application has been rejected. Legal advice from the Crown Solicitor concluded that there was no exceptional circumstance to justify the $475,000 ex gratia payment sought by Ms Hanson. The Crown Solicitor advised that Ms Hanson had no basis for a legal claim for damages against the state. He also advised that she does not have a claim for legal costs. The convention with ex gratia payments in Queensland is that, unless exceptional circumstances exist, a person acquitted of a criminal charge will not be compensated either for legal expenses on defending the charge or for any time spent in custody. In Ms Hanson’s submission, her lawyer tried to draw parallels with the case of Ms Di Fingleton, who was awarded an ex gratia payment of $475,000 in September. However, the Crown Solicitor advised that the cases were not comparable in any relevant sense. On this point the Crown Solicitor said— The exceptional circumstance which warranted an ex gratia payment in Ms Fingleton’s case was not that she was convicted and then acquitted on appeal ... it was the failure of all concerned ... to recognise the extent of the immunity afforded by the Magistrates Act for the conduct of which Ms Fingleton was convicted and sentenced. The result of that recognition of immunity was the conclusion that, as a matter of law, Ms Fingleton should not, and could not, have been charged with any offence. The same situation did not arise in the case of Ms Hanson. The issue upon which her appeal succeeded was essentially an evidentiary one. As I have already said, that is not a circumstance so exceptional as to justify a departure from the accepted rule in this State.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Ambulance Service, Special Events Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.02 am): Paramedics right across the state in every electorate provide the people of Queensland with a first-class ambulance service, so it comes as no surprise that the Queensland Ambulance Service is often requested to attend special events within the community. These events include sporting functions such as fun runs, football matches, community fetes and fairs, as well as rodeos, campdrafts and country race meetings. Event organisers seek to have the QAS paramedics attend events as part of their duty of care to participants and spectators. To maximise community safety, the QAS provides two levels of service for such events which include standby and dedicated services. Standby ambulance services are for events with a low level of risk and where the events are located within the normal ambulance response areas to the local community. Under standby arrangements, paramedics are on hand to provide expert prehospital care at the event as well as any requests for QAS services within the wider community. This service is free. At events such as horse racing, motor racing, rodeos, football matches and marathons, where there is a moderate to high potential for serious injury or illness, the QAS offers a dedicated ambulance service. This means that a professional paramedic is close by to provide immediate emergency prehospital care and transportation if required. As this is a dedicated service and is provided over and above the existing level of ambulance services provided to the general community, an hourly rate is 3506 Ministerial Statement 26 Oct 2005 charged to help offset costs and to ensure that the high quality of service provided by our paramedics is not compromised. Without this fee, vital resources would be diverted away from the primary role of the service. Fees for QAS attendance at special events are set through internal processes and are reviewed annually. This is a good service and a smart service because it provides the right level of cover where and when it is needed. The QAS will continue to provide both dedicated and standby services right across the state. These services ensure Queenslanders can enjoy community and sporting events with the knowledge that their Ambulance Service is at hand to provide the highest level of prehospital care.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Taxis Security Camera Program Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.04 am): The first Queensland cabs fitted with security cameras under the Beattie government’s $8 million taxi security camera program have entered service at Redcliffe. The Redcliffe taxi fleet was chosen to pilot the scheme because it is an excellent representative group for the taxi industry. The entire Redcliffe fleet will be fitted with the world’s best security cameras by contractor VerifEye Aus Pty Ltd over the next two weeks. We will be installing the cameras in the greater Brisbane metropolitan area and other regional centres around the state. The metropolitan area includes some 1,700 taxis in Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan, Pine Rivers and Redlands. It is expected that 250 taxis in the metropolitan area will be fitted with security cameras by Christmas. The remainder will have cameras installed by mid next year. Taxis in major regional centres will also have cameras fitted. Around 2,700 taxis throughout Queensland will be fitted with security cameras. Taxidrivers and their passengers will enjoy new standards of safety. Drivers can feel more secure and passengers will feel safer knowing that their taxi is under surveillance. The Beattie government has also issued 73 new taxi licenses for south-east Queensland. At least 50 of the new cabs should be on the streets in time for the busy Christmas period. We will raise around $20 million from the sale of the licenses. The money will be put to good use—towards the taxi security camera campaign and the trial of all-night taxi passenger services in Brisbane on weekends and during special events. The new licenses will meet the demand for specialist taxis. They include 26 people movers, designed to carry between five and nine people, making the fleet much more flexible, and 22 wheelchair accessible cabs. The government will continue to monitor demand for taxi services throughout the state and work with the industry to ensure that passengers have the services they need wherever they live.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
TAFE Queensland Hotline Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.06 am): I would like to inform the House of TAFE Queensland’s latest initiative to ensure apprentice training meets the needs of employers. Last week the institute started a telephone hotline service to enable employers to access information about flexible training options. It is an 1800 hotline that is called the User Choice Demand Service. An employer anywhere in Queensland who phones in can find out about training options in their area and be helped by the service manager to establish what best suits their needs. ‘Flexible options’ are the key words here, because TAFE institutes across the state are changing how they operate so that apprentices and their employers have a greater say over where and how they train. This is in line with the proposals raised in the government’s green paper ‘Queensland’s proposed responses to the challenges of skills for jobs and growth’, which will result in a white paper going to state cabinet in the next few weeks. For example, at the Bremer TAFE, more than 500 apprentices in carpentry, automotive and metal fabrication have been invited to nominate their own TAFE hours. Their formal class and practical work is designed to allow students to progress at a pace that suits their individual learning requirements, which also helps employers plan their business schedules. Gold Coast TAFE is combining face-to-face training with computer based learning for cabinet- making and carpentry apprentices, reducing the need for them to attend mandatory block training. Employers will be able to schedule work on projects to align with specific units taught at TAFE. At Brisbane North TAFE self-paced training is offered in engineering, construction and automotive programs, resulting in a strong growth in enrolments. Since last year, numbers in these programs have risen no less than 19 per cent. Brisbane North also provides individual study plans for students in several traditional trades, with many course materials provided in both printed and online formats. 26 Oct 2005 Ministerial Statement 3507
In the regions, Tropical North Queensland TAFE has introduced multistage block training, which allows students to receive additional training if needed. Industry response has been positive and recently the institute had to take on eight new teachers to meet demand for training in key trades areas. In the coming months I will be informing members about other measures introduced to make TAFE more flexible and relevant to today’s industrial landscape and the pressing shortages of workers that will be with us for many years to come.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Positive Learning Centres Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) (10.09 am): Our government is committed to providing for the long-term educational needs of all Queensland students. As part of this commitment, I recently announced that six new positive learning centres would be set up across Queensland to cater for students who have difficulty with the classroom regime or whose behaviour might disrupt other students. I am pleased to advise members that one of these centres will be established at the Weir State School in Townsville. Mr Wallace interjected. Mr WELFORD: In the electorate of Thuringowa. Ms Nelson-Carr: And on the border of Mundingburra. Mr WELFORD: And on the border of Mundingburra. I visited the school last Friday and spoke with the team of dedicated teachers and staff. Schools from across the Townsville area will be able to access this positive learning centre which will begin operating next year. Other centres will be set up in the education districts of Sunshine Coast South, Gold Coast, Brisbane North, Wide Bay North and Mackay-Whitsunday. I was also pleased to announce on Friday that Townsville teenagers will have another option for continuing their education with the opening of an Edmund Rice Education Flexible Learning Centre next year. The centre is a joint project between our government and the Christian Brothers Edmund Rice Foundation. Both of these Townsville centres will provide supportive environments for young people who find mainstream education a bit tough. The major difference between the two is that our positive learning centres will provide temporary schooling for students until they can re-enter mainstream classrooms, further training or employment and go on learning or earning. The flexible learning centre, which we are partnering with the Edmund Rice Foundation to establish, is a permanent school set up for students who drop out of mainstream education for some reason but want to keep learning. The school fosters a team approach to learning with staff, students and parents working together to help young people build their educational and social skills. I was particularly interested to note that the philosophy of the Edmund Rice Foundation in relation to education is that learning is for liberation. I commend the Christian Brothers on this initiative. I was also pleased to join my parliamentary colleague Mike Reynolds at the launch of Garbutt State School’s new airconditioned classrooms, and the new outdoor education and play area at Belgian Gardens State School. Both projects are great examples of the way in which schools, their local communities and our government can work together for a positive outcome. It was a pleasure to meet the students, principals and teachers at all the schools I visited in Townsville last week. I would like to thank them for their hospitality and their dedication as professional educators.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Cherbourg Hostel Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.12 am): Recently the people of Cherbourg celebrated a new era in child protection in their community when I officially opened the new Beemar Yumba Children’s Hostel in the company of a hundred guests comprising local residents, staff from the Department of Child Safety and other agencies. This state-of-the-art facility replaces the old mission hostel. It not only serves to protect Indigenous children from harm; it also helps to ensure that those who are taken into care are able to maintain their cultural identity. Bringing this important project to fruition took three years of hard work by the Indigenous community and my department. It represents a true partnership involving all local stakeholders and the Beattie government. I acknowledge the role of the former minister for families in initiating this project in her time as minister. Apart from the $1.4 million invested in the construction of this modern brick hostel, the Department of Child Safety allocates recurrent funding of $439,000 to the Beemar Yumba board to provide culturally appropriate and competent child protection services. The Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire 3508 Private Members’ Statements 26 Oct 2005
Council, on behalf of the traditional owners, provided the land for the hostel and built and paid for a bitumen road to the front entrance. The three main stakeholders, including the state government, have signed a 20-year tripartisan management agreement. Currently the hostel provides a safe and caring environment for eight vulnerable children and young people aged five to 18 years. There is enough room for at least four more children with family connections to the local community. There is also accommodation for staff working shifts around the clock. More child residential care facilities and small group homes are planned for Queensland. It is likely that the model of care established in Cherbourg will be duplicated elsewhere as a result of the massive funding initiative I announced earlier this month. The Department of Child Safety has advertised for 222 alternative care placements across the length and breadth of this state involving funding of $28.3 million. Applicants have until 14 November to lodge expressions of interest. It has been a very significant year for child protection in Cherbourg. In September, members of the Cherbourg Critical Incident Working Group won first prize for the best regional program at the Child Protection Week awards. Now Cherbourg also has an excellent new hostel for children in care.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Public Hospital System Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.14 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House supports the retention of a free public hospital system for all Queenslanders and calls on the government to abandon its proposal to charge patients a copayment and means test them when they seek treatment.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS
Public Hospital System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.15 am): In the Premier’s ministerial statement yesterday I was waiting for him to make reference to page 34 of the special financial statement, particularly the government’s intention to head towards the areas of means testing, copayments and privatisation of aged care facilities in Queensland. There was no word in his speech, there was no word anywhere in the ministerial statement, there was no word in any of the press releases and not much anywhere else. There was certainly no word in the advertisements that have been run today. In an effort to be bipartisan and to help the Premier, I have constructed an ad that the Premier should run. It is called ‘Meeting the challenges of hiding the truth’. The ad simply goes like this, ‘Hi. My name is Peter Beattie. You may not be aware through the multimillion-dollar newspaper and television advertisements that have appeared about Labor’s mini budget that we are actually planning to: privatise aged health care; abolish the free public hospital system; introduce means-testing for hospital patients; and introduce copayments for surgery. I know I didn’t mention any of these things in my speech, my advertisements or my press releases, but these details are hidden on page 34 of the budget documents. I’ve attached a copy of that page in this advertisement.’ I suggest Premier Beattie should be running that ad around Queensland. I suggest Premier Beattie should be running that ad on television. I suggest Premier Beattie should be telling the people of Queensland the truth about his intentions. He should be telling the people of Queensland the truth about means testing, copayments, the privatisation of aged care in Queensland and also the privatisation of HACC. These things were not mentioned in his speech yesterday. What is the Premier trying to hide? Why is it that the Premier wants to hide these things? It is as simple as this: this Labor government wants to check a person’s credit card before it checks their pulse. Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (10.17 am): I wish to draw the attention of this House and the public to a most draconian and very undemocratic measure contained within the federal government’s draft Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. I refer members to schedule 7 dealing with sedition, point 80.2, clause 7.b which states— A person commits an offence if: the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and the organisation or country is at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared. This measure, which was the focus of the ABC on Tuesday night and has been the focus of journalists and academics across the country, is extremely dangerous and should be opposed. It is dangerous because it can be interpreted and implied that the basic civil and democratic right of freedom 26 Oct 2005 Private Members’ Statements 3509 of speech in this country will be abolished, with any person speaking out publicly against the government facing arrest and seven years imprisonment. I repeat: this is a fundamental challenge to democracy in this country and the right of free speech. If unchecked, it will see the rise of McCarthyism and the arrest of many journalists and academics. Indeed, if it were to be passed, it would see the arrest of people like John Pilger, my husband and many others who have the courage to speak out against the government’s involvement in Iraq. While we might be alarmed by the shoot to kill clause, I urge members not to let this other evil and totalitarian measure escape our attention. It must be stopped. The future of democracy in this country is at stake. Electricity Supply Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.18 am): On 25 August I asked the Minister for Energy if the statement by Greg Martin to the effect that consumers should accept paying a lot more for powering their airconditioners and that retail prices could fluctuate according to demand was supported by the government. He replied— The Queensland Government does not propose to mandate retail pricing that will fluctuate according to demand as it remains committed— the government— to ensuring that domestic customers are provided with predictable and stable electricity prices. Eight weeks after that statement was made, the Courier-Mail published an item which stated— Queenslanders who use large amounts of electricity will have to pay higher prices for the privilege under a new tariff regime to be announced ... The change is expected to hit businesses and homeowners who run large, power-hungry appliances such as airconditioners and water heaters inefficiently. With this reversal of the response of the Minister for Energy as outlined by the Premier’s statement to the media, many areas of Queensland will be impacted upon heavily, particularly poorer families. I recognise—and have been told—that it will only be larger consumers who will be affected. I dispute this because, having been in business, I know that any cost incurred by business is passed on to customers. In turn, every Queenslander will be impacted upon by this increase. Of late we have seen so many changes of the government stance on issues and nearly all of them, when reduced to their basic reality, require everyday Queenslanders to incur yet another cost, either directly, as in new taxes or means testing, or indirectly, through large affected businesses passing on their input costs for energy consumption. To be quite frank, the people of Queensland are sick to death of not only the backflips but also the increasing times they put their own hand in their pocket to find the government’s in there as well. Burringilly Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.20 am): Burringilly is a place of love and care for the aged and disabled in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Their respite centre in the Woodridge electorate recently held a gala dinner in celebration of 15 years of residential care. Their area of service extends to the inner city, Wynnum-Manly, bayside, Redlands, west to Inala-Cedar Vale and south to Beenleigh and Logan and its surrounds. With services funded by HACC, they also offer community aged care packages and individual lifestyle support packages for younger disabled people. Their carers may assist in personal care, household duties, meal preparation, transport, shopping, banking, respite, social and cultural contacts, liaison with other organisations, advocacy and case management. But what is so special about Burringilly? The word means ‘walking together’, meaning young and old, black and white, able-bodied and disable-bodied people. Together we are one. Their staff and carers are simply wonderful people. This centre was the pilot project for Indigenous HACC services throughout Queensland which has now expanded to some 80 other Indigenous centres. Clients here find a peaceful place where they can access cultural videos, reading material, music and the like. Yarning and storytelling are great times. The celebration honoured so many who have worked tirelessly over the years to make Burringilly the special place that it is. Our MC, Uncle Robert Watego, has been associated with the centre for many years. I would like to mention just some of those stalwarts who have helped in the development of the centre—such people as Uncle Herb Bligh, president, whose 15 years of service is just spectacular; Christine Fewquandie, the longest serving staff person, for 15 years; Judy Watego, the present coordinator, 13 years; Doreen Punch, carer for over 14 years; and Robyn Currie, Claude Tyson and Anthony Lavelle, all with 14 years service. 3510 Private Members’ Statements 26 Oct 2005
Health System Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (10.22 am): Yesterday in this House we saw the Deputy Premier trying to misrepresent the Liberals’ and Nationals’ policy to reform Queensland Health. In misrepresenting our reforms she resorted to dodgy numbers. The Deputy Premier alleged that it would cost $100 million to double the VMO contribution to our public hospitals, yet page 353 of Mr Forster’s final report recommends a doubling of the FTE number of VMOs from 240 to 480, and he estimates the cost of doubling them to be $75 million. That is Mr Forster’s costs not now but in three years time. We have the Minister for Finance alleging black holes all over the place. Instead, what she has done is exaggerate the numbers for her own purpose. Instead of a black hole she has discovered a red giant, or perhaps just a supernova. It is no wonder those opposite would not trust her to run the Treasury department when she cannot add up. The Minister for Finance has already thrown out the Forster report. She reckons Mr Forster cannot add up and, along with that, has thrown in her own mix of misrepresentation about our reform. Why is she so desperate to misrepresent the Liberals’ and Nationals’ policy? Because our policy actually fixes the system! It is supported by those who actually work in the system and it is in stark contrast to the government’s solution. In fact, the government has no reform program for Queensland Health. All it does is throw a fistful of taxpayers’ dollars at a broken system, ensuring that much of the Queensland taxpayers’ money we saw doled out yesterday will never actually go down to treating patients. A broken system has to be fixed. Just slugging Queenslanders for more money will ensure that in a few years we will be back where we are now. Wooler, Mr A; Landcare Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.25 am): Many of the people who come into this House and claim to have a love of the environment and care for the land should take a leaf out of the book of Alby Wooler, who is the ‘Mr Landcare’ of the Capricorn Coast. Alby was a builder who 30 years ago went into the rare fruit business. When he retired as a builder he also commenced the first land care group in Queensland. He formed that with a view to protecting the land for future generations, and he has continued to work very hard at that. Alby is now 74. At the ripe old age of 70, Alby took up skydiving and is now learning to fly a plane. He was in fact recognised in the Premier’s Seniors Awards in September which I believe was well- deserved recognition. Alby commenced the Landcare group about 20 years ago and then he changed his focus to youth and school groups as he believed that that was really our future. Yesterday two groups of students from Taranganba State School came through parliament, and these students are now his main focus. There are 150 students in Junior Landcare, and Alby spends one day each week working with those students. They contribute to a large native garden at the back of the school and are very heavily involved with every action which takes place on the coast in relation to land care. Along with the local environmental movement, they helped to replant most of the Ross Creek banks. I would like to recommend to everybody that they read the web site in relation to Alby Wooler’s background. When Alby was born they broke the mould. I do not think there will ever be anyone else who has the same love of the land and his community, into which he was prepared to put so much free time. Skateboarding, Safety Helmets Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (10.27 am): I would like to address the House on the subject of skateboarders and the wearing of helmets. During the coronial inquiry into the death of skateboarder Daniel Peach it was recommended that legislation be enacted for the compulsory wearing of helmets. I would certainly like to call on the Minister for Transport to look at this issue. As Queensland police are committed to improving road safety outcomes for all road users, obviously this comes under the Transport portfolio, as per the advice that was given by the police minister last November. I digress for a moment. Head injures are a huge factor in street bashings because when people are punched they often fall and lose their life after hitting their head on concrete. I want to say to the House that skateboarders, rollerbladers and BMX riders are spinning around continuously on concrete after school and on the weekends. The very nature of those sports involves trying different tricks they have never tried before, which usually results in people coming to grief on the concrete. Personally, I am alarmed to see the number of kids racing around on council owned skateboard bowls without any helmet or head protection whatsoever. This is also an issue for parents—and my own son is a skateboarder and a rollerblader. He simply knows that he is never to conduct that activity without a buckled-up helmet. If people are left to their own devices, parents who do not care about kids will simply let them rollerblade and conduct these activities without appropriate protective equipment. I call on the Minister for Transport to introduce compulsory helmets for rollerbladers, BMX riders and skateboarders. 26 Oct 2005 Questions Without Notice 3511
Public Transport, Night Services Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (10.28 am): I want to thank and congratulate the transport minister, the department of transport, Queensland Rail and Brisbane City Council for trialling the late- night bus and train services from Brisbane’s CBD. Parents in my situation, with children aged 16 to 25, know what can happen when their young adult children visit the clubs and pubs in the city. In recent years, people have had to wait up to 1½ to two hours for a taxi after a night’s celebrations. During winter and inclement weather—and particularly for women in their fine gear—people can get very cold. They are out on the footpath. They are tired and alcohol affected, which affects their judgment. While there has been some supervision at taxi ranks, we have unfortunately seen a great deal of violence and unease due to queue-jumping and unruly behaviour. When the buses and trains take people out to the major centres in the suburbs we have to ensure that taxis are available there to get people home. There are many taxidrivers in my area who are happy to operate out of Westfield Chermside and take people to the northern suburbs and then come back for further pick-ups. I encourage the minister to continue this trial and to work with the Taxi Council and the major shopping centres where these buses are dropping the majority of the people to ensure that there are sufficient taxis available and that supervision occurs. It is important that our young people have a chance to celebrate in safety and get home safely. This is a much-needed service. I thank the minister, his department and the Brisbane City Council for this trial. I would encourage them to continue in order to provide safe transport for our young adults.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Public Hospital System Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Premier. I note that the Premier has already started spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of taxpayers’ dollars on advertisements about his so-called mini budget. But nowhere in those ads does he mention his proposal to destroy our free public hospital system by means testing patients at public hospitals, recipients of the spectacle subsidy scheme, dental scheme patients and the supply of pharmaceuticals. When will the Premier be taking out advertisements that tell the truth that he is really about the death of the free public hospital system in Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I indicated to the House yesterday that the figure was $416,000. Let me tell members that it is a fraction of the millions of dollars being spent by the Howard government about which I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition say a word. The Howard government is spending up to $40 million to advertise legislation that has not even been drafted. Let us not have any hypocrisy about government advertising. Ours is about restoring public confidence in the system. Let me give this assurance: I am delighted to hear what the Leader of the Opposition said. I will come back to the nonsense and half-truths we heard earlier in his two minute speech. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to page 11 of the Action Plan—Building a better health service for Queensland. He alleged that we made no reference to the issues that he referred to. On page 11 it states— In order to develop policies to increase revenue from the services we provide, and spend every cent of revenue collected through these measures on health services for Queenslanders, we will recruit a health economist to report to the Government by March 2006 on the following possibilities ... They are all the things that I announced with the health minister and about which substantive releases were made. Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition of this—and I put it on the record. He wants an advertising campaign. I will give him an undertaking that when those decisions are made there will be an advertising campaign to explain the decisions that the government will make as a result of the health economist’s review. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr BEATTIE: Let me note for the record that we have bipartisan support for an advertising campaign in March or April to explain exactly what the government intends to do in relation to— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Allow the Premier to answer it. Mr BEATTIE: Let me state again that I acknowledge and thank the Leader of the Opposition for his bipartisan support for an advertising campaign in March which will deal with the outcomes of the review by the health economist into the four or five issues referred to on page 11. I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much. There will not, therefore, be any criticism of what we do in March. Having said that, the Leader of the Opposition tried to insinuate that we would hide this. We were upfront about this. This was a suggestion— 3512 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2005
Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Well, let me table a news release of 20 October where I set this all out and a news release of 19 October where I set this all out. Let me refer the Leader of the Opposition to pages 34 and 35 of the Special Fiscal and Economic Statement. Let me refer him to pages 8 and 9 of my speech yesterday. This has to be the greatest cover-up since the discovery of Ayers Rock. That is all I can say. Half-truths will get him nowhere. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I advise members that in the gallery there is a group of administrative assistants from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service north coast region. Welcome to parliament. They tell me that they the ones wearing the well-ironed blue shirts. Keliher, Dr L Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s announcement that Dr Leo Keliher is to chair his independent razor gang. Is this not the same Dr Keliher who has increased the bureaucracy by 23,178 positions since the government came to power, including almost 4,500 last year alone even though the Premier promised on 11 April 2003 that the Public Service would be cut by an average of 120 jobs per year over 10 years? As Dr Keliher has continued to increase the Public Service, is this not like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank? Mr BEATTIE: Before I answer the opposition leader’s question, let me answer the first question he asked. I refer him to recommendation 6.14 on page 111 of the Peter Forster report which talks about the reviews that we are asking the health economist to do. What we have asked the health economist to do is what Peter Forster recommended. That is what we are doing. I again put on record my grateful appreciation and thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for supporting our media and advertising campaign for March and April next year to explain the decision we will make. I thank him for that. Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise on a point of order. The Premier is deliberately misleading the parliament. We want him to advertise it now. Mr BEATTIE: How can we advertise the decisions or recommendations of the health economist before he has made them and before we have made the decision? I may well have the powers of Nostradamus, I admit, but they are not that good. We cannot advertise the decision we have not yet made. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are employing a health economist to examine what Peter Forster said. We have identified what we are looking at. When he makes the recommendations we will make a decision and then we will advertise. I do not want to undermine the Leader of the Opposition. I am very grateful to the Leader of Opposition. I do not want to be unkind to the Leader of the Opposition because I am grateful for his support for the advertising campaign that he suggested we run next year. I am picking up this idea from the Leader of the Opposition and I thank him for the suggestion to run this advertising campaign. I do not want to belittle his contribution to this. He has been very helpful, very constructive, and I will do what he has suggested I do. The only argument between us is timing. I ask him to be patient. We will do it next year. What a great idea from the Leader of the Opposition—fantastic! Let me come back to the question in relation to Dr Keliher. I make no apologies for increasing the number of police officers, the number of teachers, the number of nurses, the number of paramedics, the number of ambulance officers and the number of child safety officers. Let me make it clear that not only do I plead guilty to it, but I will continue committing the same sin. My government will continue to increase the number of police, the number of teachers, the number of nurses, the number of doctors and the number of allied health professionals. The Leader of the Opposition has said that we have increased those numbers. He is correct. We plead guilty to that. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gregory under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: I do not know what that was. Let me come back to this point. Dr Keliher is well respected and well regarded. He is supported by two people from private industry. He will do the job the government has asked him do in a professional, independent manner and there will be reports to this parliament. Forster Review Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Premier. On 30 September the Premier told parliament that he had written to the Prime Minister regarding the recommendations involving the federal government in Peter Forster’s final report of the review of Queensland Health systems. Has the Premier received a reply to that letter yet? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Ipswich for her question. The answer is, no, I have not and I am disappointed by that, because the Queensland government has done its fair share and we will continue to work these things through. In fact, we will be looking at other areas of reform. As the Leader 26 Oct 2005 Questions Without Notice 3513 of the Opposition suggested, we will be advertising those in March/April next year, and I want to thank him again for that. I want to come back to what the Commonwealth is doing. When we have examined the issues that Peter Forster says should be considered by the Commonwealth, the federal government does need to respond. Let us look at the areas of the federal government’s policy that have been singled out for attention in the review because they have a negative impact on health care for Queenslanders. This is where the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party could actually help Queenslanders—that is, by getting on board and pushing the federal government to respond to these things. Let us look at what we are asking for. The Commonwealth government’s reduction in medical student intakes at Australian universities has resulted in a shortage of doctors generally and an increased reliance upon overseas trained practitioners. So what are we asking the federal government to do? Train more Australian doctors. That is all we want, and that is not unreasonable. That is the first thing. Ms Spence: Smart Australian kids. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, we want smart Australian kids. That is what we want. They are missing out on university places, and we want them in our hospitals and we want them providing health care. Secondly, current Commonwealth government policy initiatives designed to encourage private health insurance have contributed to the growth in the number of services provided in Queensland’s private hospitals and a climate of heightened private demand which has seen the public sector losing an increasing number of doctors to private practice. We want to help deal with that. The Forster review calls upon the federal government to provide these things, and this is where we want it to act. What do we want? Firstly, an immediate increase in medical nursing and allied health student places. That is the first thing. Secondly, we want support to increase the level of funding available to support the teaching and training of medical students on clinical placement within Queensland’s public health system, and this is an area of federal responsibility. Thirdly, we want financial contributions to ensure that sufficient funds are available to support the clinical placement of nursing students and allied health workers. Fourthly, we want access to Medicare billing for community based nurse practitioners in recognition that these roles are taking on functions traditionally performed by doctors. Fifthly, we want a review of the Medical Benefits Schedule to improve the alignment of the Commonwealth funded health sector and the public health system, including providing incentives to address particular areas of need such as rural health and Indigenous health. Finally, we want increased funding for enrolled nurses, assistants in nursing and other certificate based health workers. That was in my letter to the Prime Minister. We have to ask ourselves: what is wrong with any of those requests? The answer is nothing, but we have not had a response from the Prime Minister, nor have we had a response from the federal health minister. We are not going to let this rest. Queensland did its fair share yesterday—in fact, more than its fair share. I would have thought that, when it came to health care, there would have been some bipartisan support to ensure that Queenslanders get a fair health system. We cannot do more than what we have done. Yes, we will continue the reforms in health. We have funded it. We now need the Commonwealth to do its bit. Government Expenditure Mr QUINN: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Finance. Given all of the obvious waste evident from, just for starters, thousands of unsold Q-Fleet cars, tens of millions of dollars being wasted on government advertising and sport sponsorship, along with the huge growth in the Public Service over the past seven years, is the minister seriously suggesting that the only saving the government is able to achieve from the state budget is $175 million or just 0.2 per cent of the total $86 billion in projected expenditure over the next three years? How can the government think about imposing a means test and copayments on patients in our public hospitals when it is not getting serious about cutting its own waste? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. If one looks at the way that yesterday’s economic and fiscal statement has been framed, they will see that it has a number of characteristics. Firstly, the government set about to responsibly utilise the surplus available to us to meet the funding challenge in health. We have done that in a number of ways this year and into the outyears. This year we will be taking substantial funds out of this year’s surplus and paying off the health debt. The health debt, which has required servicing every year by Queensland Health and which, as the health minister has outlined in a great deal of detail to this House, is one that we have you to thank for. So thank you for saddling Queensland Health with that for decades. We are very pleased to have had the chance in this mini budget to fix that once and for all. So we have utilised the surplus this year and we will be utilising parts of the surplus that are available to us in the further outyears. Secondly, and quite appropriately, we have indicated that we will be tightening our own belt on the expenditure side. There will be significant requirements on the public sector over the five-year period that we outlined yesterday. Firstly, there will be a one per cent efficiency dividend imposed on state 3514 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2005 government agencies. There are a number of appropriate exemptions to that. Child Safety, Disability Services and Queensland Health will not be required to pay that dividend, which would be inappropriate I think in the circumstances of those agencies. Secondly, frontline service delivery staff in police, education and other relevant areas such as the ambulance will not be used in the calculation for the one per cent. That, we believe, will net us significant funds, as indeed will the work of the soon to be established Service Delivery and Performance Commission. I am disappointed that so early the opposition is showing a lack of confidence in the work of that commission. I have every confidence in the people whom the Premier announced yesterday to lead it. I have every confidence in its independence. I have every confidence— Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: Not only do I have confidence in Leo Keliher’s ability to lead this commission; I am very happy to stand here and say that I have absolute confidence in the independence of John Story, who is the chair of Suncorp Metway. He is one of the most respected— Mr Messenger: It is a razor gang armed with a feather sword! Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, I warn you under 253. Ms BLIGH: He is one of the most respected businessmen in this country, and I think we are lucky to have secured his services. Similarly, Marian Micalizzi brings to this task substantial experience. She is a very well respected board member and accountant and I know that she will apply herself with independence and vigour. But what is at the heart of this question? What is at the heart of this question is that somehow we should have cut deeper. But where would we cut? We know where members opposite want to cut first—they want to take 2,000 workers out of Queensland Health. As we all know, the member for Robina has an unsatisfied lust for sacking Queensland public servants. Coalition, Preselection Process Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Premier, I refer to the coalition that has been formed in Queensland between the National and Liberal parties, and I ask: could the Premier explain how its preselection process for candidates will work? Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to do that, but before I do that I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition again for his support for the advertising campaign that we are keen to run in March next year to explain the reforms in health. I think it is important we get that on the record. The preselection process is bizarre to say the very least. We have some interesting things happening in Springwood and some very interesting things happening in Hervey Bay. The most interesting thing in Hervey Bay is incredibly bizarre. There we have a Liberal candidate who voted Labor at the 2001 election and told the Fraser Coast Chronicle that if it came to a choice between the National Party and Labor he had no choice: he had to vote Labor. I understand how good the local member is, I have to say, but now there is a man who we actually think has a bit of insight and a bit of vision. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Well, he has something going for him. He is right of course. You cannot argue about that. Talk about a coalition of the unwilling! If we move down to Springwood, there we have two councillors—one a Liberal who assures us that he made up his mind to run back in July 2004 and the other an on-again, off-again National who says that he was enticed back into the fold this time by the Nationals’ environment policies. I have to say that I am going to have discussions with the police minister: there are obviously a lot more illegal substances around than I believe is acceptable in the community! This preselection process is very funny. What happens is this: it really is institutionalising the gerrymander, because what happens is that the Liberals select their candidate and the Nationals select their candidate. If the Nationals have six members and the Liberals have 100, guess what happens? The votes are worth the same. I reckon Jeff Seeney is sitting over there in front of his black-and-white television saying, ‘This is fantastic. This is back to the seventies.’ This is where the institutional gerrymander comes in. What is going on? The National Party is taking over the Liberal Party. The National Party is taking over the Liberal Party by stealth. This is a backdoor way for the National Party to take over the Liberal Party, and the only seats it is doing it in are the seats that the member for Chatsworth does not have the numbers in. They are the only seats it is doing it in. This is not only the National Party taking over the Liberal Party but the character assassination of both the member for Robina and the member for Moggill. Those opposite know as well as I do that, come the next election, what is left of them will be led by the member for Chatsworth. He is sitting there smiling away. What happened to the Liberal Party? At least the Liberal Party in the eighties had a little bit of a wimpish objection to the gerrymander. But not now. It is prepared to accept the— An opposition member interjected. 26 Oct 2005 Questions Without Notice 3515
Mr BEATTIE: You did. There was not much of a fight against Joh—not much of a fight. Now it is allowing a gerrymander. The Liberal Party membership in Brisbane has got to be in riot— Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member should not point his finger at me; he should point his finger at his friend behind him, because very soon the member is going to be sitting where he is. Health System Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to page 8 of yesterday’s document titled Action Plan—Building a better health service for Queensland in which he claims that he will recruit an additional 300 doctors over the next 18 months. Is this a number that the minister simply plucked out of the air or can he tell us what type of doctors he is intending to employ? Has the minister accepted Mr Forster’s recommendation of 240 extra full-time equivalent VMOs, or do these 300 doctors that the minister has plucked out of the air represent staff, specialists, junior doctors, or more untested overseas trained doctors? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I can tell the member what kind of doctors they are going to be: they are going to be good doctors. They are going to be the absolute best doctors that money can buy. We will be recruiting right throughout the world, as we have seen the Premier do— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn all honourable members that I will start to ask members to leave this chamber. I want order whilst question time is taking place. I have made it perfectly clear that members from both sides will be allowed to ask their questions in silence and ministers will be allowed to answer their questions in silence. I warn you now that the next offender will be asked to leave this chamber. Mr ROBERTSON: They will be good doctors. They will be the best doctors that money can buy. Yes, we will get them from overseas; yes, we will get them from interstate; and, yes, we will get them out of retirement if that is what we need to do to come up with these numbers—to get doctors back into our hospitals treating patients in our public hospital system. I note that the honourable member was somewhat critical of attempts to recruit doctors from overseas. The honourable member for Moggill would know about the changes that we have put in place to ensure that, in the recruitment of overseas trained doctors, the problems that we saw occur in Bundaberg will not happen again. The member knows that there are more rigorous processes in place now than ever before to ensure that the qualifications of doctors that we get from overseas are appropriate. That is why each and every one of those doctors who we will be employing will be good doctors. They will be the best doctors that we can possibly get, because Queensland expects nothing less. I am pleased that the honourable member referred to our action plan, because yesterday I had an opportunity to compare plans. We know that earlier this week this was the coalition’s response. This was its plan. That is not a plan; this is a plan. The government’s plan provides a long-term, sustainable future for the public health system in Queensland. In page after page there are detailed responses to the comprehensive review provided to us by Peter Forster. It is well thought out and on every page it is appropriately costed. I was actually interested to read some of the responses that we received in relation to the mini budget. I was particularly struck by a comment by the Leader of the Liberal Party, which appears in today’s Courier-Mail. I note that the Leader of the Opposition talked about honesty in this debate. If he is looking for dishonest debate, he should just look to his left. It is there in the Courier-Mail. Health Action Plan, Training Initiatives Ms BARRY: My question is also directed to the Minister for Health. The minister would be aware that high-quality training of the health work force results in high-quality care in the treatment of patients. I ask: can the minister inform the House of any training initiatives contained within the state government’s health action plan? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Before I get to that issue, I will finish what I was saying previously and that was in relation to dishonesty in this debate. In today’s Courier-Mail the Leader of the Liberal Party said that this mini budget, for the first time ever in any state, will lead to patients paying copayments and being means tested for public hospital services. That is absolutely wrong. That is dishonest and deliberately so. The Leader of the Liberal Party has been caught out once again by either his own dishonesty or by his own laziness. If he had, in fact, read Forster’s report, he would know that on the appropriate page Forster outlines the situation with respect to copayments that apply in each and every state and in each and every territory in Australia. Yet the Leader of the Liberal Party perpetrates this absolute dishonesty in today’s Courier-Mail. As I said, if the Leader of the Opposition is looking at dishonesty in the debate, he should just look to his left. 3516 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2005
I thank the honourable member for Aspley for the question, because as a former nurse she would know better than anyone about the importance of training in our health work force to achieve the highest possible level of care for Queenslanders. Our government is determined to renew and re-energise our health system. Our action plan, financed by a $6.4 billion injection in just over five years, will roll out massive funding increases across several key areas such as cancer, cardiac surgery and mental health. Funding has been allocated to recruit around 1,200 additional staff to our public health system over the next 18 months, including 300 doctors, 500 nurses and 400 allied health professionals. Those measures will make a real difference to the thousands of Queenslanders who use our health services each and every day. The issue of training must be appropriately addressed to sustain high-quality health care services into the future. The Forster review noted that the breakdown of clinical teaching, training and education of the work force is the first casualty of a system that is under pressure. If we are to have the best public health system in the country, we need the best trained work force. We will deliver that. We will spend an extra $127 million in five years from next year on training and development to ensure that Queenslanders are treated and cared for by the best doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. Part of that allocation will be spent on creating an additional 55 specialist training positions in our public hospitals. We will train an extra 12 radiologists, 15 pathologists, five general medical specialists and three rural generalists with the remaining positions covering areas ranging from orthopaedics to anaesthetics, to neurology and general surgery. If the member for Moggill is interested in getting an answer to the somewhat facile question that he asked earlier, he only needs to read this response as to the kind of doctors we will be putting in place in our public hospital system to restore it to a level that the people of Queensland expect. Health System Mrs PRATT: My question is also directed to the Minister for Health. On 25 June a constituent received a letter from the Princess Alexandra Hospital stating— We do not have a specific date to give you at this time but your name has been placed on the waiting list. Two weeks ago my constituent rang the hospital only to be told that he was not on any waiting list at all and that he should seek another specialist. Now that the Forster report has been tabled and the government claims that the implementation of the recommendations has begun, is the minister aware that this practice is still occurring? When does he expect it to stop? Mr ROBERTSON: As I have said consistently over the three months that I have been Minister for Health, if any member in this place—irrespective of whether they are a member of the government, a member of the opposition, an Independent, a member of One Nation, or whatever—has a constituent who they believe is not getting a fair deal out of public health system in this state, all they need to do is write to me and they have my assurance that the matter will be investigated fully, as has been the case. All honourable members—particularly those opposite—know that if they write to me about a matter, that matter will be investigated fully and they will receive an appropriate reply. To do otherwise—to talk about the specifics of any particular patient in this place—is not appropriate. It is not something that I will do. I respect the role of members of parliament in representing their constituents. That is why I have said consistently that, if any member has a concern about how one of their constituents is being treated, all they need to do is contact my office and the matter will be investigated appropriately. In general terms, I expect that there will be much better performance in terms of the waiting lists to which the member referred. Whilst I am not aware of the particular speciality that may be involved in this particular case, all the member for Nanango needs to do is to go to our comprehensive action plan and the provisions of the mini budget, which was handed down yesterday, to read that there has been a significant injection of new money right across-the-board to employ more doctors, more nurses and more allied health professionals. Once they are in the hospitals and working, that means more throughput of patients. That means an attack on those waiting lists. As I said, I do not know the specialities to which the honourable member referred. I hope she contacts my office with the details and we can follow the matter up for her. Quite simply put, yesterday’s mini budget was all about improving the performance of our public hospital system, to attack those waiting lists that we have heard so much about in a way that employs more clinical staff. In relation to the question asked by the member for Moggill in terms of what kind of doctors will be employed and where, one of things we have committed ourselves to is much greater input by clinicians in the decision-making process. I would have thought that the member for Moggill would be of the view that the last person who should be determining what kind of doctors with what specialities should be employed would be a non-clinician such as myself. I expect that clinicians on the ground in the cities and in the regions would be meeting with hospital management to make exactly those decisions, and that is exactly what will happen. Time expired. 26 Oct 2005 Questions Without Notice 3517
Responsible Gambling Strategy Mr REEVES: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday when detailing the government’s efforts in relation to responsible gambling, opposition members were quick to interject. However, do they have a track record on this issue that would give them some rights in this area? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I also recognise his great support for the hotel and club industry and for the employment that industry generates in his own area. He is right: yesterday when I outlined some of the interesting data on responsible gambling here in Queensland there was a great deal of interjection opposite—a great deal of sanctimonious tut-tutting. Anyone listening might have thought that on this issue the Liberal and National parties in Queensland might be as pure as the driven snow. So I thought it would be useful to remind the House of their record here. Firstly, let us not forget that when in government the coalition proposed that in every hotel in Queensland there should be a cap of 45 machines. The Beattie government reduced that cap to 40. There are 200 hotels that have 40 machines. If they had increased their limit to 45 there would already be another 1,000 machines out there in Queensland hotels as of today—not over the five years that we project but as of today. Similarly, when in opposition the coalition proposed a cap of 300 machines for our clubs. The Beattie government, however, reduced that cap to 280, and that cap remains. There are six club sites with 280 machines, so an extra 20 at each of those clubs would have seen another 120 machines. If the coalition had had its way we would already be up to 20,000. We would already be at the cap that we are now proposing. But perhaps most interestingly, under the coalition government there was no overall cap at all. There was no limit on the number of poker machines that could be put in place right across Queensland. It was a Labor government in 2001 that established a responsible cap of 18,843. When those opposite start claiming the moral high ground, let us remember that when they ran the joint it was pokies unlimited. That is what was going on—pokies unlimited and porkies unlimited as well, no doubt. When it comes to numbers, though, I advise the House that the member for Moggill’s mathematics this morning were again, unfortunately, less than half true. I advise the House that Peter Forster’s costing of the doubling of VMOs did not include and did not claim to include the cost of the government’s pay offer to VMOs. Including the new pay arrangements to VMOs, doubling the number of them will, in fact, cost $30 million more than Peter Forster’s original estimate. It is pretty simple. People have a choice between trusting Queensland Treasury on numbers and trusting the Queensland Liberal Party. It is very easy. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Warrego, I welcome to the gallery teachers and students of the Eagle Junction State School in the electorate of Clayfield. Country Hospitals Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the medical superintendents and officers who staff small country and one-doctor hospitals. Is the minister aware that these front-line medical staff will not receive incentive payments, as doctors in larger regional hospitals do? Is this another attempt by his bureaucracy to close one-doctor country hospitals? What is the minister doing to support these front-line medical staff, who are the backbone of the health services in 80 per cent of Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: That is perhaps one of the slipperiest questions I have ever heard asked by the member opposite and, based on his record, that is saying something. If the member opposite had any understanding of the provisions which apply in rural Queensland he would know that, in relation to that section of our public health work force, those individuals to which he referred have right of private practice. So they have an alternative form of income to that which is provided by the public health system. That is why, in relation to the offer that is currently out there, they get the four per cent base rate increases plus other benefits that are part of the package but, in recognition of the fact that they have right of private practice, other provisions of the overall deal do not apply. Having dispensed with that, there is the nonsense accusation that there is an agenda by this government to close small rural hospitals. This has been denied time and time again, despite the fact that they in their local newspapers continue to repeat that untruth. They know that it was not this government that said it; they know that it was Tony Morris who put forward that suggestion. Never at any time was it this government, either me or my predecessors— Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. The minister is misleading the House. It is in the ALP policy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERTSON: The member knows that it was Tony Morris who said that. He knows that it was never me or my predecessors who said that. I keep talking about the level of untruthfulness on the Leader of the Opposition’s left. It now extends down two corridors of seats. The simple fact is that there is no agenda by this government to do that. 3518 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2005
If we are talking about dishonesty, we only need to look at this morning’s Toowoomba Chronicle report on the mini budget. We have heard a lot from the opposition about what is contained in the mini budget about the revenue and expenditure measures. We have heard a lot of criticisms about whether the money can be spent, how it should be spent or where it should be spent. I thought the classic came from the Leader of the Opposition, who in his own region, when he gets time to turn his mind—that is a frightening thought in itself—and eyes west, is quoted in the Toowoomba Chronicle. The article states— The Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg questioned the impact of the extra funding— the biggest injection of funds ever in Queensland’s history into public health— and said he feared the money was nowhere near enough to fix the problem. This is the man who has criticised this government in terms of raising the funds necessary to put $1.5 billion extra a year into our public health system, yet in his own backyard he says that that is not enough. It is dishonest. Time expired. Q-Fleet Auctions Ms CROFT: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing. I refer the minister to an article on page 4 of last Saturday’s Courier-Mail which suggests that a 2003 Ford Falcon with 60,000 kilometres on the clock should have been sold for $13,000. I ask the minister: is that a realistic price? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member. I just happen to have a copy of that article written by that well-known icon of incompetence and dreadful journalism, Tuck Thompson. In the article a Mr Hayes claimed that he was very disappointed when he went out to Q-Fleet auctions and could not buy a two-year-old Falcon for $13,000. Mr Thompson sort of endorses that view. He obviously knows a lot about cars! He goes on to talk about the fact that the poor soul could not buy one for his daughter, his wife or whoever else he was going to buy one for. Mr Speaker, I do not know about you or anybody else in this House, but I have never heard of anyone who has walked away from an auction without buying something who thinks that the price was right. Mr Thompson gave some great help in the article. At the bottom of his article he gave a bit of naked assistance to the rest of the paper. He said, ‘Go and look in the Cars Guide in the Courier-Mail to get the best deal.’ That section tells us that the best deal we can get is from Steve Mortimer. If you beetle out there, you can buy the same car—which had a reserve price that Tuck Thompson said was too dear—for $16,666. Which section of the paper would you rather have? Mr Thompson’s or that one? The reality is that it does not end there. I did a bit of work and looked in the Red Book. Everybody knows about the Red Book. It says that the average price should be between $15,600 and $18,400. So what about poor old Mr Hayes with his $13,000? He must think it is the North Pole out there and he is expecting Santa Claus to walk out with a car. We are not running a charity out there. Try the MTAQ that has been a little bit critical of it. There are 37 cars out of 95 in the paper that are under $20,000, but there is not one of them for $13,000—the same car. Believe it or not, this is a business that we are running here. I know that the National Party and the Liberal Party want to privatise it. They want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. They think it is not working and all the rest of it. I note that Mr Thompson said that nobody bought the gas-guzzling six- cylinders, as he called them last week. Well, 27 people did. Forty-nine cars were sold at the auction the other day. I do not know what auction he was at. He said that none was sold, but the reality is that 49 cars were sold at the auction—in fact, 60 cars were sold last week—to people who, believe it or not, thought they got value for money. Mr Hayes was not one of them, of course. He went away expecting to get a two-year-old car for $13,000. Surprise, surprise: he went away disappointed! But I bet if he went out to Steve Mortimer’s tomorrow he would be shown the door, too, if he came in with his 13 grand. I bet if Mr Thompson goes to the MTAQ in his delusional state trying to buy a two-year-old Ford with 60,000 kilometres on it he will be shown the door, too. There is nowhere in Queensland or in Australia as far as I know where you can buy one. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, who is this Mr Thompson you keep referring to? Mr SCHWARTEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sugar Industry Mrs MENKENS: In the absence of the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, my question is directed to the minister for state development. I refer to the minister’s plans to scrap the legislation underpinning the sugar industry’s single desk selling arrangements. Why has the minister given industry representatives no other option but to commit to a voluntary contracts system when further deregulation occurs? How can the minister justify claims that the sugar industry supports these moves when I have more than 500 letters—over 80 per cent of Burdekin growers—which I table in state parliament today opposing these plans? 26 Oct 2005 Questions Without Notice 3519
Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I can understand her interest in the sugar industry. It is a very important part of Queensland’s economic base and our government has worked over a very long period of time with the industry to ensure that the sugar industry is well placed in the future in an increasingly global and competitive market. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer this question, because it gives me the chance to advise the House that on 14 October the Premier and I signed an MOU with the Australian Sugar Milling Council and the Canegrowers association. The Canegrowers association, as I would have thought the member opposite would know, represents those people who grow sugar cane. It is the representative organisation that we have been working with to ensure that we can put in place arrangements to take the industry forward. As a result of determinations by an industry working group which recommended changes to the selling arrangements, the Queensland government has indicated that we will work with the industry. I am pleased to tell the member that the Australian Sugar Milling Council has been working very constructively with growers to put in place voluntary arrangements for the new marketing system. The MOU provides measures to ensure that the new marketing system will be implemented and that the system will deliver greater commercial flexibility while continuing the benefits of presenting a coordinated face to Queensland’s bulk raw sugar customers. We have the usual choice that you have when industries are going through change. We could stick our head in the sand, we could pretend that the rest of the world does not exist, we could pretend that there is no such thing in this country as the ACCC and we could just wait for that big steamroller to roll straight across us and just stand by while the sugar industry is undone by those forces. We are not going to do that. We have sat down in a coordinated way with the industry over a long period of time, and the industry itself has said that it does not want to be in a position where the ACCC next year, as a result of a review, dismantles all of the current arrangements without any transitional arrangements being put in place. So the industry did the sensible thing and I commend it. It came to the state government, which oversees the legislation that regulates the industry, and said, ‘We do not want that to happen. We want transitional arrangements over a period of time.’ That is why the industry has come to us with a new marketing system that is based on a voluntary arrangement. Those voluntary arrangements are currently being negotiated. As I understand it, those negotiations are going very well. Canegrowers and the sugar council have been able to come to an agreement, and I commend them for that. I do not think it is easy. I commend both the cane growers and the millers for putting in place transitional arrangements so that the industry has some certainty for the next three years. Queensland Police Service, Capsicum Spray Ms LIDDY CLARK: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. The minister spoke earlier about some initial results following the introduction of 3 am lockouts and outlined how police are progressing with the 17-point plan to reduce inner-city violence and crime. I saw on the weekend news that there were incidents in Brisbane and at Indy where police used capsicum spray on a number of people. Can the minister please provide details of these incidents? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Clayfield for the question. The reality is that police use capsicum spray two to three times each day in this state and that equates to every operational police officer using capsicum spray once every three years. The use of capsicum spray has declined over the last four years, but police are encouraged to use it if they are under threat of attack or assault. I am pleased to say that the CMC has recently released a report on the review of the use of capsicum spray by police. The CMC has acknowledged that police do a very difficult job. It has acknowledged that police deal with very volatile and aggressive people, and it has concluded that capsicum spray is an effective and relatively safe use of force. Last weekend alone over 40 police officers in Queensland were assaulted. They were head- butted, they were spat at, they were bitten and a couple were kicked in the groin. They had their bones broken, they were smeared with blood and they had their eyes gouged. Last weekend in Cairns alone I spoke to a number of police officers who had been assaulted. One of them, Sergeant Chris Nelson, who is the father of former member of parliament Shaun Nelson, had the remains of a big gouge where a bite of skin had been taken out of his arm in the watch-house. The sad fact is that the figures for assault are increasing. Next month I will be releasing the annual statistical review, but the preliminary figures that I have show that 2½ thousand police officers were assaulted, 753 were subject to serious assaults, 73 were victims of assault occasioning bodily harm, 62 officers were the victims of common assault and 188 were the victims of obscene, insulting and offensive language. I expect that the number of assaults against police will increase: we have increased the police numbers in this state. As members have heard before, our police are undertaking more proactive policing. Yesterday I sat down with Assistant Commissioner George Nolan and Superintendent Tonya 3520 Questions Without Notice 26 Oct 2005
Carew. They are encouraging the police in Brisbane, for example, to go out there and make arrests— not to give out tickets anymore but make arrests, lock people up and give them a message. If we are going to encourage our police to undertake this kind of proactive policing, and I think most of us want that, then we will likely have more assaults on police and we will have more presentations and more use of capsicum spray. There is a simple message for Queenslanders, and it is this: obey a lawful police direction. Do not think it is acceptable to use our police as punching bags because we will encourage them to resist. Making a Difference Program Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I would like to thank the minister for the last-minute funding provided by his department last week in response to my request to enable the Making a Difference program to continue for another two months. My question to him relates to a statement made by federal minister Warren Truss, who is claiming that the two separate grants which were provided to the MAD program were only intended as seed funding and that the plan was for the state government to take over the program’s funding. The project manager was never aware of the fact that this was seed funding and it was not mentioned in the service agreement. Was the minister aware of the fact that his department was to be made responsible for this project? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I acknowledge her advocacy on behalf of her local MAD program, Making a Difference. I am advised that the federal government had assisted the Making a Difference program to establish itself as a community based program to assist current users of illicit substances. This program has been very successful over the past 18 months and was an accredited provider of the needle exchange program. It has built great linkages within the state and is staffed by volunteers who generously give up their own time for this worthy initiative. How has the federal government rewarded this hard work and dedication? It has not. Yet again it has provided the start-up funding to establish a worthwhile service and, just when this service has matured into an important service within the community, the federal government has pulled the rug out and has ceased all funding. I am advised that there was no opportunity for the organisers to apply for ongoing funding. If it were not for the state assistance that I provided last week in response to the advocacy of the member for Gympie—I supplied the program with $8,000 to tide it over—the doors would have been literally shut, not only for the Making a Difference coordinators but also for the clientele of the service who have benefited from the program. At no time did the federal government advise the state, nor did it advise the MAD program, that the funding the program received was simply start-up funding and that at some stage it would have to rely on the state government picking up the bill. Can members imagine what would happen if the government tried that? Every member on the other side of the House would stand in mock indignation, claiming that we had a moral responsibility not only to provide start-up funding but also to continue with that funding. Yet it is somehow good enough for their mates, including their mate Warren Truss, to make this outrageous claim and cost-shift once again onto the state government. I am pleased that I was able to provide some modest assistance to keep open the doors of the MAD program. Unfortunately, it is a one-off grant to tide it over so that it can make an application to the federal government to have longer-term sustainable funding. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to keep picking up the tab of irresponsible government programs that provide only seed funding and no ongoing funding. That is absolutely— Mr Mickel: Typical cost-shifting. Mr SPEAKER: Minister for Energy, a final warning. Mr ROBERTSON: Typical cost-shifting. It is irresponsible. It build hopes and ultimately breaks dream. We will not be part of that. I thank the honourable member for the question. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for Redlands, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from the Kings Christian College in the electorate of Di Reilly. Mr English: The electorate of Mudgeeraba. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I said ‘in the electorate of Di Reilly’. Mr LANGBROEK: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Doesn’t standing order 244 say that you will only refer to members by their title or electoral district? Mr SPEAKER: Take your seat. The member for Surfers Paradise has raised this issue once before. For the information of members, many people who visit this parliament are not 100 per cent certain which electorate they are in or who their member is. I think, in a user-friendly way, I as the Speaker in the future will name the electorate and also who the member is. 26 Oct 2005 Questions Without Notice 3521
Computers for Teachers Mr ENGLISH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts. I refer the minister to his recent announcement that another $7 million will be spent this financial year to connect more Queensland state school classrooms to the internet, and I ask: are there any plans to provide computers for our hardworking teachers? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for his question and his strong interest in smart schools in the Smart State. An integral part of our government’s Smart State Strategy is to ensure our students gain an understanding of today’s new digital technology. That is why our Smart Classrooms strategy establishes information and communications technologies as the bedrock of 21st century schools. New technologies are sparking greater learning opportunities and better interaction between students, teachers, parents and guardians. Our teachers also need to be at the forefront of the use of this new technology in our classrooms. It is essential that we support them in that important role. However, in many cases teachers do not have access to their own computers, often relying on shared computers in staffrooms. I am pleased to advise that from January 2006 more than 1,500 Queensland teachers will be issued with laptop computers as part of a trial to enhance teaching capabilities. Teachers at 61 state schools in the Ipswich, West Moreton and Cairns areas will participate in the trial from January 2006. All full-time teachers and many part-time teachers in the selected schools will take part in this trial. The outcome of the trial will form the basis of the government’s future decisions regarding any roll-out of computers to teachers throughout the state. We are encouraging the teachers involved in the trial to use the laptops for lesson planning, digital presentation of lessons and student assessment and reporting. As the honourable member mentioned, our government is spending almost $7 million this financial year to connect more Queensland state school classrooms to the internet. There is now a statewide ratio of one computer for every five students in years 3 to 12, and one computer for every four students in years 8 to 12. I learnt the other day of a school that has made such a concerted effort in relation to this initiative that it now has one computer for every two students. Ms Keech: Was that on the Gold Coast? Mr WELFORD: I think it might have been. There are some 118,000 desktop computers in schools. Eighty-nine per cent of these are connected to the internet. Our Smart Classrooms strategy is ensuring that Queensland students and our teachers are at the forefront of the technological revolution and are well-equipped for the world beyond school. Ambulance Service, Personnel Mr MALONE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Ambulance officers have resorted to stop-work action today in protest at the appalling work conditions they are subjected to on a daily basis. As a supposed advocate of workers rights, when will the minister acknowledge the difficulties faced by ambulance officers and commit to providing additional paramedics and resources to cope with the growing demand? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for the question. I do not suppose to be a workers advocate; I always have been and always will be a workers advocate. I think a lot of people on this side of the House think a lot about workers. They are probably in this place to see if they can make workers’ lot in life better than it was under previous governments when I was a union official. I can assure members that conditions have changed a lot. I thank the member for the question. Today there is a stop-work meeting called by the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union to report back to its Queensland Ambulance Service employees. During the lunch meetings, the Queensland Ambulance Service and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union have agreed that all emergency cases will be responded to by Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics. I repeat: union officials have given an assurances that members at the meetings will respond to emergencies. I can assure the House that the Queensland Ambulance Service is committed to looking after its hardworking and dedicated employees. I take this opportunity to thank those employees. I have spent the last 12 weeks meeting as many emergency service employees as I possibly can throughout Queensland—in the west, far-west, far-north and everywhere I could possibly get to in that time. I thank them for their frank and open discussions, their willingness to come and talk with me and officers from my department. I particularly acknowledge the paramedics of Queensland. I know how hard working they are and how hard working they continue to be. We have the hardest working paramedics in Australia and the most dedicated paramedics in Australia. We are also very lucky to have had the largest injection of paramedics ever in the history of Queensland. I thank the Premier and the previous minister for that injection. In the remaining 18 months of the four years during which that injection is to occur, we will be introducing 350 more paramedics into Queensland. They will be extra paramedics. 3522 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
It is a reality that we are greater consumers of ambulance services now than ever before. We are becoming older and our population is growing. Therefore, our ambulance services are called on more than ever before in the history of Queensland. Our paramedics are better trained than they have ever been. They have come a long way from being stretcher-bearers whose job it was to put people in an ambulance and get them to hospital as quickly as possible. These days, if a person has an event in front of a paramedic in Queensland that person has a 75 per cent chance of surviving. We get patients to hospital in the best possible medical condition.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Kalpowar Station Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (11.30 am), by leave: Today I have received a letter from the principal legal officer of the Cape York Land Council. I want to share it with the House because it deals with the Kalpowar matter to which I referred yesterday in a ministerial statement. It is addressed to me. It states— Kalpowar state land dealings Cape York Land Council acts on behalf of the traditional owners and native title holders of the Kalpowar aggregation, including the area known as Pandanus Park. The Land Council is instructed that the traditional owners and native title holders are prepared to discuss arrangements for the veteran’s ongoing access to and use of that land on the basis that the discussions will be between the indigenous parties and veterans, and with a view to the arrangements being in place at the time the land tenure arrangements are settled with the Queensland Government. Yours sincerely Libby Bunyan The significance of this, in a sense, is that it is a breakthrough. Previously the Cape York Land Council was wanting the Queensland government to finalise tenure arrangements for Kalpowar between themselves and the environment movement prior to negotiations commencing over access arrangements for Vietnam veterans to the Pandanus block on Kalpowar. This letter is significant in that the land council has now agreed to negotiate with the Vietnam veterans prior to the final tenure arrangements for the property being announced by the Queensland government. This is a significant gesture of goodwill on the part of the traditional owners and I believe it should be received as such by the Vietnam veterans. I want to thank the traditional owners for that. It is most certainly endorsed by the Queensland government. I have consulted with the local member for Cook, Jason O’Brien, in relation to it and he supports it. I extend my appreciation to the Cape York Land Council and traditional owners for this gesture. The Queensland government stands ready to assist and facilitate these negotiations.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
Second Reading Resumed from 25 October (see p. 3491). Hon. NITA CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (11.32 am): In supporting the Public Health Bill 2005, I think it is clear that the Beattie government is committed to promoting a healthier Queensland. Central to this commitment is the provision of effective public health services throughout the state, and this should be evident to everyone following yesterday’s announcements in the mini budget. This Public Health Bill marks another major reform to public health legislation in the state and will replace most of the outdated 1937 Health Act. It will provide a strong framework for the management of public health issues into the future for dealing with public health risks, minimising the spread of contagious conditions, infection control in health facilities, child protection, health information management and responding to public health emergencies. The bill also, for the first time, introduces comprehensive provisions to establish public health inquiries. The bill takes a proactive approach to the prevention and control of health risks associated with particular pests such as mosquitos. It gives the chief executive of Queensland Health the capacity to establish an environmental health event register and to monitor the health effects of a particular event, such as a chemical fire. It provides for the mandatory notification of child abuse or neglect, which requires a doctor or registered nurse to notify their concern to the Department of Child Safety. In this bill local government’s ability to respond to the dispersal of certain hazardous substances at places other than workplaces has been strengthened. Another key issue is minimising and controlling the outbreak of diseases in child-care centres and in schools. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3523
Government responsibility for public health had its origins in early 19th century Britain when the pioneer in environmental health, Edwin Chadwick, made the case for government regulation of matters directly related to public health to reduce the incidence and spread of infectious conditions such as smallpox, tuberculosis and typhoid fever prevalent in the high-density urban environment that had developed with the Industrial Revolution. His work helped provide the foundation of the first British Public Health Act, widely seen as the starting point for environmental health policy in Westminster systems. In Australia public health legislation based on the British model dates back to the New South Wales Quarantine Act 1832. Public health, as we understand it today, focuses on issues directly related to the health of the population and includes psychological, social and physical elements. Environmental health is a key component of public health, providing the basic infrastructure on which all human health is built. The discipline of environmental health addresses emerging health risks arising from the pressures placed on the environment from human development, such as waste disposal and water usage. This Public Health Bill 2005 before the House allows for action to be taken in Queensland to control public health risks. The provisions will replace the nuisance provisions in the Health Act 1937 relative to an animal, structure, substance or other thing that is, or is likely to become, a breeding ground or harbourage for designated pests such as mice, rats or mosquitos. They will include issues that are hazardous to human health and likely to contribute to disease in humans such as designated pests, water supplies, waste removal or dispersal of a pesticide, herbicide, solvent or other chemical at a place other than a workplace. Local governments in Australia have always had a primary role in maintaining public health standards in the local government area. The public health functions that are typically the responsibility of local governments include the provision of a safe, potable water supply; the removal, treatment and management of solid and liquid waste; mosquito control; the control of vermin; the control of nuisances including animals, dust, noise and overgrown lots; smoke and fumes; safety of noxious and hazardous goods; the prevention of infectious diseases; the management of sharps; the management of recreational water, including public pools and spas; street cleaning; immunisation; the control of mass events; public health planning and promotion; environmental pollution response and clean-up; and protecting health in disasters and emergencies. In 2000 Queensland Health’s Public Health Services, the Local Government Association of Queensland and local governments of Queensland themselves developed a public health partnership protocol in relation to the provision of public health services to the population of Queensland. The assistance provided by Queensland Health and the Department of Industrial Relations to better enable local government officers to respond to asbestos related complaints demonstrates this government’s commitment to working with local government on these issues. However, this bill also recognises that the state bears the ultimate responsibility for protecting public health. Where a local government fails to act in relation to a significant public health risk, the chief executive of Queensland Health may take action in relation to that risk. The public health provisions are not intended to override local laws about public health risks. However, to allow for a consistent statewide approach to a particular public health risk, regulations about public health risks will override inconsistent local laws to the extent of any inconsistency. This bill does replace most of the outdated 1937 Health Act. It does mark another major reform, and it will provide a strong framework for the management of public health issues well into the future. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (11.38 am): I rise to address the Public Health Bill 2005. This bill’s objective is to protect public health through cooperation between the state government, local government and health care providers in the community. It has always been my belief that was the purpose of the health system all along. However, with the revelations exposed by the Forster report revealing incredible deficiencies, I doubt there is a single person in Queensland who has much faith that the health system could cope in any crisis. I think the attitude of ‘shoot the messenger’ is a fundamental flaw in the government’s approach to problems brought to it by members representing their constituents. I can speak only about this government because during my time in this place I have not experienced any alternative government. I would hope that the same cover-up culture would not in exist in future governments. However, I have very little hope of that because since coming to this place I have been very disillusioned by the attitudes of most members in this place who appear willing to sacrifice the people for the political fight for power. The bill addresses a wide range of issues including public health risks and minimising the spread of contagious conditions, infection control in health facilities, child protection, the passing on of health information and responses to emergencies. The bill empowers the minister to declare a public health emergency in the event that a serious outbreak may impact on Queenslanders’ health and allows emergency officers to take any necessary actions to respond to an emergency. One health emergency currently mobilising the world—and one that has been mentioned quite a lot in this debate—is the avian influenza, or what is commonly called bird flu. As has often been stated by health experts, the eventuality of bird flu in Australia is not if but when. The future will tell. 3524 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
The establishment of multiple intensive poultry shed facilities in the Esk shire and many other shires abutting the Wivenhoe Dam—and members know that it is the water supply for the millions of people of Brisbane—is a cause for great concern. Solid material contamination from these sheds has a lot of people in south-east Queensland worried. The possibility of bird flu compounds that worry. These chicken sheds ring the city of Brisbane. Their proximity to large water supplies such as the Pumicestone Passage is a cause for huge concern. The waters of the Pumicestone Passage and Wivenhoe Dam are inhabited by migratory birds—that is, migratory birds from Asia which have a high likelihood of carrying avian flu. The thought of these birds dying in Brisbane’s water supply or any other is not palatable. I am not a medical person or a scientist, so I would appreciate knowing whether, if the birds die in the water, rotting carcasses of infected birds can release the virus into the water. Is the virus temperature sensitive? Would it survive long enough to affect swimmers or others enjoying water activities? These issues may be thought of by those who know to be silly little issues or concerns. For the majority of us who do not know, they are things we worry about. Reports that the virus has the ability to mutate to a virulent form affecting humans has mobilised world governments. We must do everything in our power to minimise what could be or is expected to be a condition which has a high death toll. Tony Abbott, the federal minister for health, has publicly stated that the expected fatality rate is one in 10. It was recently reported on television—and I have heard other members comment on this during the debate—that the death rate for avian flu could be as high as one in three. The figures they stated were that, of 112 cases, some 37 people had passed away. It has been said that these are alarmist reports. That may be so. They may be alarmist, but we should be alarmed if the figures are true. It has also been acknowledged that the discovery of the mosquito-carried dengue fever just to the north of us has also set authorities on alert. The cost to the population, industry, business and individuals alike in varying degrees for any infectious or contagious condition, regardless of the carrier, will have an impact on not only Queensland’s economy but also Australia’s economy because it will affect our trade with other countries, migration and tourism. As we all know, Queensland relies heavily on the continuation of the current growth of population and tourism to fund the mini budget in the future. Another issue I would like to raise when it comes to impacting on the health of our communities will be the devastating effect—it may occur to some but not the rest of us because it has been reported that they are moving slowly—of fire ants. I read with some concern of the near death of a worker who fell into a nest while endeavouring to help eradicate fire ants. There is a possibility of another cover-up by this government in terms of the extent of the spread of fire ants. Governments might not see this as a health issue, but I am pretty sure that those who have been attacked by fire ants will see the alleviation of their pain as a primary health concern. One of the issues raised in the bill is that of immunisation. As a mother I can remember lining up to get my children immunised against those conditions classed as possibility life threatening—polio, whooping cough et cetera. At the time I remember very clearly that there were those parents who believed very strongly that they were justified in their opposition to vaccinating their own children. At the time we all thought that they were probably stupid to not take the opportunity to protect their children. They and others like them think that their arguments are very valid. Today many people feel the same. During my days in business—and that is not too long ago—I served a customer who had actually contracted whooping cough, a condition that I had never seen before because people had been vaccinated against it. I never knew anything about it other than the stories people had told me about how it affected children in years past. Today it has become more common, but it need not have. It is a horrible sight to see a newborn fighting the illness coughing and struggling for breath. Any parent who has seen that could not help but be moved and affected. A friend working in child care has said that the centre in which she works refuses to take children if the parents cannot show that their child has been fully immunised. Children with any contagious condition are always asked to stay away until they are better. But for some diseases, such as measles and mumps, the infectious period is often over before the visual evidence is apparent. I feel that in some instances this particular part of the bill will be hard to enforce. Many members have during their contributions to this debate talked about asbestos as if it is the only issue. But there are many other issues that I have already referred to and many more that I will not go into because they have been spoken about by just about every member. This is an issue that I want to make a contribution about. I welcome the fast-tacking of the removal of asbestos roofs in schools. There are a lot of roofs out there in need of replacement. There are a large number in my electorate, but very few have been targeted to be replaced in the first batch. I am extremely grateful that some are on the list. I believe that, in an area that has been labelled as being in the extreme storm belt, it is essential that these roofs be replaced as a matter of urgency. As most will know and acknowledge, the storms have begun early this summer. A government member interjected. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3525
Mrs PRATT: If the member would like to listen to the argument I will give it. Most have acknowledged that the storms have begun early this year. There are predicted to be severe storms with large hailstones ranging from golf ball size to fist size. The minister and many others have talked about asbestos roofs which are coated being safe. I agree with that. I acknowledge that as long as painted walls in houses are not damaged the fibres will be contained. Any roof bombarded by a golf ball size or fist size hailstone—I say ‘bombarded’ because unless people have experienced this they will not really know what I am talking about—will not be left undamaged. These asbestos roofs throughout the South Burnett and Brisbane Valley need to be attended to. Regardless of the objections in this place, this would be in the best interests of all who occupy those buildings. A lot of places do not get the hailstorms that we get. A lot of places do not get the large hailstones that we have been getting and it is reported we will continue to get over the summer season. The concern is so great that I have people in my office stating that they will actually remove their children from the schools if the roofs are not replaced. Those who have dealt with asbestos on a daily basis in the past know exactly how damaging it can be and how it only takes a little bit of asbestos in the lungs to cause harm. It all hurts. It does not matter whether the asbestos is in someone’s roof or in the schools. The responsibility of the government is to look after the schools. The responsibility for the home is with the person who owns it. We are not talking about just a couple of people in one house; we are talking about hundreds of children possibly being exposed to asbestos in roofs damaged—have no doubt about it—by hailstones the size of golf balls or fists. We have seen this quite often and it is technically not even summer. There are many issues, and many others have spoken at some length about them so I will not repeat what has been expressed. This bill is not perfect, and the impost on local government as proposed by the bill will be a fiercely contested section of the bill and one which I do not personally support. Overall, it is necessary to be prepared for any, if not all, possibilities. I do support the intent of the bill. In this place we can pass as much legislation as we like. We can make all sorts of plans to combat issues, but appropriate amounts of money must support that legislation or we will have wasted our time and effort. The government must recognise its responsibilities and be prepared to cover the cost and not just continue to pass it on. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (11.50 am): I am pleased to speak to the Public Health Bill 2005, which replaces most of the outdated 1937 Health Act. One aspect of this bill is that which seeks to protect Queensland’s children from child abuse or neglect. This government has embarked on major reforms to improve child protection in this state. As many members have said before me, there is nothing more important than the health and safety of our children. Whilst we in this place are horrified by stories that we hear, it only reinforces our resolve to protect the children who are at risk. Under the provisions of this bill, a designated medical officer may hold a child considered to be at risk of harm for up to a total of 96 hours in a health facility. This allows time for proper medical assessments to be made and, if necessary, child protection measures to be put in place under the Child Protection Act. Taking a child from its parent is not something that is done lightly, but the health and safety of the child must always be paramount. This bill ensures that the welfare of children remains our priority. Many thousands of young children are cared for in child-care centres in Queensland. Parents, many who leave their children in the care of others out of financial necessity, must be able to leave their children knowing that they will be protected as far as is possible from contagious and other diseases. This bill provides that a person in charge of a child-care centre may exclude a child if they believe the child may have a contagious condition. To ensure this power is used effectively, children can only be excluded after consulting with Queensland Health. The bill also places obligations on parents. A parent or carer who knows or ought to reasonably know that a child has a contagious condition cannot send their child to a school or child-care centre. These provisions are particularly important to the campaign to reduce the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases. Principals or persons in charge of child-care services who act reasonably under these provisions are protected from liability under the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (11.52 am): There is a sense of deja vu in rising to speak to this bill. The Public Health Bill has been under review in Queensland for about 10 years. In 1998 as shadow health minister I stood in this place when the then health minister, Wendy Edmond, used as an excuse that the need to change the Chief Health Officer’s role was the fact that this Public Health Bill was just about to come before the parliament. However, she presided over the most disgraceful act of ripping away the powers of the principal quality monitor over Queensland Health and putting them under the chief executive officer—the chief bean counter—of Queensland Health. Her excuse was that this was about good management and that it needed to happen and happen urgently. The story she did not tell, though, was that there was more than just a hint of the fact that there was a move to remove the accountability and the role of an independent officer’s view over Queensland Health with regard to quality. There was the other issue where the Chief Health Officer of Queensland was known to stand up to the then director-general, and was known to have very strong views and strong disagreements with the then director-general of Queensland Health. 3526 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
Surely in a health system we should encourage people to have those constructive voices of difference if it is about ensuring quality. But what happened? While the then Chief Health Officer was away on leave, the then health minister agreed to the redrafting of provisions that removed the power of the Chief Health Officer, making them subject to the chief bean counter. The result was that the person who was the independent statutory office holder—the principal quality monitor—of Queensland Health left and Gerry FitzGerald was put in that position. We are living out the legacy of this government’s disgraceful moves to downgrade the principal quality monitor in Queensland Health, and that is indicative in many other decisions where it did not like dissenting voices that talked about quality. The disgraceful evidence of that is the Patel saga in Bundaberg which is not just about a bad doctor; it is about a bad system which cannot handle dissenting voices that talk constructively about quality issues and challenge the status quo. I want to quote from my speech in this place on 12 November 1998 when this government rushed through the amendments, stripping away the powers of the Chief Health Officer. I said— In most jurisdictions the historical reason for the separation of powers between the financial management and public health streams of the various Health Departments has been the significant number of instances where financial accountability sometimes conflict with the action necessary to protect the health of the public. Similarly, there have been many instances in the past—and these will no doubt occur again in the future—where the bureaucracy wished to prevent the accountable Minister from understanding the full impact of administrative decisions that negatively affected public health and wellbeing. We do not want bean counters in charge of a public health system without appropriate checks and balances and without an independent, impartial and totally transparent system that makes sure that concerns of public health are paramount. It is imperative for an independent, accountable and totally professional medical practitioner to be the holder of the statutory powers—not second-hand powers delegated by a chief executive officer. That practitioner should hold the statutory powers in their own right to uphold the public health good for all Queenslanders. Of all the Government departments providing service to Queenslanders the Health Department is the most important, for the Health Department deals in the sanctity of life. Consequently, no cover-ups, no white washes, no ‘sweeping under the carpet’ must occur within this Government department. It is interesting to reflect that representatives of a Labor Government who emphasised the need for accountability, transparency, honesty and ethics to ensure that that sad example of what one could expect—Ward 10B—could never occur again are setting the Health Department on a course where, unfortunately, many Ward 10Bs could occur in the future; those same representatives will vote for the removal of the statutory powers from the independent, impartial and accountable officer and place them firmly with the chief bean counter. It gives me no pleasure to put those words before the House and say, ‘I told you so.’ But what we have today in Queensland is the disgraceful situation where surgeons have operated without adequate qualifications, where surgeons allegedly with qualifications have butchered people and the system has failed to address that in a timely way. That failure of the system is a direct result of this government’s appalling bullying manner which goes to the head of government and goes to the fact that it did not respect the need for an independent person to monitor the quality in Queensland Health. What is interesting about the amendment the minister brings to the House with regard to the Chief Health Officer is that it says that it will update the functions of the Chief Health Officer and remove the statutory position of manager of the public health services for the state in line with recommendations made in the Queensland Health systems review final report in September 2005. I certainly welcome that upgrade and clarification, but it does not go far enough. We need to ensure that there is clearly an ability for the Chief Health Officer not only to have the right of access to information and direct reporting to the minister but also to be able to report to the parliament. Where independent monitors are in place reporting upon standards of health, we need to ensure that is not massaged by a government that is watching its political ends rather than the outcomes of patients. When we have a very strong centralised bureaucracy like Queensland Health, particularly one that has now been shown to have abused that centralised power, we need to have quality checks and balances that address that imbalance. We must have that. So although I welcome some of the amendments that are before the House, I say that they do not go far enough to address the fundamental lack of checks and balances against abuse. Although we need good fiscal management, we must make sure that the watchdogs that ensure a standard of clinical care at the grassroots and also systemically at the highest level have the power to enforce that standard and are not punished for speaking out. This is a government that has talked about political corruption that occurs when there are not the appropriate checks and balances in place, as has occurred in the past, particularly with regard to the police force and police powers. We saw a royal commission and mechanisms put in place to provide appropriate checks and balances on those powers. One group of people who have the greatest power over the lives of average Queenslanders are the people who provide medical assistance. Yet we have seen the situation in which people have died because of an abuse of that power. Although the individuals who performed the operations or failed to provide appropriate care have a responsibility, that responsibility does not rest with them alone; it rests also with those who administered the system and who failed to heed the calls for a check and balance upon that power of fiscal and political management at the expense of quality outcomes for patients. That is why I will never forget what Wendy Edmond and the Beattie government did. Many members opposite blithely followed Wendy Edmond across the chamber and voted with her to strip away the powers of the quality monitoring officer. They said, ‘It was nothing particularly; it was just a little 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3527 administrative change.’ Bulldust! Today in Queensland we have seen the impact of that decision and it makes me very angry. I saw one of the victims of Patel. I have seen the scars. It just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. It makes me sick. During the Rockhampton sittings of the parliament I met one of the victims of Patel. He showed me what had happened to him. It is amazing to think that, under this government, such complaints went unheard. Over the past two years, when people came forward with claims that a doctor was committing such terrible acts, they did not find an ear with this government. That occurred only because of a nurse who dared to speak up and who found the ear of a member of parliament. She went to him, presented the clinical evidence and was able to say, from a clinical perspective, that her clinical views were not being listened to. It is a disgrace that this government brought about a crumbling system in which people were too frightened to speak out. So let us not forget what occurred in 1998. Let us not forget the abolition of the critical powers of the principal quality monitor. Let us not forget, when we vote on this amendment, that it is an admission of the failure of this government. It is an admission that it got it wrong when all of those Labor members trotted across the chamber and voted with Wendy Edmond. I will say again that this imbalance of power has to be addressed further. This government has demonstrated that it bullies people and it tries to shoot the messenger. It did that to Rob Messenger when he stood up in this place after receiving very clear information from a clinical source. I say to this government: we will not forget. We will not tolerate its abuse of the public health system. We will not tolerate its move to means test people who want to access public health. This morning I heard the Premier say, ‘We’re going to have a health economist. It is not set in stone yet.’ That was a very interesting comment. That health economist is also looking at the issue of flogging off public aged care beds. That is already happening under this Labor government. The Labor government says, ‘It is not our policy.’ Allegedly, it is not its policy, but it flogged them off at Hervey Bay after saying that it was not going to do that. A submission was presented to cabinet saying that that is what it wanted to do. Then the government came out and publicly denied that it had a policy to flog off aged care beds. Then the government went ahead with that at Hervey Bay against its express promise to the community not to do that. Is flogging off aged care beds a policy or is it not? I refer to the situation at Yeppoon. This Beattie Labor government promised a new hospital and nursing home. Guess what? Yeppoon is getting a hospital, but it is not getting a nursing home. The government is talking about flogging off those beds as well. Do we have a Labor government policy yet on aged care beds? It seems to be flogging them off already, whether or not it has announced its policy, which to me smells awfully like a Labor government policy to flog off aged care beds. So when the government says that it is going to have a health economist look at the issue of whether it should privatise public aged care beds—and members should just wait for the outcome of the health economist’s report—I say: get real! You are already doing it. This is going to be just a rubber- stamping of something that is already a reality. That means we can honestly say: if you are doing it with aged care beds, your free public hospital system is next. The government says, ‘Wait, we are going to examine these things and then we will consider it,’ but the reality is that it is already acting on these issues. The government has already moved to flog off a number aged care beds. A submission was accepted by cabinet back in 1998. Certainly, we will just see another person rubber-stamp what the government is already doing. So I have real reason to be fearful that the so-called fix that this government wants to bring to health is a desperate means of just reshuffling the deck chairs with the bureaucrats and then forcing Queenslanders, who had a public health system, into a situation in which they will have to turn up with their credit card or their bank statement to demonstrate whether or not they should have access to our health system. One day that will be for elective surgery; the next day it will be for access to emergency departments. That is not in the interest of public health in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Member for Maroochydore, I have allowed you some latitude, but I ask you to address the matters contained in the bill before the House. Miss SIMPSON: If we want to have a good public health system in Queensland, we need to have good access to the public health system in Queensland. That is not going to come about through stratifying people’s access—by saying to them, ‘You have to pay or you do not get access,’ when they have as much right on the basis of clinical need as anybody else to access that system. Once again, it worries me that the members opposite—the members of the government who made health more about financial and political management and not about basic care to the patients on the basis of clinical need—are going down the same road with this rationalised approach of credit card medicine in Queensland. They said they were going to save Medicare. Now they just want to sell it out. Given the abuse by the centralised bureaucracy and the fact that there has been no reform proffered by this government to address such issues, I say that we need stronger checks and balances on the management of clinical care in Queensland. There are many fine doctors, nurses and allied health workers who want to come back to the health system. A PR marketing campaign from the 3528 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 government is not going to crack it. What will do it is a reform of the culture and giving those people the right to make clinical decisions, with appropriate morbidity and mortality checks and balances in place, with the appropriate checks in place, to ensure that the treatment that people are told that they are getting is, in fact, what they are getting. Public health affects everybody. It should not be a matter of whether a person has a chequebook or a bank statement to prove they should have access to public health. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (12.07 pm): I rise today to speak in support of the health information management data collections and registers, which this Public Health Bill 2005 continues to provide for. Before I embark on my speech, I would like to thank the Caloundra Hospital and the Nambour Hospital for taking care of a group of tourists who arrived on the Sunshine Coast for the holiday from hell they had. The father took seriously ill in a caravan park in Maroochydore and was transported to Caloundra Hospital, where he received exceptional care. Two days later his daughter broke her ankle in the surf and was taken to Nambour Hospital. The family could not speak more highly of the service and care that she received. It is always wonderful to be able to compliment people who are at the coalface. It is lovely to know that our tourists can come here and be very confident in our public health system. In order to effectively monitor health status trends it is essential that mechanisms be established to provide for the collection of relevant health information. The Health Act 1937 currently provides for the collection of data for, and the operation of, the peri-natal statistics collection, the Cancer Register and the Pap Smear Register. The provisions of the Health Act concerning these data collections have been carried over to the Public Health Bill but modernised to enhance operational effectiveness and accord with current drafting practices. The purpose of each data collection is clearly set out in the bill. In general, the databases provide for the collection of information to help monitor the incidence of certain diseases, conditions or abnormalities that are prevalent in the community; monitor and analyse interventions to treat or prevent these diseases, conditions or abnormalities; increase public awareness; and in the planning of health services and strategies to prevent or minimise the impact of these medical conditions. Without reliable information of this kind, the government would be hampered in its ability to deliver effective health services to Queensland. The bill recognises that the right to collect health information—such as that stored on the peri- natal statistics collection, the Cancer Register and the Pap Smear Register—must be accompanied by a responsibility to protect the privacy of this information. Accordingly, the bill places strict duties of confidentiality on those persons who have access to this information. However, in accordance with the purposes of each of the databases, the bill provides for information to be disclosed under certain circumstances—for example, as aggregate data that could not identify any person; with the written consent of the person to whom the information relates; or if there is an agreement with the Commonwealth, state or another entity, provided that agreement is prescribed under a regulation. This exception will allow data collected in Queensland to be used by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to compile national health and welfare statistics. This information will then be used to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians by informing community discussion and decision making. The processes in the bill ensure that agreements with other entities are formalised and scrutinised through the regulation-making process to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards to protect privacy. We all know about insurance companies, superannuation payouts et cetera. The peri-natal statistics collection was established in November 1986 to enable information about the birth of every child in Queensland to be recorded in a centralised database. The Public Health Bill ensures that information about babies born in Queensland will continue to be collected and used to monitor patterns of obstetric and neonatal practice, monitor peri-natal mortality rates and congenital abnormalities in the state, assist with the planning of obstetric and peri-natal health services, and undertake research into peri-natal care. As with the current Health Act, the bill imposes a statutory obligation on all public and private hospitals as well as private midwives or medical practitioners who deliver babies outside hospitals to notify the chief executive of Queensland Health about the delivery of a child in Queensland. If there is no doctor or midwife at the birth, the mother is required to notify the chief executive of the birth. The bill also enables the chief executive to require a person who has made a notification to provide further information to ensure the accuracy, completeness and integrity of the collection. Information in the peri-natal statistics collection has been used in articles published in journals such as Australia’s Mothers and Babies, Congenital Malformations, Australia and Indigenous Mothers and their Babies, Australia. In addition, data from the collection is routinely used by the Queensland Maternal and Perinatal Quality Council, which has been established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Minister for Health and the director-general of Queensland Health, through the Chief Health Officer, on matters relating to statewide and facility-specific maternal and peri-natal morbidity and mortality. It is also used by the Queensland Paediatric Quality Council, which has been established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Minister for Health and the director- general of Queensland Health, through the Chief Health Officer, on matters relating to statewide and facility-specific paediatric morbidity and mortality. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3529
The bill also ensures that important information about the nature and extent of cancer in Queensland will continue to be collected. The Queensland Cancer Register was established in 1982 in response to calls from community, state and national organisations, such as the National Cancer Clearing House, Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the Queensland Cancer Fund, about the need for statewide information on cancer. As with the current Health Act, the bill imposes a statutory obligation on public hospitals, private hospitals, nursing homes and pathology laboratories to notify the chief executive of Queensland Health about persons suffering from cancer. Since October 2000 the Queensland Cancer Fund has managed the Queensland Cancer Register on behalf of the chief executive of Queensland Health. Amendments to the Health Act in 1998 provided for the day-to-day management of the Queensland Cancer Register to be undertaken by the Queensland Cancer Fund. In addition to assuming responsibility for the operation of the Queensland Cancer Register, the Queensland Cancer Fund made a commitment that it would establish a research unit to optimise the use of data comprising the register. The Queensland Cancer Fund has established the Viertel Centre for Research in Cancer Control, incorporating an epidemiology unit and a behavioural science unit. The centre conducts collaborative research in cancer control with a focus on issues of importance to Queenslanders. The research conducted by the centre will enhance and build on the best knowledge available in cancer control today and translate it into effective statewide programs for cancer prevention, early protection and improved patient services for the people of Queensland and beyond. The transitional provisions in the Public Health Bill provide for the Queensland Cancer Fund to continue to have responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the Cancer Register on behalf of the chief executive of Queensland Health. Information from the Queensland Cancer Register has been used successfully in research projects that examine the cause, treatment and prevention of cancer, which is the leading cause of death in Australia today. Cancer has been recognised as a national health priority area because of the major burden it places on our community. Cancer is the cause of 30 per cent of male deaths and 25 per cent of female deaths each year. For men, the most common form of cancer causing death is lung cancer. For women, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer causing death. The most effective proven method of intervention to reduce mortality and morbidity from breast cancer is through regular screening of women at risk using screening mammography. The Cancer Register records the results of these tests and enables the rate of these cancers to be monitored. Wearing pink ties is a lovely gesture, but we really need all members of parliament—both males and females—to go out there and sell the story about breast screening. It is no good just doing the little things—the dib dib dib, dob dob dob and getting our faces out there in pretty photos and ‘don’t we look great?’. Get out there, boys, and have your say and support this! Queensland has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world and a much higher rate than any other state or territory in Australia. It has been recognised as a ‘priority’ cancer to be targeted through initiatives to improve the prevention, detection, treatment and management of cancer. Research demonstrates that prevention and early detection and intervention greatly improve the outcome of cancer treatment. Data from the Queensland Cancer Register may be used to improve prevention strategies and early detection and intervention programs. As part of the election commitment towards Queensland Health enhancing and expanding Queensland Cancer Registers, a statewide Queensland Cancer Control Analysis Team, QCCAT, has been established. Because QCCAT is an approved quality assurance committee, the bill enables information from the register to be disclosed to QCCAT for the purposes of data collection and public health monitoring. QCCAT assists the Queensland Cancer Register in further developing techniques for data collection and statistical analysis. QCCAT is developing a statewide database and reporting tool that will enable the routine reporting of waiting times, for example, from diagnosis to treatment. Patient outcomes can also be reported to compare them with evidence based best practice. This work will identify service areas where intervention is best targeted. These initiatives will result in better health outcomes in the area of cancer prevention and control. The bill contains confidentiality provisions to protect the privacy of people who have information on the registers. It will be an offence to disclose confidential information without authority. Where there is an agreement between Queensland and the Commonwealth, another state or entity, information can be disclosed to the Commonwealth, another state or entity, provided that the agreement is prescribed under a regulation. Let us look at the Pap Smear Register. The Health Act 1937 was amended by the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 to provide for the establishment and operation of the Pap Smear Register. The provisions in the Health Act have been carried over to the bill, with minor amendments being made to improve the functionality of the Pap Smear Register. The Pap Smear Register is a database of pap smear results and related tests. It acts as a back-up reminder for women who are overdue for a pap smear and a safety net for women who have had an abnormal pap smear. The register can also advise a woman who has had an abnormal pap smear result about appropriate medical investigation and intervention. The register is optional—but I highly recommend it—so a woman can elect for her information not to be included in the register. But why would women opt not to have that 3530 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 information included on the register when they are sent a letter and kept on the move? We are all terribly busy, so getting these little reminders once every 12 months or every two years is invaluable. A woman may also require that her screening history be removed or changed. This bill makes it possible for women to change their demographic details, such as their address, over the phone after appropriately identifying themselves. This allows consistency across health services and improves on the current system, which requires that contact details be changed in writing. There is really no excuse for any woman in this state to not have her name on that register. If they move, there is still no excuse. Pick up the phone and put that phone call through. The chief executive may request further information about a woman’s registered screening history to ensure the accuracy, completeness or integrity of the register. If requested to do so by the chief executive, a health practitioner or a director of a pathology laboratory, they must give this further information within the reasonable time stated in the notice. This will allow the register to be used to appropriately follow up women who have received an abnormal result, and this could possibly mean the difference between life and death. This is just another part of a fantastic raft of measures in this Public Health Bill. My congratulations go to the minister and his staff. I know that they have all been working under an enormous amount of pressure and every incremental effort is appreciated. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (12.20 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Public Health Bill. Let me say by way of introduction that there are many people in Maryborough who feel that the greatest public health risk is the downgrading of services at Maryborough Hospital. That is something that I have spoken about at length in this House and that I will continue to speak to the minister about. I might put on the public record that the minister and I have had useful discussions this morning about strategies for moving forward with Maryborough Hospital. From the way that I have been treated in two preselections over a number of years, I do not owe the National Party any favours, but I find it interesting that members have tried to portray Joh as 668, the brother of the beast, in terms of his political toings and froings. I remember as a kid growing up in Brisbane that we had a fully funded health system without the $800 million in gaming revenue that we now have plus the GST receipts to the states. Mr Cummins: How many decades ago was that? Tell us! What was the population? Mr CHRIS FOLEY: The minister opposite loves to cite figures when it suits him, but the bottom line is that we have the health situation we have now because it has been neglected by the federal government not providing enough doctor training places and the state government not having a sufficiently good level of social planning to take into account things like population flows from other states. Members can yell all they like from the other side, but the reality is that they have dropped the ball. What is the solution? We have heard that a razor gang is going to find $100 million in fat from the system. My question would be why that has not been done the previous year, the year before and the year before that by subsequent governments. I do not always disagree with everything that the Premier says, but I certainly disagree with more pokies, because anyone who knows me knows that I am appalled at poker machines. They are shameful wreckers of the lives of people who struggle with addictive behaviours. Let me turn to avian or bird flu and the issue of pandemics and public health. Tony Abbott talked about one in 10 deaths from avian or bird flu. I certainly do not want to be a person who contributes to further scaremongering or anything like that, but we do need to look at the overall health effects. One of the things that has been interesting is the proliferation of internet spruikers and con artists trying to make people buy avian or bird flu viruses on the internet via spam. I think that is an absolutely shameful and terrible disgrace given the current level of fear about these particular issues. Turning to the bill, I want to refer to part 2 and clause 15(1), in particular paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (a) applies if the chief executive is ‘reasonably of the opinion there is a significant risk to public health from a public health risk in a local government’s area’. Paragraph (b) applies if the chief executive is ‘satisfied a local government has not done, or sufficiently done, a thing in the administration or enforcement of this Act’. I would like some clarification from the health minister as to how that can be applied in a non-subjective manner. For people in a bureaucratic or ministerial framework to start making judgments as to whether a local government has or has not sufficiently done something I would have thought would be a particularly difficult thing. Paragraph (c) applies if the chief executive is ‘reasonably of the opinion that doing the thing is necessary to remove or reduce the risk to public health from a public health risk, or prevent a risk to public health from recurring’. Again, I think these are good moves but I would certainly like some comments from the minister as to how those things could not become subjective in nature. Under part 2, clause 15(3) states— The chief executive may do the thing and the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the chief executive are a debt payable by the local government to the State. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3531
If I were in a local government position, that would absolutely terrify me. The question I would ask is: is that going to result in protracted legal argument in court cases against the state government as to whether the billing for actions taken was fair in the light of what could be a subjective judgment as to whether they have or have not done the appropriate thing in terms of those public health issues? I realise that this is a very hotly debated issue. If we look at avian or bird flu, back in May 1997 a three-year-old boy became the first of six people to die in Hong Kong of a mysterious virus, later identified as H5N1, which was the first known human death from the bird flu strain. Unfortunately, since then night after night we have seen news reports showing poultry being killed and so forth to significantly reduce that risk. In December 2003 South Korea confirmed that it had an outbreak of the virus and slaughtered more than 2.5 million chickens and ducks in a bid to halt the outbreak. Then a different strain, H797, was said to be responsible for the death of a veterinarian in the Netherlands who had visited an infected farm. To jump forward to January 2004, Vietnam said that the suspected number of human deaths had risen to 13 as Taiwan announced an outbreak of a different strain of bird flu. So we see this virus mutating, altering and spreading in a rather alarming manner. Outbreaks were also reported in Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, China, Pakistan and Thailand. When we consider that we are somewhat of a white Anglo-Saxon enclave living in the middle of South-East Asia, this is something that we need to take very seriously. In February we saw the first cases confirmed in the USA, Canada and Thailand. The virus was detected in a panther, a tiger and also in domestic cats. In August three new deaths were confirmed in Vietnam and an outbreak was reported in Malaysia. In January 2005 the first fatal human case was reported in Cambodia and three more followed. In March, North Korea officially announced that it has been affected by the disease. In July, the first of three fatalities was announced in Indonesia. In August, there was confirmation that the disease has spread to Khazakstan and Mongolia and the vast Russian region of Siberia. So there is no question that this is a pandemic that is spreading world wide. On 7 October ducks in the Danube delta in Romania were reported to be infected and the virus was confirmed as the original one, H591, eight days later. I am going to go through these quickly. On 13 October, the virus was reported in north-western Turkey and on 17 October in Greece, in a city close to the Turkish coast. On 19 October China reported that an outbreak killed 2,600 birds on a farm in its inner-Mongolian region. So this is certainly spreading. What has the federal government done? It has to really set the pace as the lead agency here. The federal government is reported to be stockpiling antiviral medicines and has said that it would close all air and sea ports in the event of an outbreak. It would have a tragic effect on tourism if suddenly all air and sea ports were closed. That would be a very serious blow to the economy as I believe that tourism is the second biggest economic stimulus in Australia. The British government has bought vaccine for the entire UK population if a pandemic breaks out. I very much applaud the movement of the company—I forget the name of it now—that owns the right to that particular influenza vaccine. It has then turned around and said that it will commence negotiations and allow other companies to produce this antiviral treatment. That is the only reasonable course of action it could take, despite the incredible commercial advantage it could have in preparing that vaccine and being the only source of the vaccine. This is much bigger than profit. It is a worldwide health issue. I turn now to the issue of asbestos, which is a very difficult subject. I have listened to the debate from government members. I have also listened to the debate from opposition members. The one thing that is clear about the asbestos debate is that it is a very difficult issue. My dad was a painter. He repaired roofs. He would always be cutting up asbestos sheeting at our house. In some ways it is a little bit of a lucky dip or an unlucky dip, as the case may be. In my accountancy and financial planning practice, I saw three of my clients die a very slow and painful death from mesothelioma. It is an absolutely horrible disease. I am not going to stoop to making that issue a political issue in this House. It is a very tough issue to face. It is something that both sides of politics have to work through. My only concern is that pushing the onus of this on to local government is a little bit like when we came up with antismoking laws in this House. It was initially said that local government should police the antismoking laws. If I was in local government I would be saying, ‘Well, thanks very much. Thanks for pushing that one on to us that we don’t particularly want.’ I believe that if we make laws in state parliament, generally speaking state parliament should be responsible for the carrying out of those laws, not pushing it on to other levels of government. I finish by saying that earlier on I said that I do not owe any favours to the National Party, but I want to salute Rob Messenger, who was vilified in this House when he brought up the issue of Jayant Patel. I think there are a good many members in this House who should hang their heads in shame. The question I ask is: if he had not raised the issue of Jayant Patel, how many more of Patel’s patients would have died? I personally salute him for having the guts to raise this issue. Even though we can all quip 3532 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 about shooting the messenger, he was certainly shot that day for raising that issue in parliament. I think there would be a good many people in the Bundaberg health district who would be glad that he raised the issue. I know that the Jayant Patel issue has caused this government very significant pain. The people of Bundaberg whose lives have been ruined by that rogue surgeon have also experienced similar pain but at a much more personal level. Generally speaking, I am enthusiastic about this bill, with the reservations that I have raised. I commend it to the House. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (12.33 pm): I also rise to support the Public Health Bill 2005. The bill is an overarching bill that effectively replaces a large part of the 1937 Health Act. It provides a modern foundation for managing and effectively anticipating a raft of public health issues that potentially affect Queenslanders. The bill provides for changes in a whole range of public health issues. It is one of those omnibus bills that the department of health spends a lot of time working on. I congratulate the members of the department of health, the minister and the previous minister as well for the extensive work that they have put into changing a bill such as this one. The changes provided for in the bill include a number of things, including providing a statutory power to the Minister for Health for declaring a public emergency. Such powers will provide for prompt public health actions should our community be at risk of a real threat of serious public health emergencies such as we have seen in the recent SARS epidemic. I note that a number of members have talked about the bird flu. I concur with the member for Moggill that we have to be realistic about what, in actual fact, is the status of the bird flu in relation to its transfer to human beings. I think that the irresponsible panic reporting is something that should be condemned widely by everybody. The statutory powers that are contained within the bill that allow for a declaration of a public health emergency are designed to work in conjunction with other legislation such as the Disaster Management Act. They, of course, provide for a comprehensive community response at those times when we are extremely concerned about public health. The bill also provides the power for the Minister for Health to establish public health inquiries. Such inquiries can be established at those times where outbreaks of disease are of significant public health concern and where the source of such a disease needs to be specifically established and cannot be done through normal circumstances. The purpose of these inquiries is to establish a quality approach to disease detection and prevention. These measures are necessary in a world where the mobility of our global community affects Queenslanders and puts them at risk of exposure to those diseases that we probably would not have normally expected to have been exposed to. Again, those concerns in relation to the possible spread of the recent SARS epidemic in Asia highlighted how our neighbours’ health concerns are now our health concerns. We are no longer isolated from the rest of the world. As governments we must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect our communities but, at the same time, to ensure that those people who do suffer from sickness are treated with dignity, compassion and with due regard to their human rights. That is very important to remember. The bill also provides for greater partnerships between state and local governments to deal with a whole range of public health matters. Such things include the discussion about asbestos, which is designed to enable local governments to better enforce control, in particular on private home owners with the handling of their asbestos. The bill provides for better management of the threat from mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, which has been quite devastating in the north. The powers in the bill provide for Queensland Health to establish prevention and control programs and extend to greater search powers for breeding grounds and sites. I know that there are concerns about extended search powers, but if people cannot get to the breeding sites and grounds then they simply cannot effectively control the disease spread. The bill provides for an environmental health register that allows for the voluntary monitoring of people who have health concerns following certain events that may have either a longer or yet undetected health consequence. That is very important for people who may have been exposed to such things as chemical fires and other concerns that they are not sure they are able to, in the short term, detect health issues that may arise. As part of the greater protection for our children, the bill also changes the authority of a designated medical officer to hold children for investigation if that designated medical officer believes that the child is at risk or exposed to the risk of abuse. I think that is a very important component. When we change the child safety legislation, these are all part of the flow-on effects that the health minister has to change in the bills relevant to his portfolio. The bill also provides for greater powers for persons in charge of child-care centres and schools to protect both individuals and groups of children from those children with certain contagious diseases by providing exclusion powers for the person in charge. I know that that is a bit unbelievable for those of us who think that parents would not send their children to child-care centres and schools should they have contagious diseases, but the reality is that parents are under incredible pressure at times and 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3533 unfortunately they do send their sick child to child-care centres and schools. These are important powers but, of course, they must be monitored carefully. The bills also puts a statutory duty on health services to take greater responsibility for the prevention of the risk of infection in their facilities. Anyone who has ever spent an evening in a large accident and emergency department when a group of nursing home or hostel residents have been admitted following food poisoning knows that it is like going to hell and back not only for the poor residents who are suffering from the condition but for the health care workers. Recently there were complaints to my office about the delays at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital accident and emergency department. On investigation, it was found that eight nursing home residents were admitted following a rather disturbing food poisoning episode. It is disturbing and distressing to see compromised infection control in health care facilities. That said, infection control is really important to the majority of health care providers. In particular, nursing homes and hostels know that the aged care industry takes this very seriously. It is certainly part of the aged care standards. I do not think there are too many facilities, particularly under the aged care banner, that do not have a serious and significant approach to infection control. That said, any further statutory obligations on those facilities to reinforce the importance of infection control should not be underestimated. I also note the eloquence with which the member for Noosa discussed the changes to, and the provisions provided for, the research material that is extrapolated from the Cancer Register and the peri- natal statistics register. I could not agree with her more that it is absolutely critical that women stop for that one moment to ensure that they have given a current address with respect to those registers. That said, there are some people who opt off for reasons that they may not necessarily need to have those tests done anymore. I commend the member for Noosa for the passion with which she spoke with respect to that aspect of the bill. Finally, as always with such an omnibus bill, the extensive and incredibly wide range of services that Queensland Health provides is highlighted. It is very easy for us to focus on the acute services and the problems that arise from acute services. However, we should never underestimate the extent of services that Queensland Health provides across this state. The standard to which it does that is high on a regular basis. This particular bill gives us another insight into the extensiveness of that activity. As always, I would like to congratulate this minister and previous ministers and, in particular, the department for the hard work and diligence they have applied in drafting the bill before the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.41 pm): I rise to speak to the Public Health Bill. As other speakers have said, there are many aspects of this bill that are important to community safety and it is important that they are conscientiously followed. There are, however, a couple of areas of concern that I wish to raise. In relation to the administration of public health, the bill marries together the responsibilities of the state government and local government in terms of undertaking certain procedures when there is a threat by either animals or buildings or there are other areas of concern. The legislation requires that in some instances the local government will be responsible for attending to that risk and in differing circumstances it will be the state government. My concern, however—and it was touched on by the member for Maryborough—is that it is not clear whether there will be regulations that will establish the protocol by which local government and state government will liaise in relation to taking these actions. However, the bill does set up a structure whereby the chief executive may decide that the state do the thing and the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the chief executive are a debt payable by the local government to the state—that is, if the local council fails to take action in those circumstances. The explanatory notes talk about the state government liaising with local councils, I assume in setting up protocols in terms of notification. Clause15(5) states— An appointment under subsection (4)— which was the ability to exercise the powers for this act and appoint an authorised person— may be made before or after a local government has not done a thing mentioned in subsection (1)(b). My concern is that the effect of the bill appears to be that there will be liaison between state government and local government in order to appropriately apply and respond to concerns when it comes to areas of infection. However, the ability for the state to appoint the authorised person either before or after local government has not done a thing mentioned in proposed subsection (1), which is respond to the notification, will undermine the trust that I believe could be built between state government and local government. The government is effectively saying, ‘We are going to liaise with you. We will be asking you to respond in the circumstances in which it is appropriate for local government to respond. If you don’t respond, we will appoint an authorised person and they will do it on our behalf and the debt will be attributed back to the local government.’ Then it goes on to say, ‘By the way, we might appoint the authorised person before or after government has failed to fulfil their obligations.’ I think that will undermine the confidence that could be built between the state government and local councils. 3534 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
Infection control is critical to community confidence in the health system. I know that the people who work in the hospital in my electorate, particularly the nursing staff, doctors and administrative people, are excellent. They work tirelessly to provide a good health environment and to provide good care to the residents who present at the hospital. However, they have over time faced a reduction in resources, the closure of beds and wards and changes in staffing levels to the point at which they have been stretched beyond measure in terms of being able to respond to the community need. If anything has affected morale over time, it has been that. One of the concerns that has been brought to me relates to infection control. Because of ward closures, the hospital’s children’s ward has two rooms situated next door to the labour ward. Children come in with infectious diseases—not necessarily always notifiable, obviously. That ward being in close proximity to the labour ward has resulted in clinical concerns being expressed to me about infection control procedures. Obviously, the hospital is going to say that there are procedures and protocols in place. However, that concern has been expressed to me by a number of differing interest groups, both nursing staff or clinicians and parents. I raise that issue in terms of public health. If there is not a proper structure within the hospital to be able to manage infection control, it is fairly difficult for government then to establish and enforce protocols outside their direct jurisdictions in relation to the same matter. The exclusion of unvaccinated children from child-care centres is an issue that has been debated before. I believe the principle is sound and understood by all who have children attending—the parents of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. All of my kids have been vaccinated and, thankfully, they received those vaccinations with minimal complications. We had the high temperatures and a little bit of vexatiousness at the time of vaccination or the following day. However, there were no serious repercussions. There are, however, people who have found that one child might have coped with the vaccination well, but others—and perhaps it was their first child—have reacted very severely to vaccinations and in some instances their health has deteriorated. Often those parents choose not to have any siblings vaccinated. Whilst the principle of exclusion of unvaccinated children can be understood, it needs to be handled very carefully at a state health level and also in terms of the child- care centres when dealing with parents whose children have had these negative reactions to vaccinations. Their concerns are valid, their experiences are real and the discussion and debate that has to be held with them has to be done in a particularly sensitive way. The responsibilities for doctors and nurses to report suspected abuse to the CEO of Child Safety would be welcomed in principle by almost everybody. In the past, doctors and nurses have expressed concern about mandatory reporting obligations. I can understand that from their clinical point of view they feel that it could undermine the trust between them and their patients. However, there is a duty of care on anyone who has the opportunity to observe or investigate potential abuse of children to report that to an agency that can appropriately respond. I am sure we have all had people in our electorates who have been accused of abusing either their child or somebody else’s child. As is the case with humanity, once every now and again those accusations are ill founded. For the occasions when the allegations are found to be baseless or unsubstantiated there are many examples where the suspected abuse is substantiated. The person who had the courage to report that abuse has saved that child and perhaps other children in that family from further abuse. In that context the obligation to report is acceptable to everybody. Whether the CEO is the appropriate person to report to is perhaps a matter of conjecture. However, there should be a reporting obligation at least to a local SCAN team. The legislation sets it out to be the CEO. The power to enter private residences without consent or warrant or the ability to enter without consent or warrant needs to be exercised only in extreme circumstances. Because of the invasion of people’s privacy it needs to be very closely monitored. I would be interested in knowing whether the minister plans undertaking a review in a couple of years time to see how those powers have been exercised, to what extent they have been exercised and in what circumstances they have exercised. Sensitivity needs to be exercised by tracing officers. I seek clarification as to what training will be giving to those officers prior to them taking up their duties. In terms of notifiable diseases there is quite a broad cross-section of areas where infection can occur. There needs to be sensitivity in dealing not only with the infected person but also with the infected person’s families or relatives if it is necessary to go to that extent. Therefore, these tracing officers are going to have to have a high level of discretion and sensitivity in exercising those duties. The local authorities in my area have expressed concern about the obligations proposed in this legislation in relation to the removal of asbestos. A previous speaker on the government side talked about local authorities being able to exercise these responsibilities and the fact that they have the resources to do this and would, of course, be more than willing to undertake these responsibilities. I believe at the moment local authorities are responsible for the removal of asbestos that is identified in home renovations. However, its removal from commercial premises, demolition sites and construction sites is currently the responsibility of Workplace Health and Safety. It is much better resourced than most local councils. I know of circumstances where even Workplace Health and Safety 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3535 officers have been unable—I will use the word ‘unable’ rather than ‘unwilling’—to follow up on complaints about asbestos removal in an appropriate way because they have claimed a lack of resources. If that is the case with the state instrumentality I believe it is reasonable to ask: what resources are going to be allocated to local governments in order for them to assume these additional responsibilities? If there are extra costs—and there will be—to local government they have a limited revenue raising ability. The state government has the benefit of its own revenue-raising powers as well as the benefit of the GST revenue. This morning in question time the Minister for Health said that it was the responsibility of the federal government to continue to pass on to the states funding for programs which the federal government initiated. This was in answer to a question from the member for Gympie. An interjection from a nearby minister was—and rightly so—that the federal government is cost shifting. In many instances that is how local governments feel. Responsibilities are devolved without the accompanying resources, and particularly in this case without the financial resources. The other responsibility that local councils have had is the end-of-life disposal of asbestos product. An individual who has a small sheet of cladding containing asbestos can appropriately seal it in plastic or something similar and identify it before disposing of it at the tip. When there are larger amounts I can only assume that it is considered to be regulated waste and then the council is responsible not only for the receiving of that waste but also for the logging and retention of that waste in a safe manner. In Gladstone last year we had the worst hailstorm most locals could remember. Substantial damage was done to some houses. It was a strip storm. Some houses were more badly affected than others. As it turned out, one of the areas that was quite significantly affected had older postwar houses with fibro roofs. There was quite a lot of asbestos roofing—some of those roofs are still being replaced— that had to be disposed of. At that time there were difficulties in getting properly qualified asbestos certifiers to go to those sites and carry out the work. To unilaterally pass significant asbestos related responsibilities to local government without appropriate resourcing is not acceptable. The Cancer Register and the Pap Smear Register are, as other speakers have said, a great way to track the occurrence of cancer. I think that is a very important statistical exercise. I am not trying to in any way downplay the tragedy for families affected by cancer. It cannot be measured. Often questions have been asked about the propensity of one area or another to certain types of cancer. I think the information that this register may be able to aggregate will be of great help in the future. I believe that the opt-out option for women from the Pap Smear Register should be respected. There are people with differing views about the retention of public information about individuals. People have differing ethnic beliefs. For some of those people it would be very upsetting and embarrassing to know that their personal information was held on a government file. The reasoning for the register is sound, but I believe there should be recognition and respect for those people who wish to keep their names out of the register. It in no way removes or diminishes the responsibility of government in establishing these registers. I look forward to the minister’s answers in relation to the matters raised. I seek leave to table a letter from a constituent of mine involving a health related matter. It is dated in some ways but no less of concern to him. It relates to the loss of his son in November 1993. I will be sending a copy of that letter to the health minister and seeking his response. The constituent has asked that I bring his letter to the attention of the parliament. I seek leave to table that letter. Leave granted. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I look forward to the minister’s response to the issues raised. Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 2.30 pm. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (2.30 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Public Health Bill 2005. This bill fundamentally seeks to provide updated, modern provisions to protect the health of the Queensland public. The Public Health Bill 2005 will replace the Health Act 1937, which is an old act that requires revision in light of emerging public health issues and new drafting standards. The bill introduces some new provisions to allow adequate responses to emerging infectious conditions such as the bird flu. In fact, yesterday I officially opened on behalf of the Minister for Health, the Hon. Stephen Robertson, the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Health Care Symposium for 2005. Nobel laureate and the 1997 Australian of the Year, Professor Peter Doherty, spoke at the symposium about the impact of vaccination on human disease and flu immunity, viral mutations that can evade vaccinations and other challenges associated with flu vaccines. Also, the Deputy Director of the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Mr Alan Hampson, gave the World Health Organisation perspective on flu treatment, in particular the effectiveness of a flu vaccine from one country to another. These clinical experts are delivering their papers in their renowned fields of expertise at the RBWH, a first-class 3536 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 tertiary facility to host this international event. In fact, it is the 15th symposium and I congratulate all of the organising committee who have put on this wonderful symposium. Getting back to the bill, at a time when there is a risk of a pandemic of influenza, we have these international experts in Queensland—in fact, less than a kilometre away from us at the moment—providing us with the most up to date information on this public health issue. In relation to the bill, the bill has been consulted on widely with many stakeholders. A discussion paper was released in 1995, a draft policy paper in 1998 and a consultation draft of the bill was released in 2004. This vast consultation included some 150 non-government stakeholders, state government agencies and local governments. Forums were held with local government in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns. Notices were also placed in metropolitan and regional newspapers and the draft bill could be accessed on the Queensland Health web site. Meetings were also held with key stakeholders. The bill covers a wide range of public health issues, including the control of public health risks, pest prevention and control programs, the control of notifiable conditions, child health and child safety, data collections, and public health inquiries and public health emergencies. With regard to the control of public health risks, the bill specifies the role of local governments in controlling public health risks. The term ‘public health risk’ replaces the old ‘nuisance’ provisions in the Health Act 1937. Local governments’ overall responsibilities in monitoring and enforcing the public health risk are largely carried over from the old Health Act, but their powers have been strengthened. Local governments will be able to issue a public health order. That will require a person to clean up a public health risk. An example of this is a pile of rubbish in a backyard that might be harbouring rats. If the person does not comply with the order, then they will be in breach and a penalty could result. The bill also provides authorised persons with sufficient and appropriate powers to issue and enforce public health orders. The bill clearly defines who is responsible for the management of asbestos problems that occur in the home renovation situation by the home handyperson. I understand that regulations will be developed to make it easy for local government to carry out these responsibilities as outlined in the act. They will clearly explain to householders what they can and cannot do regarding home renovations. This was evident in my own electorate recently where people were confused as to whose responsibility asbestos was, particularly in the home renovation context. I must say that this poor man from Riverview was very frustrated in the process. With regard to prevention and control programs, the bill enables authorised officers to undertake prevention and control programs to eradicate pests if there is an outbreak of a disease carried by the pests or a plague or infestation of a pest. Authorised officers will be able to take action under an authorised prevention and control program approved by Queensland Health. These actions could include cleaning up mosquito breeding sites or removing piles of rubbish, and outbreaks of dengue fever can be controlled with these particular provisions. The bill will require notifications and a notifiable conditions register. The bill replicates a lot of the existing provisions under the Health Act regarding notifiable diseases, but they are now called ‘notifiable conditions’. It is mandatory for doctors, hospitals and pathology laboratories to notify incidents of certain conditions such as HIV, influenza and cholera. The bill continues these provisions and also provides for the appointment of contact tracing officers with powers to require information from people to trace the spread of a notifiable condition. There are new powers to safeguard the community from someone who has a controlled notifiable condition and is behaving in a way that places others at risk. Controlled notifiable conditions are a set of serious notifiable conditions such as HIV, SARS or hepatitis C. A magistrate will have the power to issue an examination order to determine if a person has the controlled notifiable condition and, if they do, the magistrate may issue a behavioural or a detention order. There are safeguards to protect the rights of the person such as appeal mechanisms. In addition to the broad public health provisions, the bill also provides mechanisms for the protection of child health. If a child has a childhood contagious condition, there is a responsibility on the parent to keep their child out of school or child care whilst they have that contagious condition. This is commonsense. Parents should keep their children at home, but we know that, for various reasons, including the fear of the federal government’s new industrial relations legislation, parents are getting very concerned about losing their jobs. If they do attend school or a child- care service, the principal of the school or the director of the child-care service can direct that the parent take the child home. This will be done in close consultation with Queensland Health, which will provide advice about the condition and the period that the child is infectious. In relation to child safety, under the current Health Act a doctor may detain a child in a hospital for up to 96 hours if the doctor believes the child has been maltreated or neglected. The Public Health Bill updates this authority and provides clarity for the protection of children who have been harmed and brought to a health service facility. The Public Health Bill provisions provide the authority to hold a child and to ensure the child’s day-to-day needs as well as his or her protective needs are met. Under the new provisions, persons in charge of health facilities may appoint doctors with appropriate expertise in child health as designated medical officers. A designated medical officer, or a DMO, may order a child be held at a health service facility, such as a hospital, for a period of up to 48 hours if the DMO reasonably believes that that child has been or is being or is at risk of being harmed and is likely to leave or be taken from the facility and suffer harm. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3537
Such an order is called a care and treatment order and enables the child to be cared for in a safe environment until the Department of Child Safety can assess the child’s protective needs. To this end, the DMO must advise the Department of Child Safety of the order in writing as soon as practicable to enable the department to undertake investigations into the child’s protective needs. Under a care and treatment order, a child may be examined and treated. However, such examination and treatment must be reasonable in the circumstances. The DMO may also transfer the child to another facility. For example, a child being held in a smaller regional health facility may require examination or treatment using equipment not available at a smaller facility—for example, an MRI. In such circumstances, the child may be transferred to a larger facility that can provide more appropriate care to the child. The care and treatment order may be extended once for a further 48 hours to a total of not more than 96 hours if a second DMO agrees that the extension is necessary. The DMO will be required to notify the Department of Child Safety of any transfer or extension of the order. Care and treatment orders are designed to complement the processes contained in the Child Protection Act that are aimed at protecting children at risk of harm. Should there be a protection order in place, it is important that the Department of Child Safety is notified. That order will prevail over the care and treatment order to the extent of any inconsistency. It will also be an offence under the bill to unlawfully remove a child from a health service facility if a care and treatment order is in place for that child. This is a very important provision. Also, should a child be taken unlawfully from a health service facility the Department of Child Safety, the Queensland Police Service and Queensland doctors will work collaboratively to ensure the safety of that child. Currently, powers are available in the Child Protection Act for Queensland police and officers of the Department of Child Safety to find and take into custody a child who has been unlawfully taken from a health service facility. We must always protect our children. New guidelines for applying the new care and treatment orders will be developed by Queensland Health’s Child Safety Unit. They will assist the DMOs to determine when it is appropriate to order that a child be held under a care and treatment order. I understand that these guidelines will also include standard forms. The guidelines and those forms will be made available to all doctors across Queensland, that is, those practising in the private sector as well as those in the public sector. The provisions for mandatory reporting and care and treatment orders form part of the child protection system that is principally managed by the Department of Child Safety. The provisions complement the Child Protection Act and are intended to support rather than compete with child protection processes by enabling our Queensland Health providers to actively participate in keeping the state’s children safe from abuse and neglect. In relation to women’s health, the following topics are highlighted in the bill: peri-natal statistics collection, the Cancer Register and the Pap Smear Register. The bill continues to enable information about cancer, peri-natal statistics and pap smear records to be collected in Queensland. This information is used to monitor and track the health of Queenslanders. For legitimate research activities, access to this health information will be available and the bill establishes the process for requesting this information. The bill provides significant safeguards to protect privacy. A publicly available register will be maintained to record all access to health information for research purposes. I would like to add that last week, with Ronan Lee, I opened a new BreastScreen service in Taringa. That service will also save lives. I also want to congratulate some of our private doctors who send out reminder notices to their women patients in relation to pap smears. I think that is a very, very important service to their patients. The bill enables the minister to establish panels to inquire into the circumstances and probable causes of serious public health matters. The purpose is fact finding, such as to discover the source of a significant outbreak of food poisoning. The proposed food bill, which will be introduced into parliament, specifically targets food businesses, requires food safety programs and evaluates compliance with food regulations to ensure that food-borne illness is less prevalent in our state. Although people should be particularly careful when handling food, it is not hard to avoid food-borne illness. If they wash their hands, use clean boards and utensils, they are halfway there. In the event of public health emergencies, the bill also provides some new powers. For example, if there is an outbreak of disease such as SARS, or if the bird flu mutates into human influenza, the bill enables a minister to declare a public health emergency and appoint emergency officers. These emergency officers will have the powers of entry to premises and will be able to give directions. Emergency officers who are also doctors will be able to detain persons in order to protect public health. The work undertaken by Queensland Health officers in consultation with stakeholders and other government agencies has been fundamental to bringing in a bill that meets the direct needs of Queenslanders in this era. I would personally like to thank the officers of Queensland Health who have been working on this bill and I congratulate the minister and his ministerial staff. It is an excellent bill and I commend the bill to the House. 3538 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (2.44 pm): I am very pleased that this Public Health Bill 2005 is being debated today, because it contains some very important safeguards and regulations to protect public health. Although modern medicine has conquered many serious diseases, such as polio, unfortunately there is the possibility of new mutating viruses. There is also daily talk in the media of a threatening pandemic. Precaution is always the safest course of action. So this bill puts in place reasonable precautions to hopefully prevent but also to contain any outbreak. Similar to the very clear guidelines that have been developed for disaster management, this bill has been designed so that there are clear management plans and that health personnel and various levels of government understand clearly their responsibilities. Although worrying developments are occurring overseas, we should remember that avian bird flu is still very much a disease that affects the bird population. To become a pandemic the bird flu must be contracted by a human who also has the human strain of the disease which may then mutate into a new virus and be capable of infecting people who come into contact with that infected person. In my role as a member of Minister Pitt’s regional community council, I have been contacted by a number of concerned residents in the Esk shire who are concerned about poultry farms, our water storage facilities and bird flu. I am pleased that this government is reviewing the poultry industry. There is much talk about water and avian flu issues. On behalf of this group I have made representations to the ministers for Local Government, Health, Natural Resources and Primary Industries as well as made inquiries of the Environmental Protection Agency. Yes, we need to protect our water resources and also to regulate our poultry industry. However, it is clear that if a bird flu pandemic is to break out and spread to Australia, in all probability it will be brought to Australia via a passenger in an airline rather than by a migratory bird. Readiness and vigilance is the order of the day. I believe that this bill will assist us in that regard. The other issue that I would like to mention today relates to the area of child safety. It is an absolute blight on our society that the incidence of child abuse is increasing and the incidence of reporting is also increasing. It is sad that there are so many incidents to report. However, child abuse is firmly on the public agenda and people are prepared to pass on details to authorities. Since the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced in 2004, it is now mandatory for health workers to report any indication that they may see of abuse of a child. This process is carried forward in this bill. The second amendment in this bill that relates to child abuse provides for a hospital or medical officer to retain a child suspected of being at risk in a medical facility. Initially, this period is for 48 hours, but may be extended to 96 hours if required. That allows for proper checks to be completed and investigations to take place. Should the child be at risk, the Department of Child Safety then has time, through the court provisions, to have the child placed into care and to take control of the case. Obviously, child care facilities are very vulnerable to the spread of disease, owing to children being in close contact with each other and their propensity to suck their fingers and toys, thus sharing their germs. This bill enables a child to be excluded from a centre until they are given the all clear on any communicable disease. It also places responsibilities on parents not to send a child to a centre who may spread illness or disease. When viewing many aspects of health it is paramount that both state and local government work together in partnership. This is important in such issues as asbestos management and removal, any epidemic which may break out and most matters of public health. Partnerships in health are so important. There are many vital components within this bill which are all designed to keep our communities safe and healthy. I am happy to support the bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Copeland): Before calling the member for Stafford, I welcome to the public gallery staff and students from the Bishop Druitt College Primary School at Coffs Harbour. Welcome to the Queensland parliament and I hope you enjoy your visit to Brisbane. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (2.49 pm): In rising to support the Public Health Bill before the House, it is my intention to concentrate on one specific aspect of the bill, and that is the area of child abuse and neglect. The child abuse and neglect provisions in the Public Health Bill support Queensland’s extensive child protection network, which has been enhanced recently by the implementation of the recommendations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s report into the abuse of children in foster care. Principles for child welfare are provided in the bill, and the child abuse and neglect provisions are to be administered having regard to those principles. The principles are drawn from the Child Protection Act 1999 and the charter of rights contained in the Child Protection Act at schedule 1. Specifically the bill states that child abuse and neglect provisions of the Public Health Bill are to be administered under the principle that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount. Subject to this first principle of best interests of the child, the provisions are also to be administered under the following principles: every child has a right to protection from harm; families have the primary responsibility for the physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing of their children; the preferred way of ensuring a child’s wellbeing is through the support of the child’s family; powers conferred under the bill should be exercised in a way that is open, fair, respects the rights of people affected by their exercise 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3539 and, in particular, in a way that ensures that the views of the child and the child’s family are considered, and the child and his or her parents have the opportunity to take part in making decisions affecting the wellbeing of the child; and a child should be kept informed of matters affecting him or her in a way and to an extent that is appropriate, given the child’s age and ability to understand. All of those principles are practical and need our support. The child abuse and neglect provisions protect children in two ways. Firstly, the bill carries over recent amendments approved by parliament to the Health Act 1937 that oblige doctors and registered nurses in Queensland to report incidents of child harm to the Department of Child Safety. Secondly, the bill provides for a child who has been harmed to be held under a care and treatment order at a health service facility for a limited period in order to protect the child from further harm until the Department of Child Safety can assess the child’s protective needs. Mandatory reporting has been a topic of interest to many areas of government in recent years. Doctors have been required for many years to report incidents of maltreatment or neglect of a child. The Crime and Misconduct Commission recommended that the duty be extended to registered nurses in recognition of the fact that in rural, remote and Indigenous communities it is frequently registered nurses who have substantially more contact with children than doctors or other health professionals. The CMC also recommended changes to streamline the mandatory reporting procedures and ensure that the Department of Child Safety has the information needed to conduct investigations into the protective needs of children. The amendments already made to the Health Act 1937 will commence on 31 August 2005 and have been carried over into the Public Health Bill. Commencement of the relevant provisions in the Public Health Bill will ensure a seamless transition from the Health Act to the new bill. Under the provisions, any doctor or registered nurse who, during the practice of their profession, forms a reasonable suspicion that a child has been, is being or is at risk of being harmed must immediately report either orally or in writing that suspicion to the Department of Child Safety. If an oral report is made in the first instance, it must be followed up in writing within seven days of the initial report. The bill specifies the information that must be provided in that report to assist the Department of Child Safety investigate the protective needs of the child. This includes information such as the child’s and parents’ contact details, the nature of the harm and the details of the reporting officer. The mandatory reporting obligation applies to doctors and registered nurses in both the public and private sectors. To support the doctors and registered nurses in their duty, the bill enables a doctor or registered nurse to discuss a child’s condition with other doctors or registered nurses if the first doctor or registered nurse is unsure of whether the child’s condition indicates harm. The bill clarifies that the identity and liability protections in the Child Protection Act apply to mandatory reporters—that is, a doctor or registered nurse who makes a report about child harm to the Department of Child Safety cannot be held liable for breaching any duty of confidentiality or privacy or any code of conduct. The person’s identity must also be protected and cannot be given except under limited, specific situations such as to the coroner in an inquest. The bill also provides identity and liability protection for anyone who provides information about possible child harm to a doctor or registered nurse. These protections in the bill mirror the protections in the Child Protection Act that protect mandatory reporters. In another bill I have addressed the notion in the area of education where I believe that teachers and school workers should come under similar mandatory reporting provisions. While these provisions are put in place by administrative directives at this stage, I believe that they should be included in the legislative details, but that is a debate for another time. Queensland Health has developed a comprehensive training package which has been delivered throughout the state. The training package primarily provides tools for registered nurses to assist in identifying child harm. The package comprises an online training regime, fact sheets, video conference sessions and seminars. It provides information on the statutory obligations and the process for reporting to the Department of Child Safety and will be made available to all registered nurses and doctors in Queensland. It is anticipated that at least 80 per cent of all Queensland Health’s 22,500 registered nurses will have received the training about their legislative responsibility by 31 August 2005. In conclusion, I reiterate that one of the principles that defines a good society is how we look after those who are most vulnerable. The child abuse and neglect provisions in this bill help those who are vulnerable. I support the bill before the House. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.56 pm), in rely: I thank all members who have participated in this debate. Much has been spoken about the issue of asbestos and the responsibilities for the monitoring of asbestos outside of workplaces. I will deal with that issue in detail and hopefully will be able to inject some facts into the debate rather than the exaggerated nonsense argued, and no doubt will continue to be argued in the consideration in detail stage of this debate, by the opposition. Local governments are to be responsible for asbestos in non-workplace settings under the Public Health Bill 2005 and proposed public health regulation. Local governments, we appreciate, have opposed this arrangement on the basis that they do not have the resources or expertise to deal with 3540 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 asbestos, that their employees will be exposed to significant workplace health and safety risks, and that they will face increased insurance premiums and legal costs. I would like to address each and every one of those concerns. Until recently, local governments in Queensland have used the nuisance provisions in the Health Act to manage asbestos complaints. While the current Health Act does not specifically refer to asbestos, this act requires local governments to monitor nuisances and issue abatement notices as required. Nuisances include ‘premises in such a state as to be injurious or prejudicial to health’ and ‘an accumulation or deposit that is a nuisance or injurious or prejudicial to health’. A number of members have raised concerns about local government being responsible for asbestos. In other states where asbestos is still classed as a nuisance, local government has the responsibility for enforcement—New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. In Western Australia, which has specific asbestos related provisions, local government has responsibility for enforcement. In the ACT, which does not have a structured local government tier, responsibility rests with that territory government. So, in terms of this issue, firstly, there has been historical responsibility by local government to deal with asbestos—and many local governments have, in fact, accepted that responsibility under the existing provisions of the 1937 act; and, secondly, in terms of Queensland’s position vis-a-vis other states, local governments have responsibility for enforcement in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The question arises: why should Queensland be different from the majority of the continent? Homes built between 1945 and 1985 are likely to contain some form of asbestos-containing materials, such as asbestos cement sheeting, imitation brick cladding, underlay sheeting for floor and ceramic tiles, fencing materials and corrugated asbestos roofing. Consequently, any renovations or repairs to homes built during this period may result in exposure to asbestos fibres unless appropriate work practices are used. I will ‘fess up’ at this point: as a young fellow I actually helped my father—the first house we ever owned in Australia was a weatherboard house at Wynnum with no interior lining—to line the whole house with fibro, which we cut out in the front yard. We had absolutely no protection whatsoever from what we now understand to be deadly asbestos fibres. I suspect that my experience is shared by many people in this House, either occupationally or in terms of home renovation. In fact, that house at Wynnum, down by the bay—the old worker’s cottage—remains there today. I will come back to that example in dealing with some of the nonsense about to be moved by the member opposite. In light of community concern about the potential health risks associated with exposure to asbestos fibres and the growing trend towards do-it-yourself home renovations, the government has examined what regulatory options could be introduced to minimise the health risks arising from exposure to asbestos due to the unsafe handling or removal of asbestos. In late 2005 the government released a regulatory impact statement on proposed amendments to the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation to introduce a licensing system for the removal of asbestos sheeting over 10 square metres. It is intended that these changes will be reflected in the new Public Health Regulation, which will prohibit do-it-yourself home renovators from removing more than 10 square metres of asbestos cement sheeting unless they have a licence under workplace health and safety legislation or engage a person who has such a licence. Responsibility for monitoring the activities of a licensed person will reside with the Department of Industrial Relations. This will mean that local governments will only be responsible for monitoring the activities of do-it-yourself home renovators who are removing or handling less than 10 square metres of asbestos-containing materials—not an unreasonable proposition, I would argue. The Public Health Bill will not make local government officers responsible for the removal of asbestos in homes. Rather, the bill gives local government authorised officers the power to issue public health orders which can require the do-it-yourself home renovator to stop what they are doing and take the necessary steps to ensure that asbestos is handled safely or to prosecute for a breach of the proposed regulation. If a recipient of a public health order about asbestos fails to comply with it, an authorised person can seek an urgent telephone warrant from a magistrate. The warrant may allow the authorised person to take the steps necessary to remove or reduce the risk to public health. As public officials, authorised persons can request police assistance with enforcing the warrant. Local governments already have a wide range of regulatory responsibilities for other potentially dangerous or hazardous substances associated with the storage of flammable or combustible liquids, abrasive blasting, asphalt manufacturing, the commercial manufacturing of plastic or plastic products and the management of waste. In addition, local government has indicated that it is prepared to assume responsibility for other potentially hazardous public health risks such as the dispersal or release of a pesticide, herbicide, solvent or other chemicals; drifting fibreglass dust resulting from building a fibreglass boat—you have to ask the question: what is the difference between asbestos fibre and fibreglass fibre, but we will move on; and the propulsion into the environment of lead particles as a result of sandblasting lead based paint. Again, one would have to ask the question: what is the difference between asbestos fibres and dust in the atmosphere produced by the sanding of lead based paint in terms of, first, the ability of local government to monitor that and, second, the hazard? 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3541
I do not need to be a doctor to understand the seriousness and the nature of the hazard of lead based paint. I do not need to be a doctor to understand the hazard of inhaling fibreglass fibres and I do not need to be a doctor to understand that asbestos is also similarly dangerous—in fact deadly. The question arises: if it is good enough for local government to accept responsibility for monitoring fibreglass fibres emitted into the atmosphere through the sanding of a boat and if it is prepared to monitor the emission of lead particles from lead based paint as a result of sandblasting lead based paint, such as appears regularly on weatherboard houses through much of Queensland that were painted in the sixties and seventies, what is the issue here in dealing with asbestos created by home renovators in terms of the small area that we are talking about—that 10 square metre provision? Frankly, the argument is a nonsense. Nevertheless, to assist local government to effectively and safely administer the provisions under the existing Health Act 1937 and the proposed Public Health Act 2005, the Department of Industrial Relations has commenced a training program for local government officers that will enable them to be more aware of the risks when responding to asbestos related complaints. The member for Moggill may be interested to know that that training program has been agreed to by the Brisbane City Council and the LGAQ. They are happy to accept the training program. Given the LGAQ’s concerns about legal liability, crown law advice was sought on possible civil law causes of action relating to the proposed legislative framework for asbestos. Clause 4 of the bill removes any possible civil action or civil cause of action based on a breach of statutory duty. The public health legislation will not of itself create for local government a duty of care in negligence to do-it- yourself home renovators who are renovating their own premises and occupiers of the renovated premises who are not involved in the renovations—for example, children of the do-it-yourself home renovator or visitors or neighbours of the do-it-yourself home renovator who may be affected if the asbestos fibres blow from the renovator’s property to the neighbour’s property. However, it is important that local governments implement systems to handle asbestos related complaints. To this end, the state government has already made a commitment that it will work with local government to develop a comprehensive framework for the management of asbestos in non-workplace settings. This framework will include the provision of scientific advice to local governments and the public on the safe management of asbestos, the provision of education and training materials for local government officers, the development of guidelines to assist local government administer the legislation and the facilitation of the development of a community education program on the safe handling and regulatory requirements of asbestos in the home. What members can see from that is that the government is not just lumping the responsibility on local government. There is a history to local government acceptance of this responsibility but, nevertheless, in clarifying this matter the government is also prepared to put a hand out to help local government implement these systems through appropriate training and advice, including community education. A campaign will be conducted by Queensland Health, the Division of Workplace Health and Safety Queensland and the Department of Industrial Relations to educate the community on safe practices in the handling and disposal of asbestos sheeting when renovating homes and the regulatory requirements that will apply to the handling of asbestos cement sheeting in residential premises and at workplaces. For the benefit of the member for Moggill, I have with me the briefing note that I have signed off. It is approved by me as of today. The government is approving a mass media campaign to educate the community on safe practices and the existence of new regulatory requirements. That cost is between $60,000 and $80,000 on development and $300,000 for purchasing media. The government will be publishing brochures and web based information to provide much more detailed information on safe handling and regulatory requirements at a cost of $200,000, inserts at a cost of $50,000 and handling of telephone inquiries through the Health Contact Centre at a cost of some $50,000. So almost $700,000 of education and advice to the community is being resourced by the state government to provide assistance to local government with educating the community about its responsibilities. Again, we are not abandoning local government, as has been suggested. We are actually being prepared to put our hand in our pocket and come up with $700,000 to provide for the necessary education campaign. I will move on from that and deal with a couple of issues raised by members. I will deal with the comments of the members for Maryborough and Gladstone very briefly. They raised the issue of the power of the state to recover costs from local government where local government fails to take action. This power reflects existing powers in the Health Act 1937 which, in practice, are rarely used. There are several safeguards to prevent misuse of this power. Clause 15 provides that the chief executive’s opinion that there is a significant risk to public health must be based on reasonable grounds providing an objective element to the otherwise subjective test. Clause 16 provides that before the chief executive acts he or she must consult with the chief executive officer of the local government and give the chief executive officer a reasonable opportunity. Also, only reasonable costs and expenses are in fact recoverable. A number of members raised the issue of the detention powers contained under chapter 3 in this bill. Quite correctly, they should raise these issues. These are powers which update the provisions of the Public Health Bill for authorised officers of the department of health to deal with issues that are very 3542 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 much in the public mind should avian flu become a pandemic, as is being predicted by some experts. Of course we all hope that does not eventuate. But the important thing is that we can provide certainty and surety to our community that we have the necessary powers to act, and act decisively, should avian flu become a pandemic. One of the powers that we are seeking is detention powers. The detention powers under chapter 3 can be used only in relation to the more serious and life-threatening notifiable conditions. So it is not a power that we use commonly. It is a power that will be used only in relation to the more serious and life- threatening notifiable conditions to be known as controlled notifiable conditions. Conditions to be prescribed under the regulation will include AIDS-HIV, hepatitis C, SARS, smallpox, syphilis—including congenital syphilis—tuberculosis, typhoid, parathypoid and viral haemorrhagic— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Absolutely. I will say it again: viral haemorrhagic fevers. It is envisaged that the mechanisms provided under the bill to manage a person with a controlled notifiable condition would be rarely used and only once all avenues for voluntary cooperation have been explored and exhausted. In the majority of cases, members of the community have demonstrated that they are willing to cooperate with public health officials. However, there may be exceptional cases where a person’s reluctance to voluntarily cooperate with public health officials represents a significant risk to public health and a more restrictive approach to their management may be required. I think that probably deals with the major issues raised by members in the course of the debate. If I have left things out, I apologise. I take it that any matters in relation to amendments to be moved during the consideration in detail stage will be raised with me then. I advise the House, however, that I will be moving amendments to the Public Health Bill in the consideration in detail stage. Amendments are required to correct minor drafting errors in clauses 15, 155, 249, 250 and 462. I will also be moving two amendments to address recommendations made by Mr Peter Forster in the Queensland Health system’s review final report. Firstly, the report recommended that the functions of the Chief Health Officer be revised to include responsibility for population health and mental health. These recommendations have been adopted by this government and will result in an amendment to the consequential amendments at the back of the bill. Schedule 1 of the bill will be changed so that in the new clause 57C of the Health Services Act 1991 the function of the Chief Health Officer will be to provide high-level medical advice to the chief executive and the minister on health issues, particularly on policy and legislative matters associated with population health, emergency services and mental health. The second amendment, as a result of the Forster report, is to remove the statutory position of state manager of Public Health Services. The Chief Health Officer will assume line responsibility for population health. The statutory position of manager of Public Health Services for the state will not be retained within the new structure. Consequently, clause 455 and clause 463 of the bill will be omitted. I will also be moving two other amendments to ensure that mechanisms under the bill which enable approved researchers to access health information held by the department will work effectively for the Queensland Cancer Register. As members of the House would be aware, chapter 6 of the bill sets out the circumstances under which a person or entity conducting research may apply to the chief executive of Queensland Health for access to health information held by the department. The bill also imposes a statutory obligation on the chief executive of Queensland Health to establish and maintain a number of data collections, including the Queensland Cancer Register. Similar to the existing Health Act, the chief executive may enter into an agreement to enable the day-to-day maintenance of the register to be undertaken on behalf of the chief executive. The Queensland Cancer Fund has managed that register on behalf of the chief executive since October. The Public Health Bill provides for this arrangement to continue. I will be moving an amendment to clause 249 to remove any doubt that the Queensland Cancer Fund can provide information from the Queensland Cancer Register directly to an approved researcher provided that the chief executive decides that the person or entity conducting research should be provided with that information from the register and the chief executive authorises the fund, in writing, to disclose the information. This amendment will overcome any uncertainty about the operation of the mechanisms under the bill for the provision of information to approved researchers and the duty of confidentiality imposed on the Queensland Cancer Fund in its role as the contractor for the register. Clause 248 makes it an offence for the contractor, or an employee of the contractor, to disclose information obtained in relation to the Cancer Register unless the disclosure is expressly authorised under clause 249. I will also be moving an amendment to the definition of ‘health information held by the department’, which appears in schedule 2—the dictionary for the bill. This definition currently refers to the information held or obtained by the department. However, information comprising the register is held or obtained by the Queensland Cancer Fund as the contractor responsible for the day-to-day management of the register. Information collected by the fund does not, therefore, fall within the definition of ‘health information held by the department’. The amendment will correct this oversight. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3543
The proposed amendments to the bill will ensure that one of the key purposes of the Queensland Cancer Register can be realised—that is, to collect data to help in researching the cause, treatment and prevention of cancer. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Dr FLEGG (3.20 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 10— At page 24, before line 19— insert— ‘asbestos public health risk means a risk mentioned in section 11(1)(b)(vi) if the by-product is asbestos.’. 2 Clause 10— At page 24, line 22— omit, insert— ‘or (vi), other than an asbestos public health risk; or’. 3 Clause 10— At page 25, lines 5 to 8— omit, insert— ‘State public health risk means— (a) a public health risk— (i) mentioned in section 11(1)(b)(vii) or (viii); or (ii) prescribed under section 18 as a public health risk that is to be administered and enforced only by the State; or (b) an asbestos public health risk.’. These all relate to asbestos and the level of government that is responsible for enforcing it. We have heard a great deal of debate today in relation to the measures in this bill that push responsibility for environmental asbestos contamination in the domestic environment back onto local government. The comment that summed it up the best was from the member for Bundamba when she referred to a gentleman who had a problem with somebody dealing with asbestos. He was totally confused as to who was responsible. I can guarantee to the House and the member for Bundamba that after the enactment of this bill we will all be confused because we will have to get up with a tape measure and measure whether it is 10 square metres or not. I have gone into the other reasons in my earlier speech: the powers to enforce it, the existence of 125 different local government schemes, the maintaining of trained staff for dealing with asbestos in all those areas, the serious insurance impost on local government and, quite frankly, the remarks that we have heard about what has happened in the past—and we are talking about an act that was originally written in 1937 when people were not particularly concerned about specifically dealing with asbestos, but we have obviously learned a great deal about asbestos in the meantime. I could not possibly discuss these amendments without making mention of some of the comments that the minister made which I felt were absolutely astonishing. If I have his quote right, he said, ‘This is a load of nonsense. What is the difference between a lead based paint, asbestos or sanding fibreglass?’ I suggest to the minister that he ought to upgrade the status of the Chief Health Officer pretty urgently if he does not know the difference between asbestos, lead and fibreglass in their environmental setting. Let me enlighten him a little bit. Asbestos does not have a safe minimum dose, and that is the difference. It does not matter whether the asbestos fibre comes from 10 square metres, one square metre or 1,000 square metres; people are just as dead if they contract mesothelioma. Mr Lucas interjected. Dr FLEGG: Lead has a safe minimum exposure and modern fibreglass does not contain asbestos. Mr Lucas interjected. Dr FLEGG: As well as needing some advice from his department about the difference between asbestos and the risk it poses compared with other substances, perhaps the minister ought to go out and talk to an insurance company, because when the local authorities have to insure their workers in relation to asbestos exposure the insurance company is not going to treat asbestos the same as it treats fibreglass. Mr Lucas: Workers compensation is tax-free insurance. 3544 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
Dr FLEGG: The government has had a pathetically inadequate response to the risks of asbestos. It has been willing to impose that risk in exactly the setting that the minister for transport is referring to— teachers in schools. It has been quite happy to take the risk with them in the workers compensation and let the secret payments go out of the workers compensation. Yet again following on from the risks it was willing to take with our kids in schools; now it is imposing those risks on the community by downplaying the importance of this regulation. I note those interjections from the minister for transport and the lack of concern about how serious asbestos is. However, the rest of the world, the rest of Australia, the insurance companies and the local government know how serious the situation is in relation to asbestos, and this government is, quite frankly, taking it too lightly. That is why, in the thrust of these amendments, we are attempting to get the government to finally take asbestos seriously. People do not want to see a cloud of asbestos coming from amateur works on their next-door neighbour’s place. They want to know that the state government has responsibility and they want some sort of powers to be able to act immediately. This is not something that we can hang around about. In relation to the minister’s comments that section 4 does not create a new civil liability, in the overall context of all the problems of foisting asbestos onto local government, that simply is not good enough. I urge the House to support the three amendments—1, 2 and 3—circulated in my name. Mr ROBERTSON: I think it is important to put on the record a couple of facts, because this new- found concern about health and safety by the Liberal Party needs to be put into context. That context is that every single progressive protection, whether it be for workers or the environment in terms of protecting people from hazards—environmental hazards and noxious hazards—has come about through the initiatives and actions of Labor governments. When members opposite were in office, workers in this state and the environment in this state received no protection. I remember as a young union official in the eighties working flat out for a bunch of emergency service workers in this state who time and time again would be exposed to every nasty chemical one could possibly think of. For the member to suggest that we go soft on hazardous substances—that we go soft on issues such as asbestos—is simply wrong. He has no facts to support that whatsoever. To say that I am somehow confused about the relative danger associated with asbestos vis-a-vis lead paint dust or vis-a- vis fibreglass is a little too cute. If he was, in fact, serious he would know that they are all dangerous and that good health and safety practice suggests that there are no safe doses of any of those three particular materials. If he wants to start being cute and say that asbestos has zero tolerance and something else has this amount of tolerance, frankly, that is being simply dishonest. That is not what I said in my summation in this debate. The simple fact is that nobody should be exposed to any of those three materials at any dose whatsoever if at all possible. I understand the critical hazard that asbestos represents. What we have here is a debate that is not about people being soft or hard or better or worse on the issue of asbestos; it is about taking a realistic view of the world in how asbestos gets managed not just in workplaces, because there are sufficient protections in place one would argue, but outside of that in the do-it-yourself, largely unregulated sector. To suggest that the rest of the world understands this is not backed up by the facts. What I said during the summation was that at least in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria it is good enough for local governments there to manage this particular issue, but somehow it is not good enough in Queensland despite the fact that local governments in Queensland already accept that responsibility. To suggest that asbestos is somehow some sort of new problem and that because it is a 1937 act it did not contemplate asbestos being the problem it is now is again being a little too cute, a little too fast with the truth. Of course, in terms of being fast with the truth, that is something the honourable member does excel in. Despite all of that, the simple argument against these three amendments is that what the member is doing is winding back the existing situation. Those first three amendments in terms of asbestos public risk, in terms of how they are constructed with the principal clauses, wind back the existing situation where local governments in Queensland currently accept their responsibility to manage asbestos in these particular circumstances. Putting aside all the other reasons that I could possibly mention when debating this clause, the one simple objection that we have to the amendments is that they wind back the existing situation in Queensland and, to that extent, are unacceptable. Question—That Dr Flegg’s amendments be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 23—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 50—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, O’Brien, Poole, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 14, as read, agreed to. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3545
Clause 15— Mr ROBERTSON (3.37 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 15— At page 28, line 13, ‘(2)’— omit, insert— ‘(3)’. The amendment corrects a subsection reference in clause 15. The clause incorrectly refers to subsection (2) rather than subsection (3). Amendment agreed to. Clause 15, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 16 to 60, as read, agreed to. Clause 61— Dr FLEGG (3.38 pm): I move the following amendments— 4 Clause 61— At page 53, line 22— omit, insert— ‘(c) measures to determine whether asbestos is present at a place, and to prescribe the responsibilities of owners and occupiers to take action to prevent or control asbestos public health risks at a place, including the following— (i) publication by the chief executive of information for owners and occupiers to help in their understanding of asbestos public health risks and the ways in which asbestos public health risks may be identified, prevented, minimised or controlled; (ii) requirements for owners and occupiers to disclose information they have about the presence of asbestos at a place to other persons proposing to occupy or carry out work at the place; (iii) requirements for persons proposing to sell a place to provide a proposed purchaser with a report about the existence of asbestos at the place; (iv) requirements for owners of a place to enclose, seal or remove asbestos materials at a place in cases where dangerous exposure to those materials can not be effectively prevented, minimised or controlled; and (d) measures to prevent and control public health risks other than asbestos public health risks.’. 5 Clause 61— At page 53, lines 27 and 28— omit, insert— ‘(3) However, a regulation made under subsection (1)(c) must state that it is to be administered and enforced by the State only. ‘(4) A regulation made under this section does not bind the State except to the extent prescribed by the regulation.’. Again we are dealing with the issue of asbestos in properties. Currently there are requirements for the owners of properties, when putting them on the market to sell, to make certain disclosures— notably whether the properties have electrical safety switches. There is no provision for the vendor, if the vendor is aware that there is asbestos within that property, to notify the buyer of that. Whilst some buyers might have conducted building inspections and so forth, we feel that it is appropriate that the vendor, in the knowledge that a property contains asbestos, should be required to disclose that to a potential buyer. We are not seeking to create a difficult environment for the house vendor. We should bear in mind that frequently houses are purchased with a view to renovating them. Where the vendor of the house is aware that there are asbestos materials and products in the house, they should disclose that information to the buyer to avoid a situation where the buyer may be renovating not knowing that he is dealing with asbestos. This is consistent with what has been done in other states. It seems a reasonable duty of care when somebody selling a property has the knowledge that there is a potentially harmful substance in it. Asbestos roofing is pretty easy to pick, but some other asbestos products are not so easily identifiable. The vendor should, as a duty of care, pass that information on to the purchaser of that property. It is all about ensuring that the risk that someone is accidentally going to be exposed to asbestos is kept to a minimum and ensuring that when information about the presence of the asbestos product is available and known to the vendor it is disclosed. Mr ROBERTSON: The government opposes this amendment for a couple of reasons. In dealing directly with the clause at hand, I am advised that the opposition’s amendments would require home owners to notify buyers about asbestos in their house. These are similar provisions to that which currently exist in the ACT. The ACT’s legislation was recently reviewed by the ACT’s asbestos task force which found that these provisions ‘have not been effective or consistent in providing protection and reliable advice’. For that reason alone, we oppose this amendment by virtue of the fact that the model that exists—and I would suggest that you based this particular amendment on—through a current review has found that this has not been a useful clause. 3546 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
Whilst I would like to think that the basis of the amendments and the presentations and arguments advanced by the member for Moggill are meant to be of benefit to the people of Queensland, I must say that the exchange during the debate last night would suggest otherwise. During the speech by the minister for public works and housing it became quite clear that the whole exercise of bringing to the fore the issue of asbestos has more than just a tinge of cynicism, because we saw Dr Flegg admit during the course of that debate and exchange with the minister for public works for housing last night that in fact it was a stunt. Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention, as I have before, to standing order 244 about naming a person or not speaking through the chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERTSON: If I can be of any possible assistance to the member for Surfers Paradise, I would be advising him to read the standing orders of this place. I know he is new. I know he has only been here 18 months, but please, so that you do not waste the time of this House anymore with those inane objections, member for Surfers Paradise: read the standing orders and take some advice from some of your more experienced colleagues on that side of the House. As I was saying, the exchange in the debate last night would suggest that Dr Flegg has engaged in the most cynical of exercises with respect to asbestos roofing, because he took great glee in the fact that this government has committed itself to a multimillion-dollar school building roof replacement program while acknowledging the fact that it was not in fact necessary in the first place. Ms Molloy: And their mob refused to do it. Mr ROBERTSON: I take the interjection from the member for Noosa; thank you very much. Having been hoisted on his own petard, having exposed himself for the cynical politician that he is, these amendments are not acceptable to the government. I want to deal with one other issue that came up in the debate last night. Dr Flegg suggested that in the briefing he received from my department in relation to the bill asbestos was not raised. That was a matter of some concern to me, I have to say. I would have been very disappointed if my department had not raised the issue of asbestos during the briefing provided to the opposition spokesman. So I checked. What I found is that the reason he thinks that during his attendance at that meeting asbestos was not raised was that he actually turned up 25 minutes late. But he should have been told that the issue of asbestos was raised because a representative of the opposition’s office was there from the beginning, so that person actually received the advice about asbestos but clearly she did not pass it on to the opposition spokesperson for health. I think it is important to correct the record. Under no circumstances were we avoiding discussing with the member for Moggill the issue of asbestos. It is just that if he could turn up on time that would facilitate a much more useful exchange of information from my office and my department to him. Without wanting to advise him how to operate an opposition office, if the opposition’s staff representative had also communicated with him the exchange that she had and the information that she was provided with at that meeting, then we would have all been a lot better off. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Warrego. Mr Robertson: You’re back. Mr HOBBS: I am back. Isn’t that great? Mr Robertson: Fantastic! Mr HOBBS: I thought you might say that. I refer to the amendment to clause 61 which states— At page 53, lines 27 and 28 ... However, a regulation made under subsection (1)(c) must state that it is to be administered and enforced by the State only.’ The situation is that local governments have had the issue of asbestos forced upon them. They do not want the issue of asbestos foisted upon them, but it has been. In the debate last night some members opposite talked about the fact that the public liability of a local government would not be impacted by this legislation, but that is quite incorrect. It does and, quite clearly, the legal advice to the Local Government Association says exactly that. This is very important. As I said, last night some members in this House suggested that there will be no impact on local government through the public liability in relation to asbestos. However, the legal advice to the Local Government Association says quite clearly that it will be impacted by it and there are numerous cases of that, particularly one in relation to Pyrenees Shire Council v Day. The court held that the council would be liable to a person suffering personal injury or property damage where a councillor was aware that another party was breaching local government law and the councillor possessed the legal and practicable ability to take action to stem the breach yet took no action. There are numerous cases of that. Quite clearly, the minister is placing hundreds of thousands of dollars—probably millions of dollars—extra on to local government public liability. A similar situation occurred in relation to looking after low-cost housing. It cost local governments in the vicinity of $10 million over five or 10 years. Their public liability went up a considerable amount of money because they then had the responsibility to look after those low-cost buildings, those backpacker type buildings. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3547
The minister is doing exactly the same thing here with this bill—cost-shifting. We have just had an inquiry into local government cost-shifting and it was found that, yes, there has been a significant amount of that over time— An opposition member: It goes on all the time. Mr HOBBS: It goes on all the time and it has to be addressed. We just cannot keep on doing it. If the government wants to keep shovelling these things onto local government, it should pay the bill for that. That is all it has to do. I ask the minister to respond. Mr ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, the honourable member was not here earlier for my summation because I dealt quite exhaustively with all of those issues, including the $700,000 campaign that we will launch to ensure that people know of their rights and responsibilities under these new provisions. I have dealt previously with the issue of public liability and the issue of crown law advice. In order to help the member, I will say again that crown law advice confirms that the proposed legislative framework will not of itself create for local government a duty of care in negligence to do-it- yourself home renovators who are renovating their own premises, occupiers of the renovated premises who are not involved in the renovations and neighbours of the do-it-yourself home renovator who may be affected if the asbestos fibres blow from the renovator’s property to the neighbour’s property. To succeed in negligence, the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff. A duty of care does not arise merely because a council has statutory powers that may be used to prevent harm to others. Under this bill, local governments have statutory powers to issue public health orders, seek enforcement orders and prosecute for a breach of the proposed regulation. Crown law advice confirms that these powers do not in themselves place a duty of care on local governments which requires them to act. There is nothing unusual about that, either. That would be the advice obtaining to a raft of legislation that we deal with in this place on a fairly regular basis. Crown law also advises that no duty of care will be imposed by common law if a council’s failure to act is based on a policy decision—that is, based on funding considerations rather than an operational decision. Does the member understand the difference? Mr Hobbs: So if they haven’t got the funding to do it— Mr ROBERTSON: They are fine. If they do not have the funding to do it, they are fine. If they choose not to do it based on an operational decision, that is different. Accordingly, councils that do not have the resources to enforce the asbestos provisions in the bill will not be liable for negligence for failing to do so. That is the crown law advice. It cannot be clearer than that. In terms of the other matters that the member for Warrego raised, I refute his suggestion that this is a new, onerous responsibility on local governments. Currently, local governments accept responsibilities in relation to asbestos in the circumstances that we are talking about today. For example, the Gold Coast City Council has always accepted its responsibilities. Other councils have also. This issue is not new. As I have outlined previously, councils accept their responsibilities with respect to fibreglass fibres causing a nuisance and lead paint dust causing a nuisance. The issue is what constitutes a nuisance. The term ‘nuisance’ has a very wide application. In fact, it is a nonsense to highlight asbestos above and beyond any other nuisance that local governments reasonably should be monitoring in the circumstances that they are required to do so. Mr HOBBS: I thank the minister for providing the information, because I was not here earlier when the minister made that statement. On that basis, if down the track local governments find that their public liability increases because of this legislation, will the minister either take over that responsibility or provide additional funding for local government? Mr ROBERTSON: The honourable member is asking me to speculate. There is a fine tradition in this place of not engaging in speculation. All I can say to the honourable member is that I stand by the advice that I have been provided with from crown law, so the situation should not arise. Amendments negatived. Clause 61, as read, agreed to. Clauses 62 to 139, as read, agreed to. Clause 140— Dr FLEGG (3.54 pm): I ask the minister to discuss the issue of the right of entry to people’s premises. As a general matter of principle, most of us on this side of the House have a concern about a power that is conferred that would allow a right of entry to people’s premises, in some cases without their knowledge and without a warrant. In speaking to this clause I am not suggesting that we would necessarily oppose it, because I think there are some issues relating to an infectious disease threat that might potentially arise that may justify the exercise of this power in certain circumstances. But I am sufficiently concerned to ask the minister to put on the record his view of the provisions relating to the 3548 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 right of entry without warrant or without the knowledge of the property owner—what he believes are the appropriate circumstances in which those provisions can be used and whether home owners and property owners in Queensland can believe that their property is not going to be entered in any sort of a trivial way or in a way that might not be in their interests. Mr ROBERTSON: The advice that I have received is that those powers that are contained in clause 145 and clause 141 prescribe the procedures that must be followed by an authorised person before entering a place under either an order or a warrant. So an authorised person has to get a court order or a warrant before those powers can be exercised. Those provisions provide the protection of the courts, or independent oversight, before those powers can be used. That is the protection against any misuse or inappropriate usage of those powers in a case where an authorised officer may be trying to use those powers inappropriately. Clause 140, as read, agreed to. Clauses 141 to 154, as read, agreed to. Clause 155— Mr ROBERTSON (3.57 pm): I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. I apologise for omitting to do that earlier. I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 155— At page 105, line 18, ‘state’— omit. This amendment corrects a drafting error. The word ‘state’ is unnecessarily duplicated in clause 155. Amendment agreed to. Clause 155, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 156 to 160, as read, agreed to. Clause 161— Dr FLEGG (3.59 pm): Again, I am asking the minister for some clarification. In the bill clauses 161 to 171 cause the most confusion. These clauses relate to contagious diseases as declared by regulation and place certain requirements on child-care centre operators, parents and others. ‘Contagious disease’ is a very broad term. Perhaps people should be aware that in other parts of the bill it talks about a ‘notifiable disease’ which is fairly well defined—measles, AIDS and so forth. A contagious disease is not the same as a notifiable disease. According to my reading of the bill and the notes, a contagious disease is a disease that is declared contagious by regulation and is therefore a different sort of animal from a notifiable disease. Contagious disease can mean anything. In the setting of child-care operators and parents, the two most common contagious diseases would be a viral upper respiratory tract infection—normally we would refer to that as a cold or flu, but I had better avoid the word ‘flu’ in here today. The other one is skin infections or impetigo or school sores. These diseases would be considered contagious diseases by the common usage of the term. They are already frequent reasons for children to be excluded from child care. Even despite my own background in this area, I am fairly confused as to whether this bill would actually apply to that range of illnesses or whether a particular illness would have to be the subject of some particular sort of regulatory declaration. I draw the attention of the House in particular to the fact that this applies to parents who are required to exclude their children. This presupposes a certain ability on the part of parents to make a diagnosis and establish that a disease is infectious. Certainly there are many diseases which parents and even sometimes medical personnel are a little confused about as to the degree of infectiousness. This obviously creates a whole range of problems for people in child care. I ask the minister to explain the process of regulating a disease to be contagious, perhaps detailing for us now diseases that are currently not notifiable but have been regulated to be contagious, and how he sees that affecting the child-care industry and parents. Mr ROBERTSON: I take it that the member for Moggill is asking questions with respect to not just clause 161 but a range of clauses— Dr Flegg: Clauses 161 to 171. Mr ROBERTSON: Yes. The issue he has raised is what constitutes a contagious disease and what constitutes a notifiable disease or notifiable condition. As is often the case, those kinds of matters are left to the regulations that would necessarily be drafted, and in drafting regulations we go through consultation with appropriate stakeholder bodies. I think the member for Moggill raised during the debate what is meant by children with a contagious condition. It would be envisaged that in the appropriate regulation a contagious medical condition would include diphtheria, hepatitis A, meningococcal infection, poliomyelitis, tuberculosis and typhoid. Then there would be a definition of 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3549
‘notifiable disease’ and it would list those diseases—measles, chicken pox and those kinds of diseases would go into that list. The benefit of listing them in those circumstances is that, by virtue of that regulation, that is the advice that then goes out to child-care centres or, indeed, the general public so that they can reference the regulation with the principal act and that is how they will know what their responsibilities are under this legislation. The member for Currumbin, as I understand it, raised a similar issue of definition—what is meant by ‘vaccinated for a vaccine preventable condition’ under clauses 165 and 166. The member asked whether the intent of clauses 165 and 166 is to deal with notifiable diseases, vaccine preventable non- notifiable diseases or non-vaccine preventable infectious diseases. Clause 158 of the Public Health Bill provides for a regulation to be made about those contagious conditions that are to be prescribed as vaccine preventable conditions for the purposes of chapter 5 part 2 of the act. The regulation will also set out the vaccination requirements for these conditions. It will specify that a child has been vaccinated for diphtheria, measles and pertussis, or whooping cough, if the child has received all of the required vaccinations for their age. Dr FLEGG: I thank the minister for that. I have to say that I am still confused. Diseases like meningococcal that the minister mentioned at the beginning I am quite certain, without having the regulations in front of me, would be notifiable diseases, not contagious diseases as such. Mr Robertson: I am advised that they would be both. Dr FLEGG: So there is an overlap where they can be both. Perhaps the minister could clarify this, because he will get more questions on this than anything else in the bill. Where the bill uses the terminology ‘contagious disease’, it is not using that terminology in the sense that mum and dad, who this bill applies to, would use it. Am I correct in thinking that if a child is covered with impetigo that would not be considered a contagious disease for the purpose of this bill? Mr ROBERTSON: The bill is fairly specific. Perhaps we should be having this discussion about clause 158 rather than clause 161 and those that follow. Clause 158 provides the definitions of the various terms. For example, clause 158 at line 18 provides a definition of ‘contagious condition’ which ‘means a contagious medical condition prescribed under regulation as a contagious condition’. They are the principal definitions that inform everyone—me, the member for Moggill and the general public. It links it to the regulation, which obviously has not been prepared yet, but it will be prepared through consultation with appropriate stakeholders. Those definitions are what we use as a means to understand what the principal act provides for, whether a particular disease—and the member for Moggill highlighted meningococcal—is a contagious disease or a notifiable disease. That is how it usually works. We fix up the principal act which gives us the head of power. Then we use the regulatory provisions which obviously can change depending on new diseases that might be discovered. We can slot them in very easily without necessarily coming back to parliament for a debate, although we do have debates about regulations from time to time. The idea is that the department can use those regulatory powers in a flexible way to ensure that we have the legislative authority to protect the community against those diseases through the provisions contained in legislation. That is a roundabout way of saying that this is not an unusual circumstance whereby we have a head of power through the bill and then that is followed up with quite detailed regulations that list, in this case, a range of diseases. If we were discussing, for example, environmental legislation, we would use the regulations to list all of the plants that we were trying to protect under different provisions of the act. So this is quite a usual way of presenting legislation and supporting regulations to the parliament. It is also not unusual not to have finalised the regulations prior to the principal act being passed by parliament. Dr FLEGG: I certainly appreciate all of that. The point I am trying to get at is that we are about to go out and tell parents that there is a law that tells them they must keep children with contagious disease away from child-care centres, school and other places. What I am trying to get a sense of—I do not necessarily expect the minister to have a completed list—is this. The common epidemic diseases that we see every single day in this community which parents, teachers and child care workers could consider to be contagious disease, are these the type of diseases to be targeted under this bill? For example, the common ones would be impetigo, influenza A, adenovirus, para-influenza and rotavirus. They would be the common epidemic diseases. Are they the types of diseases we are seeking to target under this legislation? Mr ROBERTSON: Hopefully I can be of some assistance to the member. I have just been advised that the diseases—without knowing that list myself—would be diseases that would be recommended for listing by the NHMRC, the National Health and Medical Research Council. It has a special provision for childhood diseases, as I understand it, so one would expect that that would be fairly all-encompassing. The second point that the member may be interested in is, of course, that it would be unlikely that the provisions of this act would be enacted until such time as the regulations are completed, so one could not have a circumstance of these—in some cases, quite extensive—powers applying without having the regulations in place to define what is in fact being talked about. So there is somewhat of a 3550 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005 protection there. As I said, those regulations do come out of expert stakeholder groups. So in terms of having a more technical and better-informed medical debate, that is where the experts get to have their say. Clause 161, as read, agreed to. Clauses 162 to 228, as read, agreed to. Clause 229— Dr FLEGG (4.13 pm): My question is similar to the last one. I am just trying to glean some information. On that last one, I took the answer at the end of the day to be yes—that we would be targeting the sort of common diseases that parents would consider contagious. Mr Robertson: Yes. Dr FLEGG: Okay. We will take that as a yes. In relation to clause 229 and the Cancer Register, obviously members on this side of the House have a very strong commitment to the Cancer Register, because it is really only by knowing what is happening with the epidemiology—with the numbers of cases that we are getting of cancers—that we are able to identify the trends in our community. There was a belief around that the Cancer Register was already in operation and that information from it would already be available to researchers, but the bill seems to suggest it is setting it up for the first time or that researchers have not had access to the information. So I was wondering if the minister could clarify that for members. Mr ROBERTSON: The Cancer Register, of course, is in operation and there is access to the information contained in that register. The changes that have been made are simply to update those provisions that were put in place some years ago now and further define the ways in which that information can be accessed in a way that obviously ensures privacy whilst at the same time meeting the quite appropriate needs for clinical research and for the data that is provided in that data base, which it would be so useful for. So they are basically the changes that have been made in relation to this bill. Clause 229, as read, agreed to. Clauses 230 to 248, as read, agreed to. Clause 249— Mr ROBERTSON (4.16 pm): I move the following amendments— 3 Clause 249— At page 158, line 20, ‘247’— omit, insert— ‘248’. 4 Clause 249— At page 159, after line 2— insert— ‘(da) is for the purpose of giving information under chapter 6, part 4, division 2 for research, if the chief executive authorises the contractor, in writing, to disclose the information; or’. Amendment 3 amends clause 249. This amendment corrects a section reference in clause 249. The clause incorrectly refers to section 247 rather than section 248. With respect to amendment No. 4 standing in my name, this is an amendment to clause 249 at page 159 after line 2, inserting a new subclause (d) A. This amendment will remove any doubt that the Queensland Cancer Fund can provide information from the Queensland Cancer Register directly to an approved researcher. Clause 248 makes it an offence for the Queensland Cancer Fund or an employee of the fund to disclose information obtained in relation to the Cancer Register unless the disclosure is expressly authorised under clause 249. The proposed amendment provides the Queensland Cancer Fund with the necessary authorisation to disclose information from the register directly to a researcher, provided that the chief executive has decided under the relevant provisions of the bill that a person or entity conducting research be provided with information from the register and the chief executive authorises the fund in writing to disclose the information. They are the protections I was referring to earlier in response to the honourable member’s question with respect to clause 240, I think it was. Amendments agreed to. Clause 249, as amended, agreed to. Clause 250— Mr ROBERTSON (4.18 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 250— At page 159, line 9, ‘247’— omit, insert— ‘248’. This amendment corrects a section reference in clause 250. The clause incorrectly refers to section 247 rather than section 248. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health Bill 3551
Amendment agreed to. Clause 250, as amended, agreed to. Clause 251— Dr FLEGG (4.18 pm): I think it is probably the same answer as last time, but just in relation to the Pap Smear Register, I understood it was already operating, which it obviously is. I presumed that researchers would have access to some information from it so I was just querying the need to update it in the bill or if there is substantive change to what has been happening. Mr ROBERTSON: The member quite correctly points out the same provision and updating applies in this circumstance as to the one we just discussed with respect to the Cancer Register. Clause 251, as read, agreed to. Clauses 252 to 446, as read, agreed to. Clause 447— Dr FLEGG (4.19 pm): Clause 447 puts vicarious liability on employers in relation to an act or an omission by one of their employees of which they may not even have knowledge. Employers will find that they can be convicted under the provisions of this act despite the fact that they may have no knowledge of what has happened. I note that the defence provided is one of due diligence. Nevertheless, I want to record our reservations or, perhaps I should put it more strongly, our objection to people being held criminally liable because there are criminal provisions within the act. My other concern with this clause is that it appears to cover the whole act. This act covers a lot of different things. I think there is a risk that we may be exposing some employers or business owners to prosecution despite the fact that they may not actually have knowledge of what has been done by an employee. I take this opportunity to correct a couple of things for the record that I let pass before. The minister made reference to a staff member from the opposition office having received a briefing. No staff member of the opposition office was present at that briefing. All of us at some time get caught up with one thing or another and run a bit late. I want to make sure that the extraordinary nonsense that a number of ministers have gone on with here today in relation to the removal of asbestos from schools is on the record. I in no way see the campaign to remove asbestos from schools as cynical, as has been alleged here, or untruthful, as alleged. I take very seriously the protection of children and teachers in schools. I find it absolutely extraordinary that a number of ministers have indicated that the government is unnecessarily wasting its money to remove asbestos from schools and indicating that it is in response to nothing more than a scare campaign and not a real need. Given the debate that the community in Queensland has had in relation to this, these are extraordinary things— Mr Livingstone: Who said we were wasting money? That’s not true. Name them. Who said we were wasting money? Dr FLEGG: The member can read Hansard because most of those accusations will be in Hansard. Mr Livingstone: But not their names. Mr ROBERTSON: I can only join with those interjections from the member for Ipswich West. I am happy to have anyone analyse the Hansard record from last night and make up their own mind. No minister in this government ever suggested what the member for Moggill has just suggested. I do not know this person myself, but apparently a person by the name of Fiona Ward attended that meeting. The member for Moggill may know her; I do not. Dr Flegg: From my electorate office, not from the opposition. Mr ROBERTSON: I will take that interjection. I was actually going to blame a level of dysfunction. I thought the adviser from the opposition office may have come from the National Party. Knowing that the Nationals do not talk to the Liberals, I thought that was probably a reasonable excuse. But when the adviser comes from the member’s own electorate office, it is absolutely outrageous that he should make the comments in Hansard that he did. He has just hung himself, once again, as the most dishonest member of the Queensland parliament. Dr FLEGG: I take exception to the quip about being dishonest. My electorate staff officer came down to inform the minister’s department that I would be a bit late. When we came for the briefing we started the briefing at the top of the bill. I went through every point with the officers. At the end I said, ‘Is that all?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘You haven’t even mentioned asbestos.’ That is what happens when someone tries to cover up something like that. 3552 Public Health Bill 26 Oct 2005
Mr ROBERTSON: That was somewhat extraordinary. I now invite the honourable member for Moggill—and I use that word ‘honourable’ extremely lightly—to immediately apologise not to me, because I do not need an apology, but to my department. I invite him to do so now. Dr FLEGG: Is the minister withdrawing the remark about ‘untruthful’ that I found offensive? Mr ROBERTSON: I withdraw. Clause 447, as read, agreed to. Clauses 448 to 454, as read, agreed to. Clause 455— Mr ROBERTSON (4.25 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 455— At page 262, lines 22 to 24 and page 263, lines 1 to 9— omit. This amendment removes the statutory position of manager of Public Health Services for the state in line with the recommendations made in the Forster review. Amendment agreed to. Clause 455, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 456 to 461, as read, agreed to. Clause 462— Mr ROBERTSON (4.26 pm): I move the following amendment— 7 Clause 462— At page 266, line 30, ‘without limiting subsection (1),’— omit. This amendment deletes the words ‘without limiting subsection 1’ in clause 462. This wording is not required. Amendment agreed to. Clause 462, as amended, agreed to. Clause 463— Mr ROBERTSON (4.27 pm): I move the following amendment— 8 Clause 463— At page 267, lines 5 to 14— omit. This amendment deletes the transitional provision that carried forward the terms of appointment for the manager of Public Health Services for the state. These provisions are no longer necessary as the statutory position of manager of Public Health Services for the state will not be retained. Amendment agreed to. Clause 463, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 464 to 494, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1— Mr ROBERTSON (4.27 pm): I move the following amendment— 9 Schedule 1— At page 291, lines 7 and 8— omit, insert— ‘health issues, particularly on policy and legislative matters associated with population health, emergency services and mental health.’. This amendment updates the statutory role of Chief Health Officer in line with the recommendations made by the Forster report. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 2— Dr FLEGG (4.30 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Schedule 2— At page 296, after line 23— insert— ‘asbestos public health risk, for chapter 2, see section 10.’. This amendment relates to the matters we have already discussed. 26 Oct 2005 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3553
Amendment negatived. Mr ROBERTSON: I move the following amendment— 10 Schedule 2— At page 300, after line 19— insert— ‘(c) for chapter 6, part 4, information about a person’s health or the provision of a health service to a person held or obtained by a contractor for the contractor to keep the Queensland Cancer Register.’. This amendment will ensure that the information on the Queensland Cancer Register held or obtained by the Queensland Cancer Fund may be disclosed for research if approved by the chief executive. The definition of ‘health information held by the department’ refers to information held or obtained by the department. However, information may be held or obtained by the Queensland Cancer Fund as the contractor responsible for the day-to-day management of the register. Information collected by the contractor does not, therefore, fall within the definition of ‘health information held by the department’. The amendment, thankfully, will correct this oversight. Dr FLEGG: I table those explanatory notes. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading Resumed from 6 October (see p. 3368). Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (4.31 pm): It gives me pleasure to take up from where we left off in Rockhampton a couple of weeks ago. I will speak briefly about this bill. As honourable members know, it is an omnibus bill which has a number of administrative functions. I will concentrate on the changes to the port authorities, in particular the Townsville Port Authority. The Townsville port is the second-largest exporter of base metals in the world. In addition, it is Queensland’s third-largest commercial port. In 2004-05 the trade through the port of Townsville was over nine million tonnes. Approximately 80 per cent of all trade through the port was transported by rail, 18 per cent by road and two per cent by pipeline. I am indebted to Townsville Enterprise for this brief. It does a wonderful job in Townsville and Thuringowa in looking after our economic development. I particularly thank its chair, Graham Jackson, whom we affectionately call ‘Senator Jackson for North Queensland’, and the CEO, Glenys Schuntner, for the hard work they do. The growth in industrial and mining development and investment in Townsville and north-west Queensland has seen trade through the port of Townsville increase dramatically over the last 10 years, with average annual growth of 4.5 per cent being recorded. In fact, up until the 2003-04 financial year the port of Townsville had 17 consecutive years of record trade as it continues to benefit from the north being the transport hub of the wider north Queensland region. The growth has been achieved through a concerted effort towards industrial diversification and attracting new investment in the region. The future freight task for the port of Townsville will be driven further by development of initiatives in the region, continued strong growth in the Mount Isa-Townsville economic zone as well as the declaration of 1,300 hectares in the Stuart industrial area to the south of Townsville as a state development area. The development of a new gas pipeline infrastructure and gas-fired power station in the region may also create further opportunities to attract mineral and resource processing and related support industries to this region. That is why this bill is so important: because it will give the state government the opportunity to deal more closely with port authorities throughout Queensland, especially the Townsville Port Authority. Trade forecasts for the port of Townsville show total throughput increasing to between 14 million tonnes per annum and 17 million tonnes per annum by 2025. However, if growth in freight continues at its average pace over the last 10 years of 4.5 per cent per annum, total throughput would actually reach 16 million tonnes per annum by 2014. With gross regional product in the north Queensland and MITEZ regions averaging growth at around 7.9 per cent and 8.3 per cent respectively over the last five years, the freight task in north Queensland and trade through the port will continue to grow at pace. Currently, the missing stage 2 of the Townsville port access corridor is the main bottleneck for the further expansion of export activities from the north Queensland region. The current access arrangements for road and freight to the port will not be able to sustain the traffic load to and from the 3554 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2005 port in the future. This is because access to the port is not via a dedicated transport corridor but through suburban roads in the South Townsville area. This creates a number of social, environmental and economic inefficiencies. Under current access arrangements, trucking companies are faced with a 38- tonne load limit on the main access road to the port. This prevents complete access to the port for a fully laden road train, which has a 40-tonne capacity. All double-bogey road trains are required to unhitch one dog 15 kilometres south of Townsville and are then required to transport one dog at a time to and from the port. This impacts severely on the transport efficiencies of major freight companies and mineral refineries in the region. It is estimated that the economic costs associated with this inefficiency alone could amount to $5 million per annum. The answer to these problems, as the minister well knows—and it is good to see the minister in the chamber—is the construction of the eastern port access corridor. The minister has been an advocate for this project, as has the Queensland government and the state overall. Already the state has contributed some $10.8 million to this vital project for planning and works. It is, therefore, very disappointing that the federal government has refused to get off its backside and fund this important project. It has funded similar projects in Brisbane and Cairns, but will not do it in Townsville, the second- largest port. Mr Livingstone: Dreadful. Mr WALLACE: I take the interjection of the member for Ipswich West. It is appalling and dreadful. It is incompetence at its highest degree. The local federal member should get off his backside and make sure something is done. It is very disappointing to note that the local National Party member, whose electors are most impacted upon by this, the member for Burdekin, has not said a word about this particular project which would take heavy vehicles off roads in the vicinity of her constituents. I think she is singing the song of her federal counterparts. At least if Barnaby were the local member he might say something, but unfortunately the member for Burdekin seems to have lost her tongue on this one. I will limit my comments to that. I commend the minister for the fine work that he is undertaking. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (4.37 pm): I rise to speak to this Transport Legislation Amendment Bill, which I was within 10 minutes of doing in Rockhampton before the House adjourned. In doing so, I would like to take the opportunity to accord my appreciation to the people of Rockhampton for making us feel so welcome in their city. The sittings of parliament took many of us long distances from our families and electorates and put considerable strain on our limited staff and communication resources whilst we fulfilled our parliamentary duties there. Whilst I am sure amenities in Rockhampton are substantial, there is no doubt a number of services and facilities that people who live in regions such as those throughout central Queensland and beyond do not have compared with more densely populated areas in the state. These minor difficulties I experienced certainly have made me aware of how much we take for granted in our fast-paced, instant- response world. I will be increasingly mindful of our regional cousins when debating future legislation. This bill aims to amend a number of transport operations, infrastructure, planning and coordination acts encompassing marine pollution, marine safety, passenger transport and road use management. It proposes amendments to seven acts under the auspice of Queensland Transport and the Department of Main Roads, with subsequent amendments to three other acts. The bill has several major objectives: improving safety at sea to assist in the prevention of collisions, reducing the pollution of Queensland waters, improving safety on Queensland roads through the introduction of tougher sentencing rules for high-speed driving and drag-racing and street-racing, stronger legislation to prevent alteration of vehicle identification numbers, and changes to notification of disqualifiable offences for crossing guards and drivers of public vehicles. I will focus on addressing road use management as it pertains to drag-racing, high-speed offences and their penalties; the introduction of a legislative scheme for crossing supervisors who assist children to safely cross roads; and enhancing existing provisions that ensure drivers of public passenger vehicles are suitable with regard to public safety. Between January and June this year excessive speed was a major contributing factor in 19.9 per cent of fatal motor vehicle collisions in Queensland. Under the current Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, a driver convicted of driving in excess of 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit faces an administrative loss of licence. However, if the matter proceeds to court, the court has the discretion to reduce the disqualification period. This is happening far too often and is included in the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Proposed section 129B states that, if a person is convicted of driving in excess of 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit and is disqualified from holding a licence under section 187 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, then the disqualification must be for a period of at least six months. This amendment will provide consistency of sentencing for high-speed offences and limit the court’s tendency to impose shorter disqualification periods for these most dangerous offences. Even repeat offenders seem to be able to waltz into court, convince the judge of their remorse and get their licences back on the spot. Proposed section 192B will ensure that in future if the court is going to suspend a 26 Oct 2005 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3555 licence it must be for a minimum period of six months. Hopefully, this impediment will be enough time to make a driver think twice before engaging in such dangerous speeding again. To address the increasing incidence of hooning, particularly by young people, section 85 will also be amended to include provision for a person convicted of engaging in drag-racing and street speed trials to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for a period of at least six months. Street drag- racing results in injury and death. All too often we turn on the news and learn of yet another tragic story of teenagers being killed or injured through illegal street races, such as the shocking accident that killed four teenagers in Townsville. In my electorate tragedy struck earlier this year with the loss of life of two young high school students who were in an overloaded car that was speeding when it was involved in a head-on collision in a suburban street. The grief of these children’s parents, who have since come to see me, is a grim reminder of the gut-wrenching pain and suffering that a few moments of hooning can cause. Their raw emotions six months after their loved ones were taken from them provides me with further motivation to do whatever I can to improve driver safety and reduce road carnage. As a result of general public disquiet over an increase in antisocial behaviour that included vandalism, graffiti, hooning and street parties, I have held a number of consultations with the general public and teenagers. A questionnaire entitled ‘How to improve the safety of young drivers’ was circulated through two high schools in my electorate. The anonymous results gave me valuable insight into the opinions of our youth. I would like to share a few of the responses with members as they relate to this bill. To the question of whether there should be compulsory driving lessons, 83 per cent said yes. Eighty-seven per cent of people said yes to the question ‘Should it be compulsory for year 12 students to visit performance driving centres as part of their education?’ Only 49 per cent felt that youth were generally safe drivers. Some 41 per cent admitted to having been in a car with friends who were not wearing their seatbelts. A frightening 74 per cent had been in cars with friends who were speeding and 61 per cent had been in cars that were overloaded. These figures show that our youth are not confident as safe drivers, yet they are prepared to take fatal risks. The federal member for McPherson, Margaret May, has been a strong advocate behind the push for the implementation of federal laws to make compulsory driver training a requirement for obtaining a licence for 17-year-olds. Education and sound practical experience are vital ingredients to reducing road accidents. Mr Jim Kershaw from the RACQ believes that there should be a minimum of 100 hours of driver training before persons can apply for a licence. He says that it could be enforced with logbooks and accredited instructors. Mr Kershaw went on to add that drivers should be tested for competence at night and also in wet conditions. This legislation will treat all drivers who are stupid and irresponsible enough to exceed the speed limit by more than 40 kilometres an hour with the same penalties. Over 200 people have died on Queensland roads this year, and of those 17 per cent were between the ages of 17 and 24. I am really sorry to say that the current legislation still has offenders laughing at what they do, thumbing their noses at the law, oblivious to their own or others’ safety. Stronger deterrents are urgently required to protect these young people. While young men, and to a lesser degree young women, are able to get their hands on fast cars, there will always be an incentive to pit one’s car power and speed against another’s. Hopefully, these amendments will assist in shrinking road carnage by sending a strong message to our youth about the danger of such reckless pastimes and the cost both personally and financially. Speeding continues to be one of the major killers on Queensland roads, contributing to 268 fatalities and 1,983 hospitalisations in Queensland over the five years from 2000 to 2004. Speed related crashes cost the community approximately $180 million per year in hospital and health care costs, lost productivity in the workplace and the use of our emergency services on Queensland roads. The government must use every opportunity to introduce measures to reduce the number of people dying on our roads. Further to suspending drivers for excessive speeding, another important part of this bill is the changes to appeals against licence suspensions. Available reports indicate that around 80 per cent of appeals against suspensions on the grounds of excessive hardship are successful and disturbingly can result in the restoration of full driving privileges without conditions or restrictions. Proposed new section 150(1A) will provide a new scheme for special hardship to replace the current system and put an end to full driving privileges being restored after successful hardship appeals. This amendment will, however, deliver a set criteria for allowing restricted driving privileges to accommodate work commitments similar to those currently considered with drink-driving offences. Complementing the power of police to impound a motor vehicle being driven at dangerous speed—and this covers activities from street drag-racing to burnouts—these changes to the legislation will finally get tough on speeding and hooning. Presently, police can impound a vehicle for 48 hours and 3556 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2005 if the offence is repeated the court can order that the vehicle be confiscated for three months. If the offence is repeated a third time, the offender stands to lose their vehicle permanently as the court can order it to be forfeited to the state. Statistics abound on the effectiveness of vehicle confiscation as a deterrent to serious driving offences. In the United States several states have used vehicle sanctions to good effect, reducing repeat offender behaviour by up to 70 per cent. A study in Ohio found impounding and immobilising offenders’ vehicles brought down the disqualified driver repeat offender rate by 70 per cent and cut drink-driving rates by 49 per cent. These amendments acknowledge the seriousness of high-speed driving and serve to protect those who drive at dangerous speeds and protect the public. I am pleased that the Beattie government has finally got off its hands and has started to catch up with other Australian states on the issue of reckless driving. We can only hope it keeps the momentum going for the good of all Queenslanders. I move now to the issue of crossing guards. Parents entrust the safety of their children to crossing supervisors who ensure schoolchildren are able to safely cross roads before and after school. This legislation will help ensure that crossing guards are of a suitable character to have interaction with children. It will make certain all relevant criminal offences can be considered when determining who is appropriate to be or to continue to be a crossing supervisor, allowing criminal history checks to be undertaken where deemed necessary for the protection of children. Crossing supervisors are already legally bound to carry a blue card. Proposed section 122I provides for the chief executive to take action against a crossing supervisor who has, since becoming a crossing supervisor, been charged with a disqualifying offence prior to conviction for serious offences that may suggest that they may be of an unsuitable character to work with children. I move on to public passenger vehicle drivers. Clause 50 of part 5 of the bill inserts a new section 22B that requires accredited operators of public passenger vehicles to notify the chief executive if they reasonably believe an authorised driver has been charged or convicted of a disqualifying offence without being held liable for that disclosure. Whilst the intent is clear, it raises the issue of whether business owners should indeed have the responsibility placed on them to report their suspicions, and I would ask the minister to clarify that in his reply. In closing, I acknowledge the minister for transport for bringing this important legislation to the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (4.49 pm): This bill introduces a number of amendments relating to busways. One change will clarify that various types of land held by the state may be declared to be busway land. Currently, land may be declared to be busway land only if it is acquired by the state or the chief executive for busway purposes or as a road. It is not clear that it includes other land already owned by the state. This amendment bill will clarify that a broader range of land can be declared busway land, including land that the state already holds for busway purposes but originally acquired for purposes other than a busway. The amendments will also make provision for common areas for busways and roads. In relation to the Centenary suburbs, I believe that a number of bus routes are still under review by TransLink. I have recently written to the minister regarding an extra bus route from the Mount Ommaney Shopping Centre along Seventeen Mile Rocks Road and touching on the new Windemere Estate which, to date, has not been covered adequately by buses. It is a fairly new estate and public transport is fairly minimal. The bill also clarifies the role of busway safety officers and includes ensuring the orderly movement of people on the busway, managing busway traffic in accordance with speed limits, removing obstructions from the busway and generally ensuring the busway is safe for commuters and all other busway users. These powers are consistent with the powers of authorised persons but are restricted to the busway transport infrastructure and are generally more limited. For example, busway safety officers are not intended to have an enforcement role on buses and do not validate or check tickets like authorised persons. For those people who use the busway, these are the men and women in green shirts and the red busway logo who attend busway stations and patrol the busway. They answer the help phones, assist distressed and worried passengers, and keep an oversight on what is actually happening on the busway stations and the busway. In relation to the infrastructure plan for the western suburbs, I believe that in about 2015 the government will be preparing for a transit lane on the Centenary Highway to overcome the increasing problem with bottlenecks, particularly at the Toowong roundabout. It is actually starting construction at the other end near the Ipswich Motorway on the corner of the Centenary Highway in relation to building a four-lane link which will overcome the bottleneck problem at Kelliher Road. This is a $30 million joint project with the Brisbane City Council and should overcome the problems that motorists experience as they cross the interchange at the Centenary Highway to Forest Lake. In relation to non-rail corridor land, there is currently a definition of that term in the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. The definition will be extended to include land that was part of a rail corridor where the lease of the land has been surrendered by a railway manager. This will enable the chief executive to retain the land in the perpetual lease for future years as part of a transport corridor on the same status as for existing non-rail corridor land. There is an issue with the RSL sub-branch in my 26 Oct 2005 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3557 electorate in relation to acquiring a lease on a particular triangle of land near the Corinda Railway Station. It has been wanting that land as it has to move its war memorial from the RSL club over to the sub-branch. It is currently in negotiations with QR in relation to leasing that on a long-term basis. In relation to driver disqualifying offences, there are a number of changes to clarify provisions on driver disqualifying offences. Over time some serious child related sexual offences in the Criminal Code of Queensland have been recategorised or renamed as other offences. The amendment will remove any doubt that any person convicted of one of these offences will remain ineligible to hold a driver authorisation, even though the offence may now be renamed or categorised differently. The bill will also correct an anomaly that possession of a large amount of a drug may be considered a less serious offence than possession of a smaller amount of the same drug. With regard to driver offences and appeals against licence suspensions, it is essential that the penalties relating to speeding offences are consistent and send a clear message to the Queensland community that speeding is a dangerous driving behaviour. A review of infringement and administrative penalties for speeding was conducted in 2003. This review saw the introduction of harsher penalties for this dangerous practice. However, wide variations in sanctions imposed by courts for these offences have led to another examination of the issue. The act currently provides for a six-month suspension of a drivers licence where a person is caught driving at more than 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. Typically, the person will receive an infringement notice and a suspension will automatically be imposed. While everybody is familiar with on-road enforcement of speeding by way of radars and speed cameras, there is another dangerous behaviour occurring in the community which can potentially have much more serious ramifications. I am referring to racing and speed trials on roads, or more commonly known as drag-racing. These are inherently dangerous activities often involving vehicles travelling at high speed. This dangerous practice has received much media attention in the last 12 to 18 months and appears to be on the rise. Some of the media in recent times has highlighted the inconsistencies in penalties handed down by the courts for these offences. Given the dangers of this offence, a similar penalty to that imposed on drivers doing more than 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit is warranted. The bill will therefore introduce a minimum six-month disqualification period for those convicted of conducting or participating in racing or speed trials on roads. Again, a court will have discretion to impose a longer period if it believes that that is appropriate. There are a few other issues that are worth mentioning with regard to transport in the Mount Ommaney electorate. Recently I was able to officially open the upgrade of the Corinda Railway Station which cost $5 million and provided four new lifts. Residents of the Corinda area and surrounds are very happy with this upgrade. It has certainly made travel a lot more accessible to people with disabilities and the elderly, who, prior to the lifts being installed, had to walk up very steep ramps and that was very awkward for them. I previously mentioned the four-lane link, and that is going ahead. Construction has started and is expected to be completed in the next 18 months or so. When upgrading that link, the new Springfield line from the city out to Springfield has to be taken into account, which is in the infrastructure plan as well. That is needed to be taken into consideration in planning for that four-lane link to overcome the bottleneck at the end of the Centenary Highway. People in Springfield are really looking forward to that transport link—the rail link—between the city and Darra and Springfield. The Queensland Taxi Drivers Association is looking forward to security cameras in cabs. There have been a number of incidents where cabbies have been assaulted, and security cameras will go a long way in preventing that sort of thing from happening in the future. The bikeway along the Centenary Highway between Fig Tree Pocket Road and Centenary Bridge has been continuing. This has been on the agenda for the last seven years when the bikeway was originally constructed. However, that link is vital for my local bikeway group, the Centenary Bikeways Group, to complete its passage into the city. Members of the group are frequent users of the bikeway. Previously, they have had to use the Centenary Highway to commute to work, but that is quite dangerous. The other issue in terms of this legislation relates to crossing supervisors. They are a very necessary part of our children’s safety in terms of getting across the road to school. There are a number of schools which have very busy traffic around them in my electorate, particularly the Jamboree Heights State School, where traffic has always been a problem and a safety issue. I am very glad to see that crossing supervisors will be included in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (4.58 pm): I rise to speak to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. As noted before, this is an omnibus bill. There are many facets. It seeks to consolidate transport options. That of course is of interest to me and the residents of the electorate of Clayfield—namely, with the northern busway and the airport link. The northern transport corridor, which runs through Albion, Wooloowin and Kalinga in the electorate of Clayfield, has always been a great bone of contention. The transport corridor was designated in 1972. It has taken the result of many elections down to the wire and has caused the residents of this area great uncertainty and angst. Since 1997 I have lobbied for the sale of this transport corridor, but during the past year we have had to deal with the prospect of the airport link being located within this corridor. 3558 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2005
Although most people who live in the area can see the need for a link to the airport, consultation has to be undertaken to identify the most feasible route. The benefits of a tunnel for those living outside the electorate are evident, but what are the benefits for those people who have to live with the tunnel? I believe that of the three proposed routes, the western route is the best outcome for all concerned. At least we get to sell the northern corridor, which is fantastic. If that occurs, the residents can breathe a sigh of relief. Of course, the feasibility study for the western route will take at least eight to nine months. If that route gets the green light at that time, the member for Stafford, Mr Terry Sullivan, and I will make sure that we get positive outcomes and visible results for our communities. If residents are affected, we as their elected representatives will be diligent in putting forward their concerns. During the environmental impact study for the route, which begins next year, the community will be kept informed. They will have input and that way they will have some ownership of the project. I ask that the minister and the lord mayor be mindful of the people in the community who are directly impacted during each project stage. Undoubtedly, the airport link will provide real benefits to the residents of greater Brisbane. However, those who live in Clayfield must also see real benefits to their area as a result of this project. I will study with interest the northern busway route and the airport link together so that we achieve the best outcome not only for the people of greater Brisbane but also for the people of Clayfield. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.01 pm): In rising to speak to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill, I put on record my appreciation to the departmental officers who work for Queensland Transport and the Department of Main Roads for the wonderful job they do. They are very easy people to deal with and I find that they strike a fine balance between the concerns of the community and meeting their responsibilities within the department. This legislation addresses a number of matters. Before addressing specific issues in the bill that relate to my electorate, I want to touch on a couple of matters. I have already mentioned this matter on previous occasions. There are changes to the way in which port authorities will be structured. Currently, all ports are government owned corporations. In the minister’s second reading speech reference was made to the amalgamation last year of the Gladstone port authority and the Rockhampton port authority to form the Central Queensland Ports Authority. This bill proposes to remove any reference to specific port authorities in the definition of port authorities. It will enable port authorities to be structured or renamed by regulation without any need for further amendment to the act. I can understand that that amendment streamlines the process, but I have mentioned—and the minister is aware of this—the disquiet in my electorate when the Gladstone port authority ceased to exist, in name at least, and it was amalgamated and rebadged the Central Queensland Ports Authority. There is still a high level of resentment that the GPA has ceased to exist. I seek clarification from the minister whether, as a matter of course, there will be consultation with the community that will be affected. This may sound like a trite matter, but the GPA and the port of Gladstone had contributed significantly to the community—to infrastructure and to social capital. People felt dissociated from the whole process and certainly were not happy with the result. So although through this bill the name changes can occur by regulation, I encourage the minister to ensure that, when that occurs, there is consultation. The threshold for shipboard waste management plans used to be based on ships that weighed at least 400 gross tonnes. I believe that the new measurement which is introduced by this bill, that is, the overall length of the ship must be at least 35 metres or it is a ship that is designed to sleep at least 15 persons, is easier and clearer to apply. It quantifies and stipulates the obligation on ship owners on the basis of those very clear and measurable thresholds. This amendment also makes it easier for those enforcing this legislation to check compliance. I believe that that simplification will be well accepted. Many of our children in schools—both primary and secondary—particularly in the coastal regions, undertake marine studies of various complexities. Part of that study can include undertaking a recreational marine drivers licence exam. That means that there are outside school providers of this service, including trainers as well as examiners. Unfortunately, throughout our communities we need to ensure that people who offer those services—both the training and the examination—are appropriate people to whom we can entrust our children. Criminal history checks will be made of those people before they are deemed to be appropriate people to supply these services. Although it is an indictment on the community that we have to do this, it is the reality. I certainly commend the minister for introducing that safeguard for our young people in the education system. The legislation also introduces new suspensions for exceeding the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. The person who is alleged to have committed the offence has the option to take the matter to court. The legislation imposes a mandatory minimum disqualification period where the offender’s driving history has shown a disqualifying offence. The court has exercised its discretion in the past and has applied a lower disqualification period or no disqualification period at all. This amendment will make that six-month disqualification period mandatory not only in relation to convictions for driving in excess of 40 kilometres per hour but also for drag-racing and similar offences. 26 Oct 2005 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3559
I want to put on the record—and I know that I have said it before, but I will say it again—that where exceeding the speed limit of 40 kilometres an hour occurs, there does need to be some discretion, particularly in circumstances where that exceeding of the speed limit occurs where roadworks are in progress. Those of us who travel the Bruce Highway on a regular basis often come upon roadworks that pose no real risk to the driver at that point—and it is often at night. There are no workers on the road. The road is in a reasonably safe condition. Mr Lucas: You mightn’t think there are workers on the road. You might come around the corner and find there are. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I am sorry, but I have never seen any workers on the road at 11 o’clock or 12 o’clock at night. Yes, I have seen workers on the road during daylight hours. If there is an accident, there are usually warning signs that an accident has occurred ahead. Often the speed will be reduced from 100 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour or from 60 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour. The road can easily take that higher speed limit. I am not arguing whether or not people should or should not go back to travelling at 40 kilometres an hour. The signs are there on that road and that should occur. But in those conditions it is a very strong punishment for exceeding the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit when compared with, say, exceeding the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit in a 60 kilometre an hour area around schools or in suburbs where the speed limit is usually 60 kilometres an hour. In those circumstances, exceeding the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit is significant. But if the speed limit on a highway is 100 kilometres an hour, it is necessary to reduce the speed limit to 40 kilometres per hour because of roadworks when there are workers there. Often if those signs are left uncovered it is easy for people to exceed the speed limit at night or when road workers are not in attendance. It does not make it right. I am saying that there are circumstances where the danger of exceeding that speed limit is less obvious. The other issue I wanted to touch on was crossing supervisors. I commend the minister for the safeguards that are being put in place for our children. I commend the crossing supervisors. Most of them have been mums who in the first instance were volunteers. Some are now paid by the department of transport. But overwhelmingly their interest in being crossing supervisors was the welfare and safety of our children. They often put themselves in positions of danger. It is fairly blood chilling to hear some of the experiences that they have at the hands of drivers—drivers who are annoyed that they are being told to stop to allow children to cross the road and drivers who are discourteous. The crossing supervisors put themselves at significant risk. There are criminal history checks for crossing supervisors. Even though almost 100 per cent of them would be doing it for the right reasons, there is a small minority of people in our society who take advantage of those positions of trust. Disqualifying offences include indecent acts, accessories after the fact to murder, threats to murder, concealing the birth of children, grievous bodily harm, bomb hoaxes and negligent acts causing harm. There is a significant list of disqualifying events that I think most parents would agree should be included and they are acts of harm, both physical and sexual, towards children. There are other reviewable decisions that allow some latitude for the decision maker, and I think that shows a high level of wisdom. I want to make a couple of comments about transport in my electorate. For quite a long time the community awaited the duplication of the Dawson Highway. It is now complete, and I would like to pass on to the minister the appreciation of the communities of Gladstone and Calliope for that duplication. It has certainly eased peak-hour traffic congestion in the city area. The Callemondah overpass is continuing but perhaps at a slower pace than anyone would like. Concerns have been raised recently in the last week or so about the level of security at the port of Gladstone, Auckland Point. I assume that the minister has been briefed about those concerns. But the usage level of the port bypass is certainly not at the level that was first proposed. It has been stated that there is a security issue at the port as well. In particular, a number of people in the community have raised concern about the lack of security at the port, and I look forward to the minister’s comments, not necessarily today but in the future, in relation to the upgrading of port security. The only other issue I wish to raise is community concern over the extension of Kirkwood Road from the Dawson Highway through to Benaraby Road. It is a staged proposal. The Gladstone City Council has budgeted for part of that road’s construction, but it is necessary to have state and even federal government involvement to finalise the full length of that road to ensure that heavy traffic is diverted from the city of Gladstone itself and past quite a number of schools. The completion of that road link, connecting to Red Rover Road, will ensure that heavy traffic stays outside of the inner-city area which will enhance safety for all commuters. I commend the bill to the House. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.13 pm): I rise in support of the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. As has been stated, this bill amends seven acts administered by Queensland Transport and the Department of Main Roads, with consequential amendments to two other acts. The main objectives of the bill are to improve safety at sea. It will make more data available to the ship reporting system to help prevent collisions at sea and allow the creation of exclusion zones around ships and the temporary closure of pilotage areas. It will reduce the pollution of Queensland waters by 3560 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 26 Oct 2005 introducing measures to prevent marine pollution and improve our capacity to respond to it. Importantly, it will also improve safety on our roads. I wish to speak about the amendments to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. There are a number of amendments within this bill that deal with penalties imposed by courts for certain offences. The first of those amendments concerns the unlawful altering or defacing of identifying numbers on motor vehicles. Typically on a modern motor vehicle there will be an identifying number on the engine, another on the chassis and a further number—commonly known as a VIN—that will appear on the vehicle’s compliance plate and in one other place on the vehicle. Since 1 September 1989, VINs have been the primary identifier of the motor vehicles that are commonly used on our roads. For example, VINs are recorded on Queensland Transport’s registration database. They are also frequently used for recording security interests over a vehicle. The accurate identification of a vehicle is essential to support efforts to reduce vehicle theft and vehicle fraud. In particular, it is essential in combating the unlawful practice of vehicle ‘rebirthing’. As we all know, rebirthing involves the illegal re-registration of damaged vehicles that have been written off for safety reasons. Sometimes the damage sustained by these vehicles may not be immediately obvious on first inspection—for example, a vehicle that has been immersed in salt water. While there may be no apparent significant damage, the damage actually done to the vehicle may render it unsafe for further use on the road. There have been instances where unscrupulous people have taken identification numbers from a second vehicle and placed those numbers onto the written-off vehicle. The previously written-off vehicle is then re-registered or rebirthed. This bill will increase the maximum penalty for those unlawfully interfering with a vehicle’s identification number from $3,000, or six months imprisonment, to $7,500, or 12 months imprisonment. These new penalties are appropriate to ensure the public can be confident that vehicles they purchase have not been tampered with and, most importantly, are safe. The bill also includes a number of amendments that are aimed at changing driver behaviour to improve road safety. Speed is something that continues to play a major role in the deaths on our roads. Statistics are alarmingly high. Last year alone 55 people were tragically killed, leaving family and friends grieving, not to mention the cost to the community and to other road users. In my office I am constantly dealing with people who complain about being caught for speeding and, quite frankly, they get short shrift from me and my staff. It is terrible to see the number of people who are constantly speeding and constantly being caught without facing any consequences. This bill will certainly deal with those people. The amendments in this bill will send a clear message to people that it is a privilege to hold a driver’s licence, not a right, and if they do not hold that privilege highly and do all the right things then they will lose the right to have that licence and will be dealt with appropriately. At present, drivers who are convicted of speeding more than 40 kilometres per hour over the speed limit have their driver’s licence administratively suspended for a period of six months. However, there is a discretionary power that allows that period to be shortened. To bring about greater consistency in the penalties for these high-speed offences, the act will be amended to clarify that when a court elects to impose a disqualification for a speeding offence this must be for a period of at least six months. Quite frankly, anyone who is speeding at more than 40 kilometres over the speed limit, I believe, should have their licence removed for a lot longer than that. But that is the penalty in this particular bill, and I will keep arguing for an even longer period of suspension. Speeding is so irresponsible. Speeding at 140 kilometres per hour in a 100-kilometre zone is horrific, but speeding at 100 kilometres per hour in a 60-kilometre zone is even more horrific because in a 60-kilometre zone usually there are a lot of pedestrians and young children, particularly near schools. It is inappropriate and irresponsible, and I believe that they should be punished accordingly. The bill also contains amendments which strengthen the driver’s licence suspension process. Amendments within this bill will insert a new regulation-making power which will replace the existing appeals process with special hardship order provisions. These orders will only be granted by courts where the person or their dependants would suffer extreme hardship if that person were to have their driving privileges revoked. Legislation will also set out road safety matters that the court must consider, including the person’s driving record. If the person has a history of undesirable driving behaviour, then it is unlikely that they will be considered suitable for a special hardship order. I think that is particularly appropriate. In relation to crossing supervisors, this bill inserts new safeguards by adopting a new legislative scheme for crossing supervisors. It is important to ensure that those people who are entrusted with the safety of our children are appropriate to act as a crossing supervisor and that correct procedures are in place for employing them and also for any disciplinary processes that need to take place. Just last week I had the great honour of presenting the Caboolture State School Crossing Supervisor, Mrs Kay Morris, with her 20-year certificate, an engraved clock and some flowers to thank her for her ongoing dedication. We are all very proud of Kay, and it was a pleasure to speak about her 26 Oct 2005 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3561 commitment and work on school parade in the company of her daughter, Karen, and her son, Paul. We are all very proud of Kay. In fact, Kay makes sure that my children cross the road safely every day, and I am eternally grateful to her for that, as I know all of the parents in the Caboolture area who have dealt with her over all of those years are. It was a very great privilege and honour to do that. Kay has said to me that she plans on doing it for many more years to come. So hopefully I will be able to present her with her 25-year certificate in a couple of years time. I congratulate the minister bringing this bill to the House and ensuring safety on land and sea. I commend the bill to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (5.19 pm): In rising to support the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill before the House, I will pay particular attention to the amendments that will occur to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, particularly those sections which relate to the busway provisions. The busway provisions are part of the debate on, and policy formulation of, the public transport system that we need in our built-up areas. The key word there is ‘system’. It is not possible to have a partial system and ask someone to travel two-thirds of the journey on public transport and then be left without the means of completing it. We have to have an arrangement where a person can get from the start to the end of their journey by public transport. People have to be able to link up with various modes of public transport before they will leave their cars and use our public transport system. We have all acknowledged the massive growth that we are experiencing in the south-east corner of this state, with more than 200 people a day coming to Queensland and about half of those in the south-east corner. One of the first obvious signs of this growth is in growth in traffic and traffic congestion. My office at Chermside is on Gympie Road—or highway 1—and in the 12 years that I have been there I have seen for myself, and local residents have confirmed, the significant growth of traffic. In the afternoon there is a very long stretch from Rode Road south to the Kitchener Road lights. A few years ago, at peak hour, that would have been one-third full of traffic. Now it can frequently have cars lined up from Rode Road all the way back. That is an obvious example of the growth that we are experiencing. I have often wondered whether any government would try a radical scheme in the public transport system, along the lines that I will outline now. Take an area like North Lakes in Murrumba, where few houses are built and then more and more, knowing that in the next decade there are going to be 20,000- odd people there. What would be the advantage—the whole-of-government economic advantage—if we were able to provide a free public transport system to link those people to express routes coming along the major arterial road? Once people in the initial stages of settling into a new suburb use their vehicles, it is almost impossible to get them out of that practice. If, on the other hand, we provided a cheap and efficient system to get people into built-up areas, I believe that the whole-of-government cost could stack up in an economic fashion. I do not know whether I am totally out of line with the economics of that but, when I read of the billions of dollars put into road infrastructure which then becomes jammed almost as soon as it is opened, I wonder whether those billions of dollars could in fact be better spent in that public transport area. The whole area of transport and traffic planning has to be long term and corridors need to be set aside, although we do have a problem. I know that on the western border of my electorate, in the Raven Street area—west of Raven Street—there is a corridor that has been set aside many years ago that is a possible north-south link along the Trouts Road line, but currently there are trees there. I can imagine some future government in 15 or 20 years time trying to install that corridor and people saying that they have lived with that vegetation for the last 30 or 40 years and that it should not be cut down. We cannot ask governments to do long-term planning but, when they do the planning, then say that they cannot use the corridor set aside for the future. I know also that in the Kalinga-Wooloowin area, where I lived for 20 years, there were corridors set aside by Russ Hinze in the sixties. An earlier speaker, my colleague Liddy Clark, has referred to the issues that arose when that corridor and other associated roadworks were mooted. I believe there are two things that we can do to help preserve these corridors and make them available to the wider public. When people do property searches, particularly when they are purchasing land or their home, the question is often asked whether they are affected by a transport corridor. When they are told that they are not, they feel safe. What they have not been told is that right next door to them is a proposed six- lane route. The words ‘affected by a transport corridor’ mean ‘we will be taking your land’. I believe that we have the technology now so that when people are purchasing a property the department of natural resources has the ability to print out a map showing a kilometre, or a certain distance, to each side of the property with any proposed transport corridors. That way, people get an honest, truthful and full set of information before they purchase a property. The other thing is that, when corridors are set aside, every three or four years the properties around should be letterboxed to let them know that that is a corridor so that when proposals for development come people are fully informed as to what is available and what has been set aside. I congratulate the minister and the Brisbane City Council on their decision on the airport link that was announced last Sunday. It was a good decision for the general community but there will be some dislocation as a result of the choice that has been made. As in the past, there are people from the 3562 Public Health System 26 Oct 2005 northern suburbs of Brisbane who drive through the Bowen Hills link and people from the south side who drive along the South East Freeway, and we need to remember that in previous years houses and suburban living occurred in those spots where there are now thoroughfares. Similarly, in the future building of the airport link, where the portals and entrances will be will mean that there will be some resumptions of land and dislocation to some residences. What I would ask—I know that the minister already has this under way—is that consultation occur with the local residents, that information is provided and that proper compensation is paid to those whose land has to be acquired. In the Kedron-Lutwyche area there will be some disturbance to homes and to recreational land, possibly around the Emergency Services site and the Kedron State High School, when the final route for the airport link portals is decided. What we need to do is to discuss this as a community. Some people will be adversely affected, but that is one of the factors that is occurring as a part of our growth. I want to put on the public record here what I have been saying at community meetings and at P&C associations and similar meetings in recent times about the tunnels and how they might affect our area. There is a small group of people who are totally opposed to tunnels and they are putting out some information to say that the exhaust stacks coming from the tunnels are going to produce widespread adverse health effects to the population. Some have gone so far as to be irresponsible in saying that these stacks are going to be killing local residents. What I have said to the groups is that we need to compare what we currently have and what is proposed. We currently have tens of thousands of cars at street level, often idling at lights, in a position where people who are pedestrians, who are at shops, at schools and at homes are closest to those exhaust fumes. Currently we have the worst situation possible and a situation that is getting worse through the growth of our traffic. What the tunnels and the stacks will do is to enable a smoother and faster flow of the traffic, to start with, and the stacks coming out at 20-plus metres high will mean that the exhaust is dissipated. It will mean less particulates, less exhaust in total and a better distribution into the atmosphere. The people who are saying that the exhaust stacks are dangerous must be totally oblivious to the exhaust fumes that are currently being experienced by people walking, shopping and living at ground level around the built-up areas. I reaffirm my comments this morning about the value of the late-night taxi and bus trials. Some of the stories I have heard from my young adult children about the difficulties that have been experienced and about some of the dangers that have occurred when people have not been able to get taxis home from the city are quite disturbing. I thank the minister for the trials. I support the bill before the House.
PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House supports the retention of a free public hospital system for all Queenslanders and calls on the government to abandon its proposal to charge patients a copayment and means test them when they seek treatment. The free hospital system in Queensland has been part of this state’s social fabric for over 50 years. It has delivered quality health care to generations of Queenslanders during that period of time. Only recently has it run off the rails, as we have so clearly seen over the past couple of months through the very public inquiries headed by former Commissioner Morris and Commissioner Davies and in the Forster report into the systemic issues. Members on this side of the House fervently believe that Queensland should retain its free public hospital system. We believe that it is sustainable into the future. By contrast, members on the other side do not want a free public hospital system in the future. They cannot maintain it and they know they cannot run it. It all comes back to the very reason we are standing in this place tonight debating this motion: the government has grossly mismanaged it in the past and it will continue to grossly mismanage it in the future. For all except 2½ of the last 17 years Queensland has had a Labor government. It is a bit rich for government members to come in here and go into the public arena and blame us and everyone else for the problems within Queensland Health. They have tried to blame the Commonwealth government, public servants and the people of Queensland. Finally, they have woken up to the fact that its own mismanagement has caused the problems within the health system today. What are the solutions of the government? Its proposal is outlined in an action plan that was tabled in the House yesterday. It undermines the very notion that we will continue with a free, universal health system in Queensland. Why are these issues of means testing and copayments on the agenda and put in that action plan? There are two reasons. First, the government has failed to properly fund the health system in this state over a number of years. It is not that the money has not been unavailable. There has been plenty of money. It has simply been a question of priorities. Due to this government’s wrong priorities, it has not allocated money to the health system and, hence, we are at this point today. When one looks at the role played by the Commonwealth over the past five budget periods one sees that over that period of time the Commonwealth, through its GST payments, has actually given 26 Oct 2005 Public Health System 3563
Queensland almost $1 billion more than was budgeted for in the official budgets of this state. Over the past five years, the Commonwealth—at a later date—has given the state extra GST, on top of what the government budgeted for. Plenty of money has been coming into this state that has not been budgeted for in terms of the GST. Further, when one looks at the specific purpose payments for health, which is where the additional money has come in, one sees that over the past five years the extra specific purpose payments for health, over and above what was budgeted, come to almost $300 million. So $1.2 billion extra is coming from the Commonwealth over that five-year budget period. The Commonwealth has certainly played its part in providing additional money for health in Queensland. When one looks at state government revenues, one sees a similar story. That is not surprising, given that the national economy and the Queensland economy have been going quite well over that period of time. We have had strong economic growth and the state’s taxes and charges have delivered extra money, over and above what was budgeted for that five-year period—to the extent of $1.4 billion. That is a huge windfall in terms of state taxes and charges. The people of Queensland have played their part—they have tipped in the money over that period of time—and the Commonwealth has tipped in its money over that period of time. In reality, when the money has come in to Queensland it has been grossly misused and badly managed. Hence, there has been underfunding of the health system in this state over the past five or six years. The first issue is the failure to fund the system properly over a long period of time. The second issue is that the government has failed to run it properly and efficiently. It has sanctioned a culture of bullying and intimidation within the hospital system which has led to a mass exodus of qualified clinicians, doctors, nurses, VMOs and other qualified practitioners. They have left the system in droves. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr QUINN: That is exactly right. Of course, that led to us having to open our hospitals to the area of need category. That led to the deeming issue and that led to the Patel issue. It comes back to the way in which the government has managed Queensland Health over the past five or six years. Both of those issues lead directly to the issue of why this government does not believe it can run Queensland Health in an efficient way in the future to make sure that we can maintain our free hospital system. So what do we have to do? We have to repair our state’s health system and we have to restore public confidence. Simply going down the same path we have gone down in the past—tipping more money in—will not do the job. There have to be some fundamental changes. Not only do we have to fund our hospitals efficiently; we also have to send a message to the Public Service and to the people of Queensland that we will make some of the hard decisions, we will change the culture, we will make sure that things run efficiently and effectively and we will deliver those operations that people desperately need. Simply tipping in more money will not solve the problem. We have to start cutting out some of the waste and inefficiencies, not only in the department of health but also across the government. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr QUINN: Of course we have the cheap interjections. We expect those. He is the master of the cheap interjection. We have to take some serious action to address the inefficiencies within the government. During question time today I mentioned that this government’s proposal for an efficiency dividend of 0.2 per cent across the Public Service in the next three years will deliver $175 million in savings. That is $175 million out of an $86 billion gross budget over that three-year period. That is $175 million out of $86 billion, which is 0.2 per cent. Any decent, worthwhile, half-thinking government can achieve at least one per cent. How do we know that? When this government came to power in 1998, part of its election commitment was to put an efficiency dividend of one per cent across the Public Service. That was the plan, and it said that it could achieve that quite easily. Mr Caltabiano: That is the Labor Party. Mr QUINN: We should know better than to trust the Labor Party on financial matters. As I said before, that is part of what needs to be done. We really need to cut out some of the waste. Thousands of cars are sitting out there and the government spends tens of millions of dollars on advertising and self- promotion, sponsors football teams and provides all sorts of other sporting sponsorship across the state. Those things have to be tackled. More importantly, we have to tackle some of the systemic issues in Queensland Health to ensure that its funding is not wasted in the future. The shadow minister for health has outlined our ideas on the way to do that, moving into the future—making sure that we prune the bureaucracy, spend the extra money and spend it wisely. Not only that, we would give local communities some say in what they think is important in terms of health service delivery in this state. 3564 Public Health System 26 Oct 2005
In that respect, we have put forward the idea of boards. I want to say a few words about this, because a lot of misinformation is being peddled by the government about boards. It reckons that when the boards were in place they ran up a debt of $300 million. They did accumulate that debt. However, because the boards were legislated for they did it with the full authority of the government. They did it with Queensland Treasury’s approval and they borrowed through the Queensland Treasury Corporation. In fact, they were borrowing on behalf of Queensland Health and the government, with the full approval of the government. That is the way in which the debt was incurred in those days. Nowadays they borrow it centrally and they do not allocate it to any particular hospital or region. That is what it proposes for the future. So there is no difference in the way in which these borrowings operated, except that the boards incurred the debts on behalf of the government. Dr Flegg’s proposal for the future ensures that that cannot occur—not a bad suggestion. However, to say that the boards ran up debts inadvertently and unauthorised is simply not true. At the end of this debate what we ought to be focusing on is: which side of politics is committed to maintaining a free universal hospital system in Queensland? There is only one side, because the other side wants to go down the path of the proposal of investigating. We know what will happen in the future: after the investigation, in it comes. Time expired. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.39 pm): It gives me great pleasure to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party. Free universal access to public hospital services is a basic tenet for all Queenslanders. It is the safety net that underpins health care in this state. Let us ask why, at this point in time, the government and its advisors are trying to tell Queenslanders that this is a luxury that we can no longer afford? Make no mistake, that is exactly what Queenslanders have been told. It is not because the state lacks financial resources. In fact, we have just seen years of double digit revenue growth, even higher growth rates in state taxes, a booming economy and a prosperous state. What we have seen is a crisis in health care engineered by appalling government health care policy over many years, by chronic underfunding and by a failure to even keep pace with health inflation for our growing population or to even keep the share of total revenues expended on health constant. This is a crisis of the government’s making and, instead of fixing the broken system that it has delivered to Queenslanders, it is now saying that Queenslanders have to pay the price for the government’s failure. The government has said that one of their basic protections, the knowledge that they and their families can attend a public hospital without going through the accounts department first, has to be done away with. That is what the government is telling the people of Queensland. In health care delivery in Queensland we have seen a massive increase in bureaucracy at a time when there has been little or no increase in the clinical staff required to deliver health care to a growing Queensland population. We have seen enormous waste within that bureaucracy to the point where only a fraction of each health care dollar ever sees its way down to treating patients. We see a lack of focus on health care. We have three or four non-clinical staff for everybody who treats a patient. We have seen the government’s failure to efficiently manage the quality of health care delivery and the effect of that is that the government is now facing huge costs in litigation. In fact, those costs are so huge that it will not even reveal to the people of Queensland the confidential settlements that are taking place and bleeding the health system. What did we see the other day in the government’s mini budget? An attempt to throw a fistful of dollars at the problem in an attempt to catch up on years of bad policy. This is not a change that has been forced on the government by demographics, rising health costs or a shortage staff. However, it was a day of reckoning because the government failed to adequately invest in the core business of delivering health care in the public system. The government’s approach of throwing money at the problem instead of fixing the broken system is doomed to failure. There is an element of catch up. Over succeeding years, money that has already been promised in the system will be clawed back through more bad policy and more waste. As I said earlier, this is the best of economic times yet we are telling Queenslanders that we have to appoint yet another inquiry into health, this time by a health economist, to look at how the people are going to be slugged for their public hospitals. Perhaps the government should explain why a health economist will decide whether Queensland can afford free public hospitals. Surely that is more of a job for the Treasury. This looks like a case of a government that has decided to charge the people of Queensland and is holding an inquiry to tell them how they will be charged. Anyone who thinks that this is anything other than the thin end of the wedge had better think again. Once we start paying for Queensland’s free public hospitals, it will just keep growing and growing, particularly if the good economic times do not keep rolling. What should the government do? Firstly, it should rule out charging Queenslanders for public hospitals. Secondly, it should put somebody in charge who has successfully run a hospital system in the past, and not someone who is there to deliver a political outcome for the government. Thirdly, it should deliver a lean bureaucracy and alter the wasteful ratio of medical staff to non-medical staff. The government should remove layers of 26 Oct 2005 Public Health System 3565 bureaucracy, starting with health districts and health zones and all of the inefficiencies that come from those zones talking to each other. In fact, we tried to help out those on the other side by producing our policy in advance of their mini budget. The solution to how to fix the system was outlined, but they cannot make the hard decision. They want to throw money at the problem and tell people that even in prosperous times they cannot deliver free hospital treatment to all Queenslanders. Time expired. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (5.44 pm): I rise in this debate to move the following amendment— That all words after ‘Queenslanders’ are deleted and the following parts inserted— That the House notes the $6.4 billion injection of funds over five years to the Queensland public health system as outlined in the Action Plan—Building a better health service for Queensland. That the House notes that as outlined on page 11 of the plan no decision has been made regarding other revenue-raising models and that a health economist will be recruited to report to the government by March 2006 on possible policies to increase revenue for health services including means testing or copayments. Further, that the House calls on the federal government to match the additional funding to be provided by the Queensland government, to increase the number of federally funded training places available for medical students and to deal positively with all the other recommendations for federal government involvement contained in the final report of the Queensland Health Systems Review.’ The effect of that amendment is very simple: it states that this House supports the retention of a free public hospital system for all Queenslanders. I support that and my government supports it. Let there be no doubt about our commitment to the free public hospital system and to universal health care access. We are clearly stating our commitment tonight. Let us have no more nonsense about that. We are determined to ensure that we end up with long-term solutions and not quick fixes. Following Peter Forster’s 21 recommendations seeking federal government involvement, what do we have? Silence from the federal government! Do we hear the Liberal Party or the National Party trying to persuade the federal government to provide more university places for the training of doctors? No, we hear none of that! All we hear is absolute silence, because they know that the federal government is not committed to training more Australians to become our doctors. I make it clear that my government is committed to seeing more young Australians training to be Australian doctors who will serve Australian patients. That is why we put $41 million into the Griffith University to ensure that we train over 200 Queensland doctors to serve in all regions of this state. What are we doing here? We are following the recommendations of Peter Forster. I will not go through all the references to this, but I refer the opposition to pages 111 and 112, recommendation 6.14, as well as to other recommendations in the report, which I have in the House today, that state that we should look at those matters. Page 11 of the health plan sets out a number of things that we want the health economist to look at. We have made no decisions on these things. We are seeking advice in accordance with Peter Forster’s recommendations. First, Peter Forster says that a health economist should look at whether we make the level of indexation to existing fees and charges more comparable to other states and territories. One has to ask: what is wrong with that? In his report Peter Forster identified that that would produce another $115 million, which we have said will be maintained by each one of the hospitals. So why would we have a system of indexation for those charges that is less than that being charged in other states? Of course we are committed to that and I hope that the opposition would be committed to that. Let us continue. Many suggestions have been made, and one of the things that we want to do is to get the health funds to pay their way. I have not heard the opposition supporting us on this. Why should a private patient who goes into a public hospital in a private bed with the right to choose his or her own doctor not have his or her health fund make a contribution to that hospital? It does not make sense. We are fully supportive of that suggestion. It is about time that the National Party and the Liberal Party, which instigated this debate, said that the health funds should pay their way. They are running a protection society for the health funds. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is not true. The member’s half-truths do not fool me. His half-truths might fool some, but they do not fool me. He knows as well as I do that that does not happen in this state. There is only one hospital that has a scheme to do that and it is the Royal Brisbane Hospital. For the last three years we have run a program that has produced $5 million a year. That does not happen in our public hospitals. I have never heard those opposite say one thing about it. We are going to do it. We will bring this in. They want to look after their mates in the private health funds because they benefit out of them. That is what they want to do. I make it clear that we are going to make sure that those people in private health funds pay their way. I am sick to death of seeing people pay private health fund premiums and then use public hospitals as a public patient. It is not the patients’ fault; it is the private health funds’ fault. 3566 Public Health System 26 Oct 2005
Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (5.50 pm): I second the motion moved by the Premier. Once again what we have from the opposition tonight is desperate, absurd politics. Stunned and jealous about the sheer size of our government’s funding injection and the breadth of our plan for health reform, those opposite react the only way they know how—that is, by being negative and careless with the truth. I listened with some interest to the contribution of the Liberal leader tonight. He talked about the alleged money that we are getting from the Commonwealth government through the GST. Of course it was the half-truth. What he did not talk about was the $1 billion that the federal government ripped out of health care in Australia via the Australian Health Care Agreement. What he did not talk about was the $20 million a year that the Commonwealth government ripped out of its contribution to Queensland dental care. What he did not talk about was the complete silence of Abbott last week in terms of any measured response or additional resources for mental health services in Australia. This compares to the $200 million extra funding that we announced. We have the half-truth yet again. The Leader of the Liberal Party was piously talking about some sort of fiscal rectitude by suggesting that we do not spend all this extra money in Health. Yet this is the very same day that in the Toowoomba Chronicle it was reported— Lawrence Springborg questioned the impact of the extra funding and said he feared the money was nowhere near enough to fix the problem. Those opposite have to make up their minds. If they are going to be in coalition they have to actually start saying the same things. The Liberal Party leader cannot say that there is too much money and the National Party leader cannot say that there is not enough money. It just does not work. The people of Queensland expect a bit more clarity, a bit more consistency from the people who want to run this great state of ours. Frankly, they have just got caught out again. We should look at the options that we have put on the table for discussion. We have been open and honest with the community about what we might be looking at in the future. Let us look at what some people have been saying about this. On the other side of politics they are very good at using the AMA in their press releases. We saw this again this morning. The member for Moggill’s speech in this parliament this morning was, word for word, an AMA press release. If those opposite actually want to be consistent in their policy approach then consider what the AMA said when we actually released these options a week or so ago. The President of the AMA, Steve Hambleton, said this— ... the AMA had long been a supporter of the principle of public and private sector health partnerships, a strategy alluded to in the Premier’s plan to see some private patients cared for in public health facilities to strengthen public system revenue. This and a number of other initiatives presented today by the Premier have a valuable place in creating a sustainable and fair health system for Queenslanders. The key goal here is to preserve the quality of care Queenslanders have enjoyed for many years. I am not one to agree with the AMA all the time. But I have to agree with Dr Hambleton on this occasion. Given the consistency of approach that those on the other side of this chamber have had with AMA policy positions it is about time they showed the same consistency on this occasion. This is about the long-term sustainability of our health care system. Part of the problem is that we try to have a debate about the future of health care in this state but the debate always suffers from a lack of intellectual rigour because despite being the best-resourced opposition they are the laziest. We know that they have not read the Forster review. If those opposite had read the Forster review they would have seen that, compared to the rest of Australia, Queensland collects 60 per cent less than the national average in terms of patient revenue. What Peter Forster also found is that our public hospital system is about 11 per cent more efficient than those interstate. If those opposite want national levels of expenditure then they have to have national levels of income. If they are going to argue for national levels of income they have to do the right thing by the taxpayers of Queensland and make sure the public hospital system works efficiently—and it does. Forster found that it is 11 per cent more efficient than public hospital systems interstate. That is basically the deal here. We have a comprehensive plan. We are looking to the future to ensure that our public hospital system in this state is financially sustainable in the long term and that it delivers quality health care for all Queenslanders in a state that is attracting 200 people a day. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (5.55 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party and speak strongly against the amendment moved by the Premier. This debate tonight is very simple. It is about whether this parliament supports the notion of free hospitals in Queensland. That is all it is about. It is not about the spin and obfuscation by the Premier and Minister for Health. This is about whether this parliament supports universal access for all Queenslanders to free public hospitals. That is exactly what it is about and that is why everyone in this parliament should have been prepared to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party. It says that we support unequivocally the retention of a free public hospital system for all Queenslanders. 26 Oct 2005 Public Health System 3567
We will hear lots of contributions by government members—we have already heard from the Premier and the Minister for Health—supporting that principle. But that will not be the case when it comes to the vote. When it comes to the vote they will vote for the amendment moved by the Premier which says that they are going to look at means testing and copayments. No-one in Queensland should be under any misapprehension whatsoever about who in this parliament and who in this state is going to fight for a free public hospital system for all Queenslanders, not just for a select few Queenslanders. It is those of us on this side of House who will do that. Tonight we have got a very clear delineation between who supports free hospitals and who does not. Queenslanders are sick to death of this government. They are sick to death of the way this government has handled the health system. They are sick to death of this government using public relations, spin doctoring, froth and bubbles. The more they talk about what they will do, the less they actually do. It is Queenslanders out there who are trying to access the hospital system who know that the problems are there. We have been raising these problems for the eight years that this government has been in power. We have raised them with three health ministers. It has only been in the last six months that we have finally been able to get to the truth of the matter. Finally we have been able to find out what has been happening. This government has been so intent on covering it up. We have a Premier and all the ministers and his backbenchers twisting and turning trying to say that they are doing something, but they are the ones who have created this problem. They are the ones who have got the system into the mess that it is today. They are the ones who should be held responsible for this. What is the government’s answer? It is going to charge people to go into hospitals. It is going to means test. It is going to have copayments. It is not just us who think that this is the wrong way to go. The member for Indooroopilly thinks this—and I congratulate him for standing up on this. I congratulate the member for Ipswich, who said the same thing. They are not on the speaking list. What about the anonymous MP who said that there was angst amongst Labor MPs? I cannot believe that the member for Algester does not have concerns about this. It is fundamentally against what the Labor Party purports to stand for. We see them with their hands on their chests, beating their chests saying that they are committed to fundamental social responsibility. Tonight is the measure of that social responsibility and their commitment. We are going to see when it comes to the vote. Let us look at what federal Labor has said about this. Mr Beazley said the move would compromise the universality of the system. He said, ‘I don’t think we should go down this road at all.’ It is not often I agree with Mr Beazley, but on this I do. The federal opposition health spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, was more blunt saying, ‘Labor couldn’t support anything that is a breach of the Medicare principles.’ That is what this move is. That is what federal Labor is saying, not state Labor. We should also look at what Professor Deeble has said. He has been quoted extensively during this debate because he has been fundamentally involved in the establishment of Medicare. An article quoting Professor Deeble in response to Mr Robertson, the health minister, states— Mr Roberston said means testing may be used to prioritise people on waiting lists, rather than deny them access, but Professor Deeble said it was still wrong. ‘They should go on the lists in relation to the urgency of their condition, not in relation to their ability to pay ... That is the truth. Queenslanders should expect to be able to be treated because of the conditions they suffer, not because of their assets or their ability to pay. I cannot believe that this government will not support the motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I cannot believe it, because it flies fundamentally in the face of everything it preaches to us about on a daily basis. I say to everyone in Queensland today: we have now got a very clear delineation. People in the National and Liberal parties will not support means testing and copayments. We will support universal access to a free public health system for all Queenslanders. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Finance and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (6.00 pm): In the last day or so—during question time and during the debate this evening—we have learnt a few things. First of all, we have learnt that the Liberal Party in Queensland and its coalition partners, the National Party—should they ever have the opportunity to be on this side of the House—want to cut deep into Queensland’s public sector. They have been absolutely unequivocal in this debate and in this morning’s comments, and we have heard it again tonight from the Leader of the Liberal Party. They say that the one per cent efficiency dividend that we are putting on the Public Service in the non-service delivery areas does not go far enough. They think we should be getting out a much bigger knife and cutting way deep into muscle. And this is not surprising. As I have said before, they have so much form on this. They have put out their health policy and said that they will sack 2,000 people from Queensland Health—2,000 people! They will take 2,000 people out of the system which they say will be by natural attrition, but what they mean is that they will not replace them. They will take workers out of our hospitals. They will take cleaners out. Opposition members interjected. 3568 Public Health System 26 Oct 2005
Ms BLIGH: That is what they are saying, but we know their form. We know exactly what they will do. They are serial sackers, and this will be no different. Anybody who thinks it is going to stop with 2,000 people in Queensland Health has rocks in their head. That is just the beginning. That is just the beginning, and they have signalled it here tonight. Every public servant will know what they are up to. What is the other thing that we have learnt? We have learnt tonight that economic claptrap is alive and well in the Queensland Liberal Party. I listened to the member for Moggill claiming to be horrified that the Queensland government should expect Queenslanders to pay for health. Who else does he think is going to pay for it? Who else does he think pays for our hospitals, our roads and our schools? Queensland taxpayers pay for it. There will be people in this House who remember the echoes of the last Liberal Treasurer— Ms Struthers interjected. Ms BLIGH: We will come to that. There are people in this House who will remember the echoes of the last Liberal Treasurer, who became famous for saying that taxpayers should not have to pay for something and the government should pay for it, as if the government had some source of funding that was not taxpayers’ money. As I have said many times, they should never be allowed onto this side. Anyone who listened to the maths from the member for Moggill this morning knows that he just does not understand the issues and does not appreciate the complexities of projecting costs. He was not in the House this morning; I hope he has had a chance to look at Hansard. The Treasury estimates of doubling the VMOs include the pay rise that was recently settled. Mr Forster’s estimates do not include that, and nor did they pretend to. As I say, he should take the Treasury numbers. That is my advice. Probably one of the more interesting things that I have learnt tonight is what Liberals look like when they try to defend universal public health care, because I do not think I have seen it in my political life. I do not remember in the last 20 or 30 years hearing a Liberal politician at any level stand up and use words like ‘public’, ‘available’ and ‘free universal access’. These are the people who have never supported Medicare. These are the people who have taken every opportunity they have had in government at a federal level to dismantle it piece by piece. These are the people who said nothing in the last three years as the Howard government took every opportunity to strip away the fundamentals of the Medicare agreement. These are the people who said nothing when bulk-billing started to collapse in this country. I take the earlier interjection from the member for Algester and wonder whether the member for Moggill bulk-bills in his own practice, because I bet he does not. I bet he does not, because do members know what these people are? They are frauds. They are absolute policy frauds. They stand up here and talk about free public accessible health care and then they do not bulk-bill in their own practice. Frauds! Absolute frauds! We have again learnt something—well, we did not learn it; we already knew. We have had it confirmed again tonight: the National Party and the Liberal Party in this state will never stand up to the federal government and they will never stand up for Queenslanders. There are many aspects to the health situation that have been talked about at some length, but there is no doubt that one of the most critical is the supply of doctors. Who controls the supply of university training in this country? The federal government. Where have the coalition of equals been in this debate? I have not heard them once. I have not heard them once stand up and call on the federal government to fund more medical places. The only extra medical places being funded are being funded by the Queensland state government, and it is a disgrace that we have had to do that. The amendment before the House tonight calls on every member of this House to support a free public hospital system, but it goes much further. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (6.05 pm): I am pleased to rise to support the motion moved by the member for Robina and Leader of the Liberal Party in order to protect Queensland’s free health care system. Who would ever have thought that the day would come when our free public health system would be placed under threat from a Labor Premier. This is our free health system, which was created by a federal Labor Party. What will Whitlam, Hawke, Keating and Jones have to say about this? What, indeed, will the members of the state Labor Party have to say to their loyal Labor supporters—the unionists, the environmentalists—when they ask for a guarantee that our free public health system, which seems to be working in every other state in Australia, will remain free? How did we get into this position where the unthinkable is now being thought by this state’s Premier? Whose fault was it? If we listen to the Deputy Premier, the Premier and those members of the Labor Party who continue to hitch their wagon to his star—and I have to say that that number is becoming fewer and fewer every day; isn’t that right, Minister for Transport, Minister for Energy and Deputy Premier?—they will tell us that it is the fault of the federal government. If they are fair dinkum and not trying to pull a swifty, this is completely delusional thinking and not owning up to a problem of a sick health system. If they want a dose of reality, they should leave their spin doctors behind and all of those generously paid hired hands whose job it is to leave them with wet pockets and visit my little patch of the political woods. They should come and ask Toni Hoffman who is to blame for the mess in our health care system. They should come and talk to Patel’s patients and victims and ask them who is to blame for our health mess. But I have just one word of caution: they should not actually try feeding them 26 Oct 2005 Public Health System 3569 the line that the reason they were butchered by Patel was federal government failings. If they come to my electorate with that arrogant, ignorant and deceitful attitude then they will be in for a unique health experience, a unique health lesson—an education. Page 34 of the Premier’s first Special Fiscal and Economic Statement marks the beginning of the end for the free health care system in Queensland. It also marks the beginning of the end for the Premier’s political career. Page 34 spells ‘RIP Premier’, because that is where the Labor government admits that the introduction of means testing or copayments for various services is still an option. All the way down the page we see the words ‘means testing’, ‘copayments’, ‘means testing’ and ‘copayments’ used in conjunction with other words like ‘non-urgent surgery’, ‘specialist outpatient services’, ‘dental health services’ and ‘pharmaceuticals’. This is the beginning of the end for a free public hospital system in Queensland and a sell-out for all families, especially Labor voters. What happened to the principle of universal health coverage and service provision? The Premier is prepared to destroy this fundamental principle. The motion before the House tonight will stop the Premier from destroying this fundamental principle. It will stop him from hiring the health economist and paying that hand-picked bureaucrat a lot of money to produce a report that will give the Premier the outcome that the Premier wants, which equates to the end of our free public health system. I do not expect the Premier to listen to this very sound logic and reason from this side of the House—the coalition’s argument. He and his health ministers failed repeatedly to listen to the warning cries of the nurses and doctors around this state for about a decade and then had the audacity to act surprised when a ‘Dr Death’ is spawned in a corrupt Labor health system. The Premier may sit back smugly in his room thinking that he has the numbers to defeat this motion and that he can dodge this political bullet, but very soon the Premier and his Labor Party will have to face their own political judgment day. The Premier and his Labor Party will have to face the democracy scalpel. That is the day when the Labor Party will be hoping that Queenslanders will wield that scalpel with more compassion than ‘Dr Death’ did in Bundaberg. Every extra dollar of health spending announced by this Premier is an admission of his guilt as to how much Labor has short-changed our health system for years and years. The people of Bundaberg— Time expired. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (6.10 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Premier and to oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I thought that if we were ever going to have an honest debate in this place—one where members put aside the cant, the partisan politics and naked opportunism—it might be about health. I really mean that. I thought that this is an issue that all sides of politics considered to be so important that the politics of the day might be put aside for one evening so that we could actually get down and talk about how we deliver health services for the future. Regretfully, we have the opposition members coming in here and running this line that they want a free hospital system, even if it does not work. I want a working hospital system. I want a system that will meet the needs of the people. The tragedy is that the opposition’s position has always been a 1940s position. We need a health system for this century with a series of ways of funding that health system that belongs to this century. Wedding yourself to the achievements of the Hanlon government is great, but we need to look at all the options. We need to think laterally. We need to consider every way in which we can possibly fund a working and effective health system. We have health costs going up by seven and a half per cent a year. We have health spending pushing towards 10 per cent of GDP. It has to change. It is unsustainable. Everybody knows that. All the naked political opportunism in the world does not change for one second the fact that the system, as it has been structured, is no longer capable of meeting the demands of Queenslanders with an ever-ageing population and an ever-more sophisticated and costly medical system providing many more options and many more treatments, which all cost money. The naked opportunism of the opposition members to come in here and say, ‘That is it. We oppose everything. We oppose any extra taxes. We oppose any way of saving money’— Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Cunningham under standing order 253. Mr McNAMARA: The opposition members say, ‘We are not going to try to raise more money. We are not going to go out there and save money. We are not interested in any options for delivering more.’ But at the same time, for them to oppose the government’s discussion of different ways to go is a tragedy, because the people of Queensland need this discussion. They need the members opposite to be part of the solution. It is necessary to look at all of the options. I think it was Edmund Burke who said that the way to tell the difference between a leader and a pretender is that the leader always looks to the future; the pretender is forever mired in the present. Regretfully for the opposition members, if they could just be mired in the present they would have a chance. But they are not. They are stuck 60 years ago. That system is not working anymore. 3570 Public Health System 26 Oct 2005
We on this side of the House are prepared to put aside long-held ideological positions. We are prepared to put aside all of those vested interests that might say to us, ‘No, no, you can’t change,’ and look at the options. In my electorate of Hervey Bay, not so recently we sold the Bayhaven Nursing Home. That was a position that I was prepared to support. It was contrary to the wishes of various sections of the union movement. Some years previously the Premier and the then health minister had said that they would not sell it. But times change. The reality is that by abandoning that previously held position, we were able to raise $5 million that used to go into delivering aged care. Blue Care came in— a wonderful not-for-profit aged care provider—and bought Bayhaven. They upgraded it, provided the service and paid us. That allowed us to then build an entire new $5 million building to deliver stroke and postoperative rehabilitation services and clinics. Yes, we could have stuck to a position that was historically held and ideologically sound. But it would not have delivered better acute health services for the people of Hervey Bay. It would not have met their needs. At the end of the day, I am here—as I think is every other member on this side of the House—to try to improve those living standards and those health services. We are not afraid to look at all the options. I am certainly prepared to wait and see what the options are and, when they come back, to consider those. As the members opposite are quite right to say, members on this side of the House have strong views on those issues. But I can assure the members opposite that every member on this side of the House is prepared to look at the options with which to build a better health system. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.15 pm): Tonight we have seen the moral bankruptcy of the Labor government and it has been no better illustrated than by the address of the member for Hervey Bay. Every member in the House should be reminded of the motion that was moved by the member for Robina. It states that this House supports the retention of a free public hospital system for all Queenslanders. That is the motion that the member for Hervey Bay opposes. Given the contributions that have been made here tonight by the members opposite, that is the motion that all the Labor followers will move across the chamber and vote against later on tonight. In the years that I have been here, I have seen some committed Labor members sit in this parliament and represent the Labor cause. I just wonder what those people would be thinking tonight. Who would have ever thought that a Labor government would vote against a motion to support the retention of a free public hospital system. I refer to people such as Matt Foley; Jim Elder; the former Treasurer, Terry Mackenroth; and Tom Burns— people who I did not agree with to a great extent in terms of their politics, but they had a commitment and they had a philosophy. The thing about this Beattie Labor government, which has been illustrated here tonight, is that it is prepared to throw overboard any philosophy in an attempt to save its own political hide, in an attempt to save its own political future. This government is prepared to abandon any of the philosophies that the Labor Party is supposed to stand for. We have a government that is in trouble. It is in trouble because it has not been able to manage the health system. The problem that the health system faces in Queensland today is the result of bad management by this Labor government. So rather than make a commitment to fixing it, rather than make a commitment to improving that management and ensuring that the problem is not only fixed but does not recur, this government is prepared to throw away the basic philosophies that it has always stood for and that its predecessors always stood for and seek to blame everybody else but itself. The government blames the patients. It blames the doctors. It blames the AMA. It blames the federal government—anybody except itself. This government is prepared to do and say anything—not to fix the health system—to save its political hide. That has been the feature of the response that this government has put in place ever since this issue was exposed. Ever since members on my side stood in this House and exposed the extent to which the health system was in crisis, the government’s response has been all about saving itself and not about saving patients. It has been all about assuring the future for itself, not about assuring the future for Queenslanders who need free and appropriate health treatment. A key performance indicator for any government is the way that the government manages the health system. With the proud heritage that Queensland has of a universally free health system that has been the pride of Queenslanders for generations, it is a core responsibility for anyone who purports to be a government in this state to manage that health system properly. Indeed, the government’s performance as a whole will be measured by the way that it manages the health system, which is dear to all Queenslanders. This government has failed in that regard. It has failed in managing that health system by anybody’s measure. It knows that that failure is going to be judged very harshly by the people of Queensland, and so it should be. The government has failed because it has not been able to provide the management and the administration that is necessary to ensure that health services are delivered. Because the government has failed, it now seeks to do away with the system. It seeks to throw it overboard, despite the years of service that it has given to so many generations of Queenslanders. I never thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, in all the years that I have been involved in politics— 26 Oct 2005 Public Health System 3571
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, you are throwing facts and figures around. Let us get one fact right: I am not the Deputy Speaker. Mr SEENEY: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I never thought that I would stand in this House and see a state Labor government refuse to support a motion that calls for the retention of the free public hospital system for all Queenslanders. It is a disgrace. Time expired. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.20 pm): I support the Premier’s amendment to the motion, as does every other Labor member in this House. The Beattie Labor government is injecting almost $6.4 billion in just over five years to make Queensland Health the best public health system in Australia. But the opposition does not like to hear about it because it knows that this is the largest ever injection into Queensland Health spending. The opposition whinge over there while we work over here. No state or territory government in the history of Australia has made such a massive commitment to ensuring the health and wellbeing of its residents. This is real money to provide real change. It means more doctors, more nurses and more allied health professional staff. The opposition wants to sack 2,000 health employees; our government wants to employ more health workers, and we want to employ them more on the ground delivering services to their local communities. We are talking about 300 more doctors, 500 more nurses and 400 more allied health professionals such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists. In addition to increasing our much valued clinical and allied health professional staff, we are targeting the areas of greatest need, including $463.7 million for cancer services, $280.3 million for emergency departments, $259.7 million for elective surgery, $229.8 million for intensive care units, $210.9 million for cardiac services, $201 million for mental health services; and $127 million for work force training. Money has, of course, been set aside for emergent issues and issues around which further comprehensive planning needs to occur. We recognise that in our government. This will be done through a statewide health services plan to be developed over the next year. But while we are injecting a massive $6.4 billion, where has the Commonwealth been? On the very day that the Forster review report was handed down, the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister seeking a partnership approach to areas where there is a cross-over between the state and Commonwealth responsibility. These are in areas such as medical, nursing and allied health student places; access to Medicare billing for community based nurse practitioners; provision of incentives under the medical benefits schedule to address particular areas of need such as rural health and Indigenous health; a national system of registration for medical practitioners; and examining the feasibility of the Commonwealth becoming the sole funder of doctors to reduce the current Commonwealth financial incentives for doctors to leave the public sector. No response of any substance has been received from the Commonwealth. Perhaps it is too busy fighting over whether it is its policy to take over health from the states, as Tony Abbott says, or not, as the Prime Minister says. This indicates a ship without a captain federally. Where is the response from Peter Costello, our Prime Minister in waiting? We recognise that a good, well-funded health system is a partnership between the state and the Commonwealth government. Under the Australian Health Care Agreement 2003-2008, Queensland must match funding increases provided by the Commonwealth. It is not out of the question then to expect that the Commonwealth should match funding increases provided by the state. Matched funding would mean an additional $1.6 billion from the Commonwealth over the life of the five-year agreement. As the Premier said this morning in this House, imagine what we could do with that money in our health system? We look forward to this increase whether Howard, Abbott or Costello makes the announcement, but nothing we have heard from the Commonwealth so far would give the Queensland government any confidence that the Commonwealth would even have the manners to respond to our request for matched funding. The opposition here in Queensland does not care about the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the underprivileged or the homeless. Until the opposition and its friends in the Commonwealth engage sensibly in this debate, the people of Queensland will be the ones who will essentially be deprived of the effective state and Commonwealth partnership in health. Nothing is more fundamental to the lives of all Queenslanders than the health of themselves and their families. That is why we are committed to getting the basics right and building the best health system in Australia. Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 43—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Lawlor, Livingstone, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Briskey, Reeves NOES, 24—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. 3572 Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill 26 Oct 2005
Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 43—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Lawlor, Livingstone, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Briskey, Reeves NOES, 24—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.38 pm to 7.40 pm.
PUBLIC SECTOR (VICTIMS PROTECTION) BILL
Second Reading Resumed from 12 May (see p. 1422). Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (7.41 pm): I will state at the outset that the government does not support the Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill 2005 that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The only reason for that is that it is just simply not necessary, that is all—simply not necessary. The bill provides for an entitlement to compensation for public sector officials who suffer loss or damage to personal property. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition based the need for the bill on incidents that occurred on Palm Island during November 2004. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Queensland’s public servants are crucial to the delivery of services in our large and decentralised state and often face challenging circumstances in undertaking their lawful duties. However, I strongly disagree that the government is not fulfilling its obligations, which has been the basic thrust of what the Leader of the Opposition was saying—a bit of an untruth, really. My government already has processes in place that ensure that public sector officials who suffer loss or damage in the course of their lawful duties are appropriately compensated. The Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 allows departmental chief executive officers to make ex gratia payments to public officials in circumstances where it is appropriate for the state to make such a payment—in other words, the act provides for it. This includes all potential situations covered by the bill. It also provides a wide discretion to make payments in circumstances not considered by the bill. For instance, ex gratia payments have been made to provide assistance for matters such as loss or damage to personal property and the estates of public sector officials killed in the course of their official duties. The current system allows ex gratia payments to be considered on a case-by-case basis providing flexibility for timely payment and, unlike the bill, the current system does not impose any time frames on seeking an ex gratia payment. That, I highlight to the Leader of the Opposition, is a very significant disadvantage. Any public servant—most thinking ones—would not support that in the present bill. The current arrangements are also flexible in that ex gratia payments can be made from existing departmental budgets or, if necessary, through specific bids to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee. Furthermore, the current system is subject to accountability mechanisms, with departments required to disclose ex gratia payments of more than $5,000 in financial statements included in departmental annual reports that are open to public scrutiny. Under the current arrangements, all police officers who sustained personal property loss or damage during the Palm Island incident were fully compensated through ex gratia payments made by the Commissioner of Police. In other words, the system works. The flexibility of the current arrangements meant that all claims were paid within four months of the incident. In my view, the claims of the affected police officers were paid within a very reasonable time frame. The result clearly demonstrates that Queensland already has a system in place which is workable, effective and timely and which ensures that our public officials are compensated for personal property loss or damage incurred during the course of their lawful duties. The government takes its responsibility to protect the rights of our public sector workers and police very seriously. However, it sees no benefit in passing legislation that is unnecessary and that falls short of the protection already afforded to public officials. I make it clear: this private member’s bill falls short of the existing protection that is available. Under those circumstances, it really is the usual sort of stunt and political manoeuvring—the half-truth that we get from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that I want to see a devaluing of or a reduction in the current assistance that is provided to public servants. Obviously, while I am talking about support for public servants, it is important that I do say that we have a very good public sector in Queensland. Indeed, if you look at our public sector compared with some other states and even federally I think we have one of the best public services in Australia. I know, from time to time, the Leader of the Opposition—I heard him today, and on previous occasions—attacks the Public Service. I want to defend our public servants. I think they do a very good job. I have been Premier now for over seven years and in that time I have had the honour of working with some of the 26 Oct 2005 Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill 3573 most competent people who provide policy advice anywhere in the world. If members look at central agencies like the Premier’s department and the Treasury, they will see that they are the best in Australia. There is no doubt about our Treasury; it is the best in Australia. In terms of public servants, they are hardworking, they are committed and they actually give all on a daily basis to assist in providing services to taxpayers. I think sometimes we get into this hurly-burly of politics and the public sector becomes easy prey for those who simply want to score cheap political points. I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition fits into that category on a regular basis. I think he should actually get off their back occasionally. Clearly, if there needs to be improvement, we will support that and at every opportunity, such as members will see with the Productivity and Service Delivery Commission. We will obviously ensure that service delivery duplication, waste and all those things are removed. But, frankly, when you look at the quality of the people in our public sector and their commitment, they do a very, very good job. I urge the Leader of the Opposition not to try to use them as election fodder or political fodder just to score a particular point on a particular day. The suggestion, for example, that they are going to sack 2,000 public servants in Queensland Health—I do not know what that is going to do to a range of services. The reality is that there does need to be a slight reduction. Peter Forster has recommended that a bit over 160 positions should be abolished and he has recommended that a number of others be moved out of central office to provide services where they are needed. I think that major reorganisation of health is a good one. But can members imagine what would happen if we took away some of the so- called bureaucratic support to our doctors? I remember 10 years ago when I was health minister, a number of doctors—and I reminded the AMA of this recently—said to me that they should not be filling out forms and that, in fact, their job is to operate and to save lives. ‘That is a bureaucrat’s job!’ I find it ironic that 10 years later we have a suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that all those sorts of people should be sacked and dispensed with, which means that, rather than operating, the doctors will end up filling out forms and will be part-time bureaucrats. We have got to get the balance right. This is about getting the balance right and I think that Peter Forster has got the balance right. I will, as the relevant minister for the Public Service, put on record here tonight in a very clear way that I value the services of the Public Service and that where there are ridiculous ideas suggested in the political process like, for example, the ones expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, I will, on the record, defend them, because they should be defended. I know the member for Gregory, for example, who is respected in this House by both sides—and I certainly respect him—knows how hard public servants work in his area, for example. You see that in communities; you see that in country towns. You see that where they go that extra mile. They have to put up with considerable distances. Mr Deputy Speaker, in your electorate of Cook you see exactly the same thing and you know what I am talking about. These people work very, very hard. They are active members of the community. It is very easy in the game of politics to find a victim and, on occasions, beat up the public sector. I think we have to accept that they work very hard. They do an excellent job. Public servants should be valued by the community. We should not be reluctant as members of parliament and, indeed, as members of the government, to actually say that they are valued. I certainly say that today. That does not mean, as I emphasised before, that if there are areas of duplication or areas of service delivery that should be improved, that should not be done. Of course it should be done. From time to time we will do that, but we should not see that as some attempt in the broader political debate to simply beat up on public servants because they are public servants. I do put on the public record tonight my gratitude as Premier and my thanks to the public servants in this state, who do a fantastic job. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (7.49 pm): I rise to speak to the Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition introduced this legislation because it needed to be introduced. It is a responsible piece of legislation that seeks to protect Public Service property and public servants themselves. Tonight, the Premier has referred to a couple of issues in relation to Palm Island. This relates not only to Palm Island but to all areas of Queensland, regardless of where public servants work. We are not talking only about police; it could be anyone who works within the public sector. It could be in the areas of health or education. It could be in any of those agencies. Queensland’s public servants are crucial to the delivery of services. Tonight the Premier made reference to the Leader of the Opposition trying to cause division. I assure members that the Leader of the Opposition cares about the Public Service in this state, as does the opposition. Each person, regardless of the agency they work in, is a very important and integral part of the delivery of government services. Members on this side of the House do not take them for granted for one half of one minute. When one looks at the events on Palm Island, those police could easily have been in a situation where there was a loss of life. Thank God there was no loss of life. At the same time, we have an obligation—that is what motivated the Leader of the Opposition to introduce this legislation—to make certain their property is protected in the future. Protection mechanisms must be put in place. 3574 Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill 26 Oct 2005
The police union, and other unions for that matter, dug into their pockets to address the Palm Island issue. There should be no need for that to happen. At the same time, the families of the police lost property, too. Families are an important part of the operation. We do not take them for granted, either. One police officer who was involved there lost a lot of sporting memorabilia in that fire. That is irretrievable. It is gone. Fire can cause total destruction. These people, by doing their job in challenging times and under difficult circumstances, were subjected to having their property destroyed. They do not deserve that. They deserve the full support and protection of the government in the execution of their duties, whether they are police or other public servants. I am only using Palm Island as an example. I know that the Leader of the Opposition reflected on the situation at Palm Island when he introduced this legislation. I have here a letter that I will read into Hansard for the benefit of the House. The letter, from the Queensland Council of Unions, states— Dear Mr Springborg, I refer to your correspondence regarding the above bill— that is, the Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill— which was introduced into Parliament on 12 May 2005. This issue was considered at a recent meeting of the Queensland Council of Unions Executive and it was resolved that your correspondence be noted and that the QCU Executive provide in-principle support for the Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill. Should you require further information or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Yours sincerely, (sgd) Grace Grace General Secretary. I seek leave to table this letter. Leave granted. Mr JOHNSON: Even the General Secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions has thrown her support behind this legislation. Tonight in this House the government has voted against providing a free hospital system in Queensland—something that is sacrosanct to the people of Queensland. Now the General Secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions has thrown her support behind legislation that has been introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. It is an important and integral piece of legislation which provides a safety net for the property of the people in question. Regardless of where they are, it provides safety for them and safety for their property. Not a lot of time is allotted for this debate tonight. However, the Palm Island riots and the possibility of this type of incident occurring to public servants in the future highlights the need for legally binding compensation. Those provisions must be put in place. At the same time, after the many months that have passed, the Premier should have moved to close those loopholes. He has failed to do so. He came in here tonight and made reference to supporting the bill. He agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that public servants should be compensated. He went on to talk about ex gratia payments on a case-by-case basis. That is not good enough. We have to make certain that legislation protects the property and assets of people representing government agencies regardless of where they are and where they work. The important thing is making people feel secure in their workplaces, in their residences and in the communities in which they work. We must make certain that the government of the day and the people of Queensland support them in what they are doing. I was a member of the Palm Island Select Committee that the Premier established to conduct a review of the situation at Palm Island. I just hope that our work was not in vain. I know that it will not be in vain because it was a bipartisan committee and one that had great input from people from all political spheres. At the same time, it stood out like a sore thumb that the police on Palm Island—and any public servant on Palm Island, for that matter, such as teachers, health workers and so on—could be in a vulnerable situation. These situations arise from time to time, even at Schoolies Week on the coast. Some idiots want to create a predicament and may go after the police and their assets as a result of something that happened. We do not know what the situation will be in the future. That is why we have to make absolutely certain that we lock in watertight legislation that will protect the assets of these people. I urge members of the government to support this legislation introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and supported by the opposition. How many times has the opposition introduced private members’ bills into this House only to see them voted down by that government? But then three, four or six months later it brings in its own template legislation and puts it through the House. That happens because the government is too proud on the day to support the opposition’s stand. I think this is about bipartisan representation of people, regardless of where they are or who they are. I implore the government to support this legislation brought in by the Leader of the opposition and 26 Oct 2005 Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill 3575 supported by the opposition. I trust that the government members of this House will support it this evening. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.58 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill, which ensures that a public sector official or a relative of a public sector employee who suffers damage to their property as a result of a criminal act is covered by compensation where that damage occurs in relation to their official duties. There are some excluding factors, and there is one in particular that I want to refer to which makes a lot of sense. This compensation is isolated to those situations where the public servant and the public servant’s family cannot recover compensation under an insurance policy. The explanatory notes refer to the situation that occurred on Palm Island. Thankfully it does not occur too often—certainly no- one supports these actions that caused the trauma that occurred to a number of people who lived on Palm Island. The Premier has since said that the legislation is unnecessary. However, I did not really get enough information from his statement to be 100 per cent clear on his reasoning for that. At this point one piece of information makes me support the legislation and the principles of the legislation, and that is the support from Grace Grace of the Queensland Council of Unions. I have found Grace to be a fairly well-informed representative. I believe that, if she felt that there was existing coverage in this particular area or if she was briefed by government that there was sufficient coverage and this was just unnecessary duplication, she would have made that statement. Therefore, on balance I support the legislation because I believe it offers a positive and remedial response to situations that we hope do not occur too often, but when they do it is critically important that employees who are fulfilling their work obligations and their families are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.00 pm): I rise to make a very brief contribution to the consideration of the Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill. A very simple proposition has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in this private member’s bill. The validity of that proposition has been ably illustrated by the member for Gregory and the member for Gladstone. I place on the record my support for the proposition, which is that public servants should have a legal right to compensation in circumstances such as those that occurred on Palm Island. I certainly agree with the member for Gladstone that we all hope that such circumstances are rare. Fortunately, they are very rare. However, even given the rarity of those occasions it is important that public servants who are unfortunately caught up in such circumstances have a legal and unchallengeable right to be compensated for the loss of their personal possessions. It is not good enough to suggest that ex gratia payments can be made by the government of the day and that public servants should be happy and somehow satisfied with that. The arguments that the Premier put forward are rather spurious and based on a natural inclination to oppose everything that the opposition has put forward rather than on any considered appreciation of what the private member’s bill entails. The Premier does himself and his government no good in stooping to personal criticisms in an attempt to try to justify opposing this bill, which he opposes simply because the opposition has brought it into the House. In the vernacular this proposition would be known as a no brainer. It is a no brainer. We should all support the premise that the public servants who work on behalf of all Queenslanders, be they policemen, teachers or one of the many other members of the Public Service, should have a legal right to compensation and not be dependent on the ex gratia payments that the Premier referred to. One can never be certain of the attitude that a particular government might take in a given situation. Therefore, the best thing to do would be to enshrine in legislation the right that we all agree such people have, so that that right becomes unchallengeable. That would give people the security of knowing that, if ever such unfortunate circumstances should happen to them, they have a legal right and they do not have to depend on some sort of ex gratia payment for compensation. In his contribution to this debate, the Premier raised other issues about the opposition’s attitude to public servants that I believe deserve comment. Obviously those comments are quite wrong. They are dishonest and deliberately so. The proposition that the opposition seeks to sack large numbers of public servants and the suggestion that we have said that that is a possibility are both quite wrong. That is part of the political nonsense that we see in this House from time to time. The opposition’s health policy certainly recognises that some 2,000 health bureaucrat positions could be refocused as clinical staff positions. That is a very valid position. It does not deserve the type of scorn and misrepresentation that the Premier visited upon it. Probably one of the great differences between this side of the House and the government is that we are determined to ensure that the Public Service can focus on service delivery. We want the people within the Public Service to focus on delivering that service and that focus should not be distracted into non-productive areas. We have tried to encapsulate that within our health policy. We will continue to make it part and parcel of our policies as we release them. People who work in the Public Service serve the people of Queensland, and they should be able to do that by actually delivering services to those people whom they serve, rather than being bound up in bureaucratic nonsense to an inappropriate degree. In saying that, I totally reject the Premier’s complete misrepresentation when he said that means that doctors have to fill in their own forms, and he went on with a whole lot of other nonsense. He 3576 Public Sector (Victims Protection) Bill 26 Oct 2005 takes the opportunity presented by this debate to do that type of thing rather than consider the serious nature of the proposition put forward. A valid proposition has been put forward. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for introducing it to the House as a private member’s bill. It deserves the consideration of every member of this House. However, from past experience I know that the government backbenchers will probably follow the lead set by the government’s response to the bill and vote against it out of sheer spite, simply because it has been introduced by the opposition. Time and again government members stand in this House and talk about bipartisan support for good ideas. This is a great opportunity for those members to demonstrate that and to walk the walk, rather than talking the talk. They can lend some support to a proposition that should be acceptable not just to every member of this House but to every Queenslander. As I said, in the vernacular it is what is known as a no brainer and every member of this House should support it. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for bringing it forward. I urge every member of this House to lend it the support that it deserves. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (8.07 pm): In his explanatory notes the Leader of the Opposition has stated that the reasons for the bill are as follows: the recent riots on Palm Island, which included acts of arson committed against the police station, courthouse and barracks, resulted in 14 officers losing their possessions and two police officers and their families losing all the possessions they own, including a motor vehicle. This evening it is very important to put on the public record that all police officers who suffered losses in any way from last year’s activity on Palm Island were reimbursed for their losses through an ex gratia payment from the Queensland Police Service. Almost all of those officers had already banked their cheques prior to the introduction of the opposition leader’s bill. Those claims were paid in an expeditious manner. For example, the last officer to lodge a claim for losses incurred in the Palm Island riot last November did so on 13 September 2005. Just over two weeks later, on 29 September, the Police Service signed his cheque for the full amount requested. I am advised by the Police Service that all claims were paid in a similar time frame—that is, there was a two-week turnaround from the day a claim was lodged to the day the cheque from the Police Service was signed. As members can see, the government and the Queensland Police Service see no need for this legislation. The rubbish just espoused by the member for Callide that the government would vote against this bill out of sheer spite because the opposition put it up is absolute nonsense. The Queensland Police Service and, indeed, this government already have a binding policy that provides a far more comprehensive scheme than what is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in his bill. The Queensland Police Service’s finance management practice manual covers at section 8.3.1 the issue of compensation for loss or damage incurred by a police officer. This section specifies a police officer’s entitlement to claim for compensation for loss or damage to private property or personal effects. It specifies the procedure for claiming compensation for police officers injured in the line of duty. This section clearly states that no member shall be expected to suffer loss or damage to private property or personal effects without full and appropriate compensation being available. I am happy to provide this relevant section of the finance management practice manual to the Leader of the Opposition if he would like it. Compensation for police officers injured in the line of duty is covered by section 13.22 of the Police Service operational procedures manual. It outlines the procedures for claiming compensation. The issue of victim protection for police officers involved in incidents such as riots who suffer loss is already clearly and expressly covered by binding policies of the Queensland Police Service. It makes one ask: why did the Leader of the Opposition bring forward this piece of legislation which is clearly so unnecessary? I think we all need to look back to almost 12 months ago when members of the Palm Island community burnt down the police station. This was the Leader of the Opposition’s only way of having some relevance in the debate about what went on at that time. This legislation was not called for by police officers. They knew at the time that they would be compensated for any losses they incurred. Of course Palm Island was an extreme example. But it is quite common for police officers to lose property or have damage done to their property in the course of their duties. Police officers know very well that they will be compensated if they incur such a loss. For all of these reasons the government will not be supporting this legislation tonight. We are not doing this out of sheer spite, as suggested by the member for Callide, but because it is absolutely unnecessary. As I said this morning, policing can be, by its nature, a dangerous job. On occasions police officers will suffer losses. However, police know very well that their losses will be compensated in an expeditious and very fair manner. Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 23—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 34—Barton, Choi, L Clark, Croft, N Cunningham, Finn, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Lawlor, Livingstone, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells. Tellers: Reeves, Wilson Resolved in the negative. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3577
SOFT DRINKS (PROHIBITION FROM SELLING AT SCHOOLS) BILL
Second Reading Resumed from 12 May (see p. 1424). Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (8.20 pm): I rise on behalf of the government to oppose the Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill. The Queensland government is committed to enhancing the health of Queensland children. The food and drink that children consume impacts not only on their physical health, their weight and their oral health but also on their ability to learn. Schools can play an important part in educating children about healthy eating and ensuring the availability of healthy food and drink options in schools. The Queensland government recently released Eat well, Be active—Healthy Kids for Life, an action plan for 2005 to 2008. It outlines a range of initiatives to address the issue of obesity in children and young people, including programs in schools to promote healthy eating and physical activity in school students. While there are legitimate concerns with the level of consumption of soft drinks by children and young people, there are identical concerns with a range of other food and drink products which also have low nutritional value. The Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 2005 proposes to prohibit the sale in schools of one type of drink only—soft drinks. A breach is punishable by a maximum penalty of one penalty unit or $75 for an individual or 10 penalty units or $750 for a corporation. Given that the majority of our Queensland school tuckshops are staffed by volunteers, it is inappropriate to impose punitive measures on individuals as a means of regulating food and drinks supplied in Queensland school tuckshops. Prohibiting the sale of one type of drink only would lead to a situation where other drinks of low nutritional value such as sports drinks, fruit drinks and cordials are still available. Any attempt to limit or ban one product in isolation, such as soft drink, does not represent a comprehensive or well thought out response to the issue of health and wellbeing in children and young people. The Smart Choices—Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland schools was endorsed by cabinet on 14 June this year and released by the previous minister for education and minister for the arts, Anna Bligh MP, on 7 July 2005. It represents a more comprehensive response to the issue of health and wellbeing in children and young people. The strategy was developed in consultation with a range of key health organisations, including the Australian Dental Association, the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia and Nutrition Australia. The strategy categorises foods of low nutritional value as red foods and drinks and limits their supply in schools to no more than two occasions per term. Under this strategy, all soft drinks, including those that are artificially sweetened, are limited in their supply as they have been categorised as red products. The Queensland government’s Smart Choices strategy goes beyond that of any other state or territory in Australia as it applies to all situations within the school environment where food and drink is available to children and young people—not just the tuckshop, as has been proposed in the bill before the parliament tonight. The strategy includes vending machines, school excursions, fundraising, classroom rewards, school events such as sports days, and food and drink used in curriculum activities. Implementation of Smart Choices will be mandatory in state schools from 1 July 2006. Non-state schools will be strongly encouraged to implement the strategy. The strategy is not simply a guideline for tuckshops that can be overlooked or ignored; it is a state schooling policy where full implementation is the responsibility of the school principal. By January 2007, implementation of the strategy will also be a condition of operating a tuckshop. The Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland schools represents a far more comprehensive response to the issue of health and wellbeing in Queensland children and young people than the proposed private member’s bill, Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 2005, would have in its implementation. The strategy provides an opportunity to make a real difference to the health and wellbeing of Queensland children and young people by limiting the supply in schools of all food and drink products with low nutritional value. In closing, I again reiterate the government’s opposition to the private member’s bill, Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 2005. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (8.26 pm): I rise to participate in debate on the Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 2005 introduced by the member for Moggill and shadow minister for health and support the bill before the House. The issue of obesity and young people being overweight has become a hot topic. It is quite ironic, because before the last state election when I was the shadow minister for education I developed a comprehensive policy aimed at limiting the problem of overweight and obesity in schoolchildren which included comprehensive guidelines for tuckshops for eating plans and mandatory exercise—mandatory physical activity—for all schoolchildren from P to 10. At that time the then minister for education, Anna Bligh, ridiculed that policy. It is amazing how quickly this government has turned around and actually recognised that it is now an issue, yet when we released that policy—the Healthy Kids, Clever Kids policy—it was actually ridiculed by this government and ridiculed by the former minister, which I think was absolutely disgraceful. But I am glad to say that since that time the whole debate has moved on and there is a 3578 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005 general recognition that something needs to be done about addressing this issue. The overwhelming evidence confronting us is that we are going to have a public health epidemic when it comes to obesity and young people being overweight. The quote is often bandied about—and we have heard it several times just this week from members of the government—that today’s young people will be the first generation that do not have the same life expectancy as their parents. I am glad to see that the government has caught up and recognised that this is an issue. Finally, it has said that this is a problem and it has tried to introduce some measures that will address it in our schools. However, I remind everyone that it was only 18 months ago when it ridiculed a plan to do exactly that. It needs to be a comprehensive solution to what is a very complex problem. It is not something that is going to be fixed overnight. I have to say that I sometimes feel guilty, because I am probably not the best advertisement for getting healthy eating and activity put on the agenda, but I am certainly trying to improve. I was a lot fitter as a kid, I have to say, than I am now, and that is the point—that is, some of us who do have some problems with weight now were very fit and healthy as young people. Therefore, we have to wonder how it is going to be for those young people who are facing real weight problems and obesity problems now when they are still young and should be fit and healthy and what that is going to mean for their future in terms of their own lives and the health system and our community in general. We do need to introduce measures that will address this. The private member’s bill introduced by the member for Moggill is just one prong of what needs to be a very comprehensive strategy. That is the issue: this is only one prong of what is going to be a very widespread program that needs to be introduced, because it is not just about soft drinks obviously, and to try to bring it down to being just about soft drinks is ridiculous and simplistic. It is one step towards it. It is a recognition that soft drinks are very, very detrimental to the health of young people if they are consumed in large quantities. I note that the Minister for Child Safety, responding on behalf of the government, said that there are a lot of other low-nutrition drinks. That is absolutely true, but it is the large quantity of soft drinks that are consumed that makes them very, very detrimental to the health of children and why this bill in particular is so important. Another important aspect of this bill is that it is a very public way of saying that we are concerned about the health of children. This bill, which targets soft drinks in particular, is a way in which we can say, ‘Yes, there is a problem.’ Hopefully, during the education campaign that has to go along with any measure to improve the health and wellbeing of young people, the consumption of soft drinks will be a headline item. That is very, very important. Earlier this week I attended the P-10 school at Cecil Plains to talk to the year 10 students at that school about a whole range of things, including how politics and politicians affect their daily lives. We were talking about this very issue of obesity and healthy eating. Those students were very concerned about the way in which the government has proposed the red, amber and green light foods and how that is going to affect their own little school. Those students do not have tuckshop every day. For them it is only a once-a-week event. Those students were concerned that the government was adopting a big stick approach. I am not convinced of that one way or the other. I think that to implement food guidelines into tuckshops is a necessary step. I think that how we do that will be a matter for some further debate. I was really impressed that Tiffany, one of the year 10 students at that school, had suggested off her own bat to the school principal that the school should nominate a day on which it promoted healthy fruit juices. Those students were making smoothies for all of the students—from year 1 through to year 10. I thought that was a really positive move for that school, because it was not just taking a big stick approach; in the process it was educating the students. That was an initiative of one of that school’s year 10 students. I think that is the direction in which we have to head. We have to recognise that some children are experiencing health problems. If we can educate those young people so that they are able to make choices—and we can do that—I think that will take us a long way down the track to solving a very significant and fast-growing problem in our community. I think all of us would be absolutely astounded at how quickly childhood obesity has become a major problem and how rapidly it is developing. The now Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and I co-chaired the Parliamentary Diabetes Group, which was an effort to try to address a health issue. Some of the people who came to address that group produced some really, really frightening statistics about young people who in the past would never have developed diabetes suffering from that condition. Those young people are going to experience long-term health effects that we as a community have not confronted before. It is going to take a very long time for this trend to reverse. If we look at the health trends in the United States—and we are rapidly following those trends—we realise that we face a very difficult issue. This issue is not just confined to young people eating healthy food; I believe that we have to introduce mandatory physical activity in our schools. A lot of schools offer exercise programs and physical activity courses, but it is not mandatory and, therefore, not all schools offer those programs. I think we have to address that matter. During the last state election campaign the coalition announced a policy that for children in kindergarten to year 2 there would be a minimum of 20 to 30 minutes of physical activity per day and for children in years 3 to 10 there would be 150 minutes of physical activity per week. I still think that is a good policy and we should work towards achieving that. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3579
The year before last I attended a meeting of physical education teachers in Toowoomba, which prompted me to develop this exercise policy. At that meeting they gave out awards to physical education teachers who had done a fantastic job in their schools in raising students’ fitness levels. Those teachers lamented the fact that it was not mandatory for schoolchildren to participate in physical activity. I think that is a real shame. There are all sorts of debates about competition and other matters. Personally, I do not think that competition on the sports field is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. I think it is something that can be encouraged. The policy that the coalition took to the last state election was not about sport or competitive sport; it was about physical activity. I remember going to the Valeview State School, which is in my electorate. It is just a small school—a two-teacher school. The principal at that school had introduced a physical activity program. Every morning she made all of the schoolchildren participate in an activity for half an hour before they commenced their usual school day. The increase in the children’s attention span, their concentration levels, their health and their fitness was absolutely amazing. That was a fairly straightforward program. I think that a program such as that should be mandatory in schools. It should be implemented at the appropriate level for each student because, obviously, students have different capabilities. The important aspect of that program is that everyone has to participate in it in some shape or form. I think that sort of exercise program, in conjunction with nutritional guidelines and healthy eating programs, will go some way towards addressing this issue of obesity. Obviously, the prohibition on the selling of soft drinks at schools is only one small step, but I congratulate the member for Moggill on introducing this bill. The cumulative effect of the introduction of such initiatives will address the issue of obesity. By their very nature, soft drinks are consumed in very large quantities. They have detrimental health effects. I think that, by passing this legislation, we can go one step towards addressing what is a very significant but—even more concerning—a growing problem for our young people. It is going to be a very, very difficult public health issue for many years to come. We have to make the decision now to take these steps. I think the sooner we do this—the sooner we implement this initiative—the sooner we can address those health problems that we are now confronting. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (8.35 pm): I am delighted to speak in absolute opposition to the opposition’s Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 2005. Obviously, the opposition has no concept or nous whatsoever in the field of nutrition or even the strategies being implemented within our education system. I need to enlighten the opposition. Education Queensland’s Smart Choices—Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland Schools goes much further than just banning soft drinks. I was gobsmacked that soft drinks are the sole focus of this opposition’s bill. The mind boggles at to why the opposition would waste the precious time of this parliament when, in fact, it could be proposing something constructive that would improve our education system’s current nutrition strategy. We are in the new millennium—not in the last millennium—so I will enlighten members as to what is actually happening in Queensland. As parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health, I am pleased to share with the member not only the strategies currently in our schools that I have just mentioned but also to highlight from a health perspective our Queensland Health initiatives. First and foremost this government and Queensland Health are strongly committed to addressing the epidemic of overweight and obese people through improved nutrition and increased physical activity. Relevant state and national strategies, of which I am sure the opposition is not aware, include Eat Well, Be Active—Healthy Kids for Life; Eat Well Queensland 2002-2012; Smart Eating for a Healthier State; Smart Choices—Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland Schools; Eat Well Australia; and Be Active Australia. Moreover, Queensland Health has invested up to $7 million per annum in new recurrent funding to support the recruitment and the work of 80.5 new nutrition and physical activity specialists across the state and the development and implementation of a high-profile social marketing campaign to increase the consumption of vegetables and fruit. I am sure that all of us in this House would have seen the television campaign titled ‘Go for 2 fruit and 5 veg’. Queensland Health also provides support for Nutrition Australia and the Queensland Association of School Tuckshops to promote healthy food supplies in our schools and research to provide reliable data on body weight, nutrition and physical activity behaviours among children in Queensland to better inform and evaluate health promotion programs. Like the member for Cunningham, I would like to highlight a couple of programs that are taking place in my own electorate. Redbank State School runs a program called Kids Kafe, which is teaching the students of that school how to cook properly. They learn how to make simple meals such as fried rice. They also learn how to cook egg dishes and other things. At Dinmore State School, the students have a garden to look after. It is also a Health Promoting Schools initiative. The children at that school are taught how to grow vegetables such as lettuce and tomatoes. Currently, they are growing strawberries. They use the produce gathered from that garden in the tuckshop so that they are able to eat much healthier food. Collingwood Park State School, for example, has an after-hours activity program which is very well attended, and it is strongly supported by our community. 3580 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005
All the initiatives this government has implemented, as well as the partnerships with the Commonwealth, indicate our clear commitment to address nutrition, more physical activity and obesity not only in our children but also in adults. I categorically oppose the opposition’s bill simply on the grounds of lack of commonsense, laziness in research and ignorance of what is actually happening already in our schools to improve the health and wellbeing of all Queenslanders. If ever we had proof that we have a lazy opposition in Queensland, this bill is certainly it. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (8.39 pm): It is a pleasure, indeed, to rise tonight to speak in support of this private member’s bill introduced by my colleague the member for Moggill. Despite comments from the member for Bundamba about ignorance and laziness, I will attempt to prove the opposite and suggest that ignorance and laziness are coming from the member opposite. The Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill endorses the prevention of unnecessary degradation of children’s health in Queensland and addresses the cause of a multitude of health problems being faced in our community today by people of all ages. Primarily these problems are obesity, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, dental erosion and caries. When considering the most valuable gifts we can bestow on our children, our determination to provide them with the right ingredients to equip them to realise their goals and aspirations as fully functioning healthy individuals must come near the top of the list. I speak here beyond the recognised absolute basic needs such as food, water and shelter and include love, guidance, good role models, education, exercise and, last but not least, a well-balanced diet. The majority of parents do not strive to create unhealthy children—in fact, the opposite is true. Yet due to changes in our social structure, busy work schedules and the availability of a smorgasbord of fast food, the problems I mentioned earlier are becoming more and more common and at an earlier age, placing the lives of future generations at risk. With my background in paediatric health, I have seen first-hand the devastating and, in some cases, life-threatening effects of poor diet on children. Here we have an opportunity, as representatives of a wider, intelligent community, to make a decision that will impact favourably on the health of children today, tomorrow and well into the future. If we take into account what is happening around the world, we can see a growing trend towards removal of soft drinks from children’s diets. Perhaps the member for Bundamba would care to take in some of these facts. In Germany there is a ban on the sale of fizzy drinks and confectionery in schools and in the immediate neighbourhood. Brussels has banned vending machines in primary schools. In France vending machines are removed from all middle and secondary schools. Britain has banned school vending machines. Scandinavian countries will only permit vending machines to be filled with nutritional alternatives. That is taken from ‘Bitter pill for sugar growers’ by Selwyn Parker. In Malaysia, manufacturers are required to produce soft drinks with less sugar than similar items sold in Australia. That is taken from ‘Fat chance of losing weight’ by Leonie Briggs in the Courier-Mail of 18 August this year. Many of us sitting in this House tonight can no doubt recall receiving a carton of milk at school each day. Obviously in today’s climate we are more conscious of health related issues associated with the provision of food at incorrect temperatures, but we need to look back to the intent of the provision— Mr Reeves: It was too warm. Mrs STUCKEY: I mentioned the provision at incorrect temperatures, but we need to look back to the intent of the provision of milk to schoolchildren. The intent was to ensure children received sufficient calcium on a daily basis. Abundant data proves that the critical time for children’s teeth is in their early years of development, and dentists are very concerned that once erosion occurs enamel cannot be replaced. In permitting extensive consumption of soft drinks by children, we as a community are condemning our children to a lifetime of expensive and unnecessary dental procedures—procedures, I might add, that cannot be met through the public system. As a parent I have personally endeavoured to educate my own children on the benefits of healthy eating, but education is not enough. It is essential for the practice of good eating habits to exist within the environments in which children spend a significant amount of time. I also encourage schools in my electorate to look into applying for a federal government healthy school communities grant to assist in educating students about the importance of healthy eating and a balanced diet. A similar nutrition program funded over three years by the federal government saw the introduction of healthy eating habits at Coolangatta primary school, with all children contributing to the continuous fruit platter. Community volunteers at this school had over the years provided breakfast for hungry and disadvantaged kids, but the nutrition program educated the children and involved them in the process. It is a sad indictment of today’s society that we are faced with a situation where one in four of our children is affected by obesity, and this is predicted to become one in two children by the year 2020. These are frightening statistics indeed. This evidence has recently been supported by studies conducted by Professor Andrew Hills of the Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Health in his article ‘A quarter of our children are obese’. The health impacts of soft drinks specifically have not 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3581 been communicated sufficiently within the community. There is not widespread knowledge that one can of soft drink equates to 10 teaspoons of sugar and is equivalent to washing one’s teeth with sugar and acid. My past experiences in small business with regard to marketing and promotional practices introduced me to how advertising plays a significant role in purchasing intentions and peer pressure. Gone are the days when marketing was based around targeting adults. Now advertising campaigns are geared around the younger members of households. Subliminal advertising with hidden messages especially to make items and, in particular, food and beverages more desirable has been around for decades. Marketing and advertising companies today are much more sophisticated and now employ psychologists to test the ‘nag factor’ capacity of their campaigns. This is the greatest form of pressure parents can be faced with, and if they give in just once a habit hard to eradicate has begun. What society is now witnessing portrays an unrelenting child insistent on obtaining a specific product. Slick manipulation of families via children should be curbed. Members on this side of the House are committed to reducing health problems, unlike the members opposite. We only have to look at the lack of action by the current Labor government over its entire time in office, particularly in the area of public hospitals, to know that members opposite do not tend to act proactively. Members on the other side are reactive and will implement quick fixes only when they are forced to face the consequences of their inaction. Why is it that this government is now being faced with a litany of whistleblowing on dental health related services? Is it because its inaction has led to public exposure? And all the government can come up with is the Forster report, slammed by the Australian Dental Association as ‘too simplistic’. That is from the article ‘Report advice lacks teeth, say dentists’ in the Gold Coast Bulletin in October this year. Evidence of this government’s inaction, particularly in relation to school dental services, is the assertion by ADA’s Queensland president, Michael Foley, that ‘no increase in clinical staff has been made for years, despite a substantial increase in the number of schoolchildren and eligibility being extended to children in years 8, 9 and 10’. That report was tabled on 17 October. We expect licencees of entertainment venues to ensure responsible service of alcohol, and we should look at the removal of soft drinks from schools as responsible service of healthy food and drinks. I urge honourable members who have a genuine interest in the health of our youth to put aside their party politics and vote with their conscience to support this piece of legislation. It is a bold and positive step to curb health problems. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (8.47 pm): I rise this evening to deliver a speech which is entirely the work of my friend the honourable member for Mount Ommaney, Julie Attwood, in relation to the Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill. Unfortunately, the member is attending a speech night at Corinda High, which is a large part of the subject of this speech. She is very passionate about this particular bill and she has asked me to deliver this speech on her behalf. I ask for the indulgence of honourable members when I refer to ‘my schools’ which are obviously in her electorate because it is, in fact, her speech. The member for Moggill wants to legislate to prohibit the sale of soft drinks in Queensland’s schools as a means of curbing the escalating epidemic of childhood obesity in Queensland. While I agree that soft drink is a major contributor if consumed in large quantities to the obesity problem in children, I will be opposing the member for Moggill’s bill. Another factor contributing to childhood obesity is the fact that some children are not exposed to regular exercise. I want to draw to the attention of the House another and better way to battle childhood obesity rather than the knee-jerk banning of soft drinks. The Centenary Canoe and Rowing Club was formed over seven years ago. The dedicated and committed members of this club have been working to get children of all ages involved in the popular sports of canoeing and rowing. It has been hard going—not to get children involved in those sports but, rather, to get the Brisbane City Council to recognise the need for a facility from which to operate a rowing club in the western suburbs. The demand for this type of facility is great and the club now has hundreds of children from local schools participating in the sport. They have received donations of old sculls which former Olympian Simon Newcomb has been meticulously working on to upgrade and make useful to young rowers. Finally, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman agreed to grant a lease to the club at the end of Sumners Road on the Brisbane River bank where the club could build a clubhouse. This is a fantastic win for this community and for all those enthusiastic students at my local schools. Childhood obesity has always been a concern to this club and to Simon. Participation in rowing and canoeing can help to overcome that problem. I come back to the issue of soft drinks. Corinda State High School has established a system whereby it is discouraging young people from eating junk foods during school hours. It is a simple solution and the benefits of the system are paying off. The tuckshop sells nutritional food such as fruit salads, fruit juice, salads, salad sandwiches and so on at cost price. This means that students can buy one of these items for less than $2. Other foods, such as sweets, chocolates, soft drinks and others, are sold at a high profit margin. The end result is that students now opt for the foods that are at a reasonable 3582 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005 cost and are starting to enjoy them. They are healthy and they promote better energy levels, clearer thinking and better concentration. I have asked the Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts to consider the Corinda State High School system as best practice. It believes that for students in primary schools the good food in tuckshops policy should be mandatory. However, it is more difficult to get older students to wean off junk foods. They are able to go down to the corner shop to get that chocolate fix if it is not available at the tuckshop. That means that tuckshops lose their profit base. The P&C uses the tuckshop profit base and its contracts with food and drink suppliers to gain valuable resources for the students at the school. In fact, thousands of dollars from the profits of the tuckshops have been used to refurbish facilities and provide additional facilities to ensure that students at the school have nothing but the best opportunities to learn and achieve their academic goals. Corinda State High School has taken a number of years to set in place the very successful tuckshop system that is having a remarkable effect on the health and wellbeing of the students there. It has been allowing other schools to visit and share its ideas and take them back to their own school communities. Yes, the science showing the relationship between soft drink and obesity is clearly established. Parents certainly do not have control over foods consumed by their children at school, nor in other places for that matter. The problem of childhood obesity is serious and is becoming more serious. Type 2 diabetes is now becoming commonplace in children and in people of all ages. The complications are horrendous. It is becoming more of a social disease than a hereditary one. Prevention seems to be the only way to go. It is important to encourage rather than force young adults to change their eating habits. They need to feel comfortable about changing their habits and need to see the real effects on their health and wellbeing of such a change. Primary schoolchildren need to be taught healthy eating habits from an early age. As parents have less control over their eating habits at school or when they are amongst their peers, it is left up to schools to ensure that better eating practices are in place and that healthy options are provided. At the end of the day, it is a matter of choice. One cannot legislate to ban soft drinks. It only opens up another market where young people seek to find what they crave most. It is difficult to give up a habit, as we all know. It is the same with drug addiction. However, the effects in the short term are certainly not as devastating. We need to look at the long-term effects and take a long-term approach to ensure that reversion to old habits is less likely to occur. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.53 pm): I rise to speak to the Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill. I will ask the proposer of the legislation for clarification on one or two matters. I know that schools in my electorate—indeed, schools throughout Queensland—have introduced the red, amber and green foods program particularly aimed at tuckshops. I have actually written to each of the schools in an endeavour to find out their response to the new eating program for tuckshops and just to see how they saw that it would impact on them. Many of the schools had already introduced more nutritious tuckshop programs. They had been slowly introducing it over time. So for many of the schools it will not be a major change from what the children are used to. There are other schools that see that it will have more of an impact, and one or two have said they are monitoring the impact of incomes. The difficulty with banning any sort of food, particularly when you get into the high school area, is that the students—they are young adults by this stage—then leave the school grounds and access the food that they want to eat, nutritious or otherwise, from the shops external to the school. The member for Currumbin mentioned the programs that were in place when she and I were at school. There were these tiny bottles of milk that were usually tepid as they had sat out in the sun until it was time for us to have them just before little lunch. An honourable member interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I do not think so, but I thank the member. Again, the motivation was very sound. It was a recognition in those years that perhaps some of the students were missing out at home on particularly important nutritious elements—in that instance calcium—and it was schools’ and the government’s intention to ensure that, as much as possible across-the-board, students were exposed to those foods that were necessary. A number of schools in the electorate have their own gardens. In particular I commend one, not to the exclusion of others. Rosella Park School is a special needs school. It has been developing a garden. It is partly remedial, but it provides an excitement for the young men and women and the younger children who attend there who may have difficulties in learning. The school particularly concentrates on living skills. The students are absolutely thrilled to see that the small plants, seedlings and seeds they put in grow and produce wonderful crops. The school has also just recently had a program of planting fruit and nut trees in its garden. I can imagine that some of these young men and women—they stay there until they are about 17 and then they go on to other support programs—are really encouraged by what they are able to achieve. I think the side benefit to that is that what they do plant is nutritious, healthy and good for them. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3583
The member for Bundamba referred to the ad campaign about eating the approved amount of fruit and vegetables in a day. I always worry about ads that humanise food for children and then say that they should eat them. However, that is what they do: they make puppets out of this food. It is a subtle message to try and encourage young children to make better choices when it comes to their food groups. I think some of the problems we face today are not very easy to overcome. The pace of life has meant that many families have both parents working and they rely more heavily on convenience food. There has been an upsurge in the advertising for fast food—from the major chains in particular—and there has been heavy competition between them to try and corner a greater percentage of the market. So young people, both young children and early adults, are being bombarded with a lot of advertising that encourages them to perhaps eat not wisely. I believe we would be in a worse situation than we are now, except that fresh food was made exempt from GST. I had a discussion with a former federal member of parliament. That particular former member did not have children but believed that even if the GST were applied to fresh food parents would still make wise choices. But if families are confronted with having to provide school lunches and meals for three or four children a week and they can buy a bag of chips cheaper than they can buy five or six apples, which would be sufficient for the week, then unfortunately many families would not have a choice but to go for what is unhealthier. Fortunately, the Democrats brought pressure to bear and fresh food was exempt from the GST. I believe that has been of assistance. I remember watching Jamie Oliver on the television trying to re-educate some English schools— not just the students but also the tuckshop conveners—away from deep-fried, fairly stodgy food to more nutritious and flavoursome food. He had an extremely difficult battle to get both the students and the decision makers to adopt maybe a slightly more expensive food line but an infinitely more healthy one. Changing the choices people make is not simple and it is not short term. I would appreciate from the proposer of this bill clarification of how this particular bill, in a stand- alone fashion—that is, stopping the sale of only soft drinks—is either needed or beneficial in light of the changes to the tuckshop programs at schools. Those programs have almost totally eliminated soft drinks including, I was surprised to find out, quite a range of the flavoured milks as they were seen to have too much sugar. I am interested in why the member for Moggill feels that this bill is necessary as a stand-alone measure, in light of the other initiatives that have been introduced into schools by government. I believe that the schools are embracing those changes. I think that tuckshops, over time, will be able to withstand a short-term slump for a long-term gain. I am interested in clarification from the honourable member for Moggill. Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (9.00 pm): Like my colleagues, I rise to oppose this bill. I will say at the outset that I thought the second reading speech was a very good speech with some very valuable comments, raised some genuine concerns about childhood obesity, was very well researched and argued a good point. However, at the end of the day, this is fairly poor legislation. Firstly, I think it is fairly poor legislation because its base intent is to take a serious issue—and there are fewer more serious issues than child health—and whittle it down to little more than a stunt. When I say that it is a stunt, let us remember the context in which this bill was introduced. For all of the good work and research in the speech, the bill was introduced before the coalition of the unwilling, whilst the Liberals struggled for relevance and competed with the Nationals to get one up on the government. That is the context in which this bill was introduced. Rather than address a serious issue seriously, this bill reverts to a base prohibition strategy that goes like this: find a product with negative health impacts, couch some emotive language around how evil the product is and argue for its immediate prohibition before anyone else does. The history of these flimsy strategies is littered with failure as time after time the base motivation of one-upmanship has failed to provide a compelling case for change. That is one reason why this is poor legislation. Its base motivation is not genuine. The legislation is also poor because it purports to resolve a complex issue by a single, simple act. There is no doubt about the contribution of soft drinks to childhood obesity. The member for Moggill cited several pieces of research in his speech that clearly make this connection. The problem is that soft drinks are only a small part of the problem. The shadow minister for health seeks to establish in this bill that childhood obesity can be eliminated if we ban soft drinks. Effectively, that is his argument. In effect, he says that we do not need to be concerned about children consuming fried dim sims, chips, cream cakes or lollies or any of the other high-fat or high-sugar products currently on the market. Does the shadow minister for health seriously expect us to believe that a child raised on fried food, cream cakes and fruit juice will not be affected by obesity because they do not consume soft drinks? I know that it is a ludicrous example but it emerges from flawed legislation. It is poor legislation because it fails to deliver on what it purports to do. 3584 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005
I am becoming used to the Liberals introducing legislation that seeks to mandate without consultation. The Deputy Premier spoke yesterday morning about the Liberals’ giddiness with taxation. This legislation seems like they are still in the mid nineties and giddy with mandating. Earlier this year I spoke in opposition to their mandating of fluoride legislation and, along with many of my colleagues in the National Party, voted against the bill. Many members who opposed that bill actually support fluoridation but could not support the Liberals’ way of going about it. There are similarities in this next flawed piece of Liberal draft legislation. Yes, we are talking about it and we are doing it the right way. I am about to tell members about Smart Choices and how we are doing that the right way, too. To oppose this bill is not to oppose measures that address childhood obesity. Opposition to this bill is about opposing the mandating of flawed legislation. The legislation contains no phasing in and no consultation. The speech by the member for Moggill shows no evidence of discussion with his local schools or tuckshop coordinators. This bill simply attempts to ban products that many children and parents currently consume with no consultation and no provisions for an education and awareness campaign. These are yet further reasons why this bill should be opposed. Many speakers in this debate have spoken and will speak about the real action in tackling childhood obesity that is being undertaken by this government. Let us have a quick look at how our Smart Choices program differs from this poor legislation. Smart Choices addresses all food types, not just soft drinks. Smart Choices aims at ensuring consumption of healthy foods, not simply banning one bad item. Smart Choices was announced 12 months prior to implementation, with information and consultation programs. Smart Choices teaches moderation and healthy choice, and does not simply ban certain products. Smart Choices is about creating Smart Kids not bad product lists. The bottom line is that Smart Choices is smart. It is quite fitting that we are having this debate tonight on National Tuckshop Workers Day. Members may have heard an interview on ABC Radio this morning with an amazing woman who had worked in a school tuckshop for more than 30 years. I think she was in the electorate of Mount Gravatt. There are many similar stories out in the community. The issue of childhood obesity deeply concerns all of us. I am a strong supporter of the government’s Smart Choices strategy. However, unlike the shadow minister for health, I think it is important for a good community representative to consult widely and talk to people at the real end of decisions that we make in this place. In recent weeks, I have been visiting the tuckshops at my local schools. These visits are part of a program that I have implemented to ensure that I visit all the school tuckshops in my electorate that are impacted on by Smart Choices. During these visits, I talk to workers about Smart Choices, about how they foresee the impacts on their tuckshop business, the eating habits of schoolchildren and what sells in their tuckshops. Clearly, as with any government program that aims to introduce cultural change, there are some issues that we need to consider in the lead-up to the implementation of Smart Choices. That is what consultation periods are all about. I am really impressed, as I go about my school visits, with all of the great endeavours that our schools are already undertaking to improve healthy food choices, and the commitment of local tuckshop workers and volunteers to making sure that schoolchildren have healthy food options. I encourage the shadow minister for health to visit his school tuckshops to see the great work our schools are doing and to learn about the range of nutritional issues which affect our schoolchildren, of which soft drink consumption is but one. When my visits are complete—I have another three to do this Friday—I will be informing the minister of the local responses to the Smart Choices program, as well as the great work going on in my local schools. I would like to thank Lorraine Kisaloff and Sue Jones at Yeronga State School, Margaret Cooper and Mary Jansen at Yeronga State High School, Debbie Bebb and Kathy Hartley at Moorooka State School, Judy Stinton and Judy Larkin at Salisbury State School and Lois O’Byrne, Pam Lelay, Tracey Hall and John O’Driscoll at Nyanda State High School. All of these people have welcomed me into their tuckshops, put me to work and helped me to understand childhood nutrition issues in our schools from the front line. They are very special members of our community who work hard to promote health in our schools and in our community. I commend the words of the member for Moggill in his second reading speech regarding the need to tackle childhood obesity. It is a well-researched document and I support his reference to the National Convention on the Rights of the Child. All too often parliaments pay scant regard to international rights covenants. The simple problem is, for the reasons that I have outlined, this bill is seriously flawed and cannot be supported. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (9.07 pm): It gives me great pleasure tonight to rise to talk to the bill before the House and to congratulate my fellow member, Dr Bruce Flegg, the member for Moggill. Dr Flegg introduced this bill into the House on 12 May 2005. The bill is primarily aimed at protecting our children. Although the bill is not lengthy in words or lengthy in pages, its impact on our young people and children will be far reaching. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3585
Tonight, many speakers have discussed the negativity or the cons of soft drinks. We all accept that soft drinks pose a major problem to our youth and to our children. However, an attempt to argue that it is not coupled by other measures, in my opinion, is not a reason to reject the bill. If the intent of a bill is positive, if the actions that will flow from the bill will benefit our children, then the bill should be supported. The bill is aimed purely at providing protection for those who need protection the most—that is, those who are at a young age and are unable to effectively choose for themselves the types of foods and drinks they should consume. We are beset with reports of overweight and obese children. We are all quite well aware of the long-term health risks of children who suffer from these concerns. I will quote from a Public Health Nutrition article of June 2003 titled ‘Refined sugar intake in Australian children’. It states— Obesity is a major global health issue. The most recent Australian national nutrition survey indicates that at least 20 per cent of children in Australia are overweight or obese. Diets high in added sugar have been linked to increased frequency of obesity in children. In July 2004, recognising the impact of soft drink upon our youth, Coca-Cola adopted a very heroic stance and withdrew from sale at primary schools Coke, Fanta, Sprite and Lift. In a press release the company stated— We recognise there’s an issue with obesity and we have a strong view that it’s a complex issue. A lot of it is because of a lack of physical activity. But we also recognise that as a company we have an important role in the community and we felt this was a responsible move. Here we have a corporate entity playing the role of an honest and reasonable citizen. Over the past couple of days the government has claimed that it is the defender of the health of the Queensland citizenry. Therefore, in my opinion it has an obligation to show that it is also responsible. It will be responsible by endorsing the terms and the intent of the bill so ably put forward by the member for Moggill. Quite clearly, research has shown that children who are obese have a much larger chance of becoming obese adults and adolescents have an even larger chance of becoming obese adults. The member for Moggill has consulted a wide range of people and organisations including the Australian Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the Australian Dental Association, the Dental School at the University of Queensland, Nutrition Australia, individual teachers, the Independent Education Union, the Queensland Nurses Union, tuckshop convenors, individual parents and the list goes on and on. The member for Moggill did his homework. He worked hard. He put the facts together and he put forward this bill, which proposes a regime that is commonsense in every sense of that word. Mr McNamara: You’re not backing Caltabiano, then? Mr McARDLE: We will get to that in a few short moments. The United States also produced a document entitled Soft drinks and school-age children, published in July 2002. It states— When children and adolescents replace milk with soft drinks, they lose out on valuable nutrients needed for normal growth and development. Only 36% of boys and 14% of girls are getting enough calcium. High soft-drink consumption is also correlated with low intakes of magnesium, vitamin A, vitamin C and riboflavin, as well as high intakes of calories, fat and carbohydrates. The medical evidence is overwhelming in this situation. The medical evidence cannot be refuted, yet the government continues to oppose a commonsense attitude to a major problem faced by our children and faced by the health system in Australia on an ongoing basis. However, government members will turn a blind eye and do what they are told, as opposed to what they know is the right thing to do. An article that appeared in FairfaxDigital on 13 January 2003 stated— The World Health Organisation has pointed the finger for the first time at soft drink manufacturers for contributing to the problem of childhood obesity. ... It also suggests that vending machines in schools should be banned. The report comes after obesity summits in NSW and Victoria heard calls for tough laws on fast food and soft drink companies. Therefore, we have more irrefutable medical evidence, yet again this government turns its back on the obvious solution of endorsing this bill. If we simply have good eating habits, good food routines and a healthy diet, that adds up to one thing: a child that is healthy. If that healthy diet is coupled with physical activity, we have both a physically and mentally stable and healthy child. Surely that is what we are all trying to achieve. Again, the bill is trying to achieve exactly that. Of course, the long-term impact of poor diet is the destruction of the child’s physical and mental health. It creates a burden on our health system and the psychological effect on the child is, at the very least, a loss of self-esteem. I started these few words by saying that this bill came into the House on 12 May 2005. Of course, the government saw it and realised that our bill could resolve some issues. Therefore, it quickly 3586 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005 gathered itself together. On 7 July the then education minister, Anna Bligh—who thankfully has been moved from that portfolio—issued a media release stating— Radical changes to school tuckshop menus will see nutritious, tasty foods replace lunches of sausage rolls and soft drinks as state schools join the battle against obesity and poor health among children. The government saw our bill and seized the opportunity. It rushed into the public arena with a media release indicating that it will now tackle the problem head-on. How cynical can one get? On 20 September 2005 our current illustrious health minister issued a second media release that states— The Eat Well, Be Active—Healthy Kids for Life information pack will be mailed out to households over the coming months...... Mr Robertson said Australian kids are fatter than they were 20 years ago, with one in four rated as overweight or obese. Again, the government is running on the shirt tails of the bill introduced by the member for Moggill. I congratulate the member for Moggill on this bill. I simply say that it is the start of a long process. If we accept that the consumption of soft drinks by our children is a cause of obesity and health problems but that there are other things to be adjuncted to that, there is no reason to reject the bill simply because it does not satisfy all of the requirements. It is the start of a process that is practical and, in my opinion, will save our children and our health system a significant sum of money. I support the bill. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (9.15 pm): It is encouraging to hear of the bipartisan support for tackling the very important problem of child obesity, but it is disappointing to see this very narrow quick-fix solution. Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member for Cunningham you spoke earlier in this House of your concern about big sticks. I cannot think of a bigger stick than a $750 fine on a school. Our program is comprehensive. Across a number of portfolio areas, the Beattie government’s program provides a very comprehensive way of tackling this very serious issue. Each of our members has outlined the recent strategies that we have been putting in place, as well as those that have been in place for a number of years. They include strategies in the health department and Education Queensland. Sport and Recreation initiatives provide another package of opportunities and mechanisms that really help to get kids active and deal with this problem of obesity. It is a shame that a lot of the opposition’s strategies are so narrow. For many weeks now we have listened to the debate on health and we have heard about its so-called plan of action, which really amounts to sacking 2,000 health workers. Not much in that health plan deals with broader health issues. Whilst I accept what I see as a fairly genuine intent by the member for Moggill in introducing this bill to deal with the problem, on hearing more about the range of strategies across government he must now accept that we do have a very serious plan of action across a number of portfolios to deal with this problem. I cannot see why he did not have the courage, strength or fortitude to withdraw the bill and let us get on with it and support us in those initiatives. Tonight seems a wasted effort. I am sure that the public does not want us going around in circles on an issue that we have bipartisan support on. I understand the intent of the member of Moggill and I commend it. I welcome the bipartisan support that we have for the general issue. However, I cannot support a bill that has punitive measures on a particular product rather than showing a broad range of support for the strategies that are needed. In my senior high school days, we had a wonderful tuckshop convener, Barbara Robson. She was also a two- or three-time candidate for the federal seat of Moreton. She was a great candidate. She reduced that margin significantly over her period as candidate. However, one thing that might have lost her a few votes, particularly amongst those of us who talked to our parents about this issue, was that she tried to ban the very delicious sausage rolls, sauce and chips that we used to consume. It was a long time ago that she tried to introduce healthier food in tuckshops. If my recollection is right, Barbara led the charge for a healthy tuckshop at Salisbury High School. Looking back on that, I commend her efforts because it was a bold move. It was the most commonly eaten food at that tuckshop and we loved it. Barbara made a big effort as tuckshop convenor. I understand the intent of this bill, but I do not think it was necessary to keep it on the Notice Paper and have this debate tonight. In commending the member for Moggill for raising the issue in the way that he did, I urge him to get serious and genuine in his responses to the broader health issues before us at the moment. What I am seeing is a man who is very bright and obviously knows the sector well but is using, I think, quite irresponsible scaremongering tactics in terms of the general health debate. I find that very irresponsible in a man of his calibre and knowledge. The last thing people who are sick need is scaremongering about the health system. We really need bipartisan support for the action plan to get the system working well for all Queenslanders. I urge those opposite to take this issue up with their federal colleagues. As the Premier outlined in this House today and yesterday, we need federal support for this. It is not forthcoming. We need the support of those opposite to raise it with their federal colleagues. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3587
We also need their support when it comes to dealing with the issue of childhood obesity. My learned colleague the member for Mudgeeraba informs me that last week on the Four Corners program Tony Abbott refused to take up with the multinational companies the advertising of their fast foods. Despite calls from a range of consumer groups and others, he refused to put in place regulatory measures to curb their advertising activities that are bombarding kids with messages to eat fast food. His simple message was: ‘If you do not want your kids to eat this stuff or drink this stuff do not buy it. Do not watch TV. You have control of that.’ Despite their best efforts, not all parents can control every waking, breathing minute of their child’s life and control what they are consuming. It is too simplistic. On that basis, this legislation is flawed. I raise those broader issues of the health debate because childhood obesity is central to the health debate. I urge those opposite to give bipartisan support to our very comprehensive activities to deal with obesity and the action plan to improve the health system in Queensland generally. Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (9.22 pm): I rise to support the Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill. As members have already commented, as children we were brought up on a diet that was high in sugar. This was in the postwar years and was the normal scenario in those days. We have not pulled back from this as the years have progressed. We have been taught that we should change, but we do not. We still put sugar into the diets of children and still have it in the school tuckshops. We still promote these things for the sake of dollars in the school tuckshops. Tuckshops that have changed still make money and still provide the facilities for the children in their schools. Obesity is now a problem. We must do something about this. If one travels to countries where people have large amounts of sugar in their diets, one sees obesity that is frightening. Again, we do not do anything. This bill at least attempts to do something to promote a reversal of this trend and to get some of us to come down in size. Diabetes is another growing problem. One in four people do not realise they have diabetes. If we can withdraw the sugar from the diet of smaller children, then they may not develop a taste for it and hopefully we can do something about this raging epidemic. There is sugar in soft drinks and we have a bill that seeks to put fluoride into the water system, yet we will not stop the consumption of sugar in the first place. Mr Wallace: Don’t attack the sugar industry. Leave sugar alone. Mr ROGERS: If we leave sugar alone, we will reduce our size. Those on the other side of the House support the intent of this legislation, but they amaze me with their backflips and their opposition to this bill. It has been said that we have not done enough. We have actually done something, which is more than some people will do. A failure to support this bill is a failure to care for our children. I support the bill before the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (9.24 pm): I rise to express my great support for the Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill. No matter how we look at it, childhood obesity is out of control in this country. While the threat of bird flu and the debate about funding for mental health in Australia dominate the public forum, an issue such as childhood obesity is creeping up on us at an ever- increasing pace. My colleague the member for the Moggill made it clear when he introduced this bill on 12 May 2005 that soft drinks provide no nutritional advantage to our children. I congratulate the member for Moggill on his second reading speech, which has been widely recognised as well researched and thought provoking. Why, then, should we allow soft drinks to be sold in school tuckshops across the state at an unsupervised rate to young Queenslanders? I know that I was shocked when my colleague the member for Moggill alluded to the spectre of heart attacks being a paediatric disease. As a dentist and as a parent with three children, I understand how hard it is to find a healthy balance between letting one’s kids eat foods that they enjoy but are not particularly good for them and guiding them towards a diet that will help them grow and sustain a happy balance into the future. It is important as the law makers of the state that we recognise the important role that we play in offering our kids and their parents the right choices in their school environment where they do not have the guidance of their parents in deciding what to eat and drink. We all know that, given the choice, especially as children, most of us would say, ‘When I have the chance I will eat that whole packet of Tim Tams and drink a carton of coke.’ When one becomes an adult one often says, ‘I probably will not do that because I will make some more rational choices.’ But as a child one says, ‘I would love to be able to eat and drink as much of that as I like.’ Given the choice and the money to spend at tuckshop, kids will say that they will have the coke if that is what is on offer as opposed to something healthier. I am not in favour of some punitive system where children are forced to eat only fruit and vegetables and drink only water, but I stand up for the rights of parents to supervise and foster the eating and drinking habits of their children. I feel that every little bit of encouragement and assistance we can provide to these parents and young Queenslanders will assist. 3588 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005
The member for Yeerongpilly came up with a ludicrous suggestion that, in spite of the proposed legislation, parents could feed their children fried food and still leave them at risk of diseases. The fact of the matter is that every little bit of assistance that can be provided to encourage young Queenslanders and their parents to make what the member for Yeerongpilly describes as smart choices is valuable. Contrary to what the member for Yeerongpilly said, this bill is not about creating a list of taboo items but recognising that soft drinks do not have an essential or positive role to play in the daily choices being made by children and their parents. This, coupled with a downright scary statistic that one in four of our children are now overweight, has led the Howard government in Canberra to act. If there is one thing that we can rely on about the Howard government it is that it will be a step in front of the States. The Howard government last year announced a $116 million plan as part of the Building a Healthy, Active Australia program. This program identified the problem of childhood obesity and sought to rectify it by providing grants to school parents and friends associations to promote healthy eating programs for young Australians. The member for Hervey Bay read a thoughtful speech penned by the member Mount Ommaney. The member for Mount Ommaney argued that regular exercise was a great way to beat the great threat that is childhood obesity. I support the member for Mount Ommaney as I am sure she supports the Howard government’s plan to strike back at the spiralling rate of childhood obesity by encouraging before- and after-school physical activity in Australian schools. The fact of the matter is that teachers in Queensland schools provide great role models for our young Queenslanders. So why can our tuckshops then not play the part of the great dietary role model and leave behind sugary soft drinks? Starting good habits early goes a long way towards creating great habits for life. If this bill is successful, children will not be banned from drinking soft drinks altogether but they will be exposed to more healthy options in the nurturing grounds of their own schools. While I am on the topic of the great things the Howard government is doing to encourage good dietary and exercise regimes in Australian schools, I can provide some advice for our own state government. I feel the Beattie government could take a leaf out of the Prime Minister’s leadership book. I will provide a tip for the Premier right now: that would be to turn up to important divisions like the one we had this evening on the motion in the 5.30 debate. Some 43 other Labor members were good enough to put their names on the public record and vote in support of means testing public hospital patients, but not their leader. Some 43 other Labor members were prepared to split with their core constituency and tell them that they do not stand for accessability to health care for all anymore, but not the Premier. The weight of the research and evidence stands firmly behind this bill. There are simply no two ways about it. The government can either continue to shake its head in the face of black-and-white evidence and sit on its hands or join with those on this side of the House—the side of the House supported by the weight of evidence and research—while Queensland children continue to be unnecessarily exposed to sugary soft drinks in their school environments. The member for Moggill was right to say that we owe it to young Queenslanders to show some courage on this matter. We can make a change for the better for young Queenslanders with this bill. I call on the Beattie government to show some political courage. I commend this bill to the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (9.29 pm), in reply: I will go through and address some of the remarks that different members have made, and I appreciated sitting here and listening to those remarks. First of all, I refer to the remarks of the Minister for Child Safety, who is not in the chamber. I am not quite sure who is responding on the part of the government, but health— Mr Reeves: You respond. It’s your bill! Dr FLEGG: Responding to me, not responding to the bill. The minister made a couple of remarks that I want to comment on. Firstly, he must have been put into the breech at pretty short notice because he has not read the bill—and it has only a handful of lines in it. He said that the bill banned the sale only within tuckshops, not within schools. In fact, the bill’s title refers to a ban on the sale of soft drinks in schools. So the minister had not read the bill. The minister, like many other speakers, told us about the Smart Choices program. Anyone is welcome to search the record; I do not have any particular problem. In fact, I welcome anything that the government does that may possibly be effective in relation to the problems of childhood obesity. The minister also missed the point in relation to several other areas. One is that he described a range of other foods as having identical food value to soft drink. That is the central part of this debate—that is, soft drink has effectively no food value. As part of a food group, it is the largest single contributing factor to obesity for reasons that I will get on to shortly. The member for Cunningham I think made one of the most vital points that has arisen in the debate—that is, this is not a mutually exclusive activity. That is not a stand-alone function. This is one prong of what has to be a multipronged, long-term strategy. I see it as something that integrates with measures relating to smart choices in food. I do not have any problem with that. In fact, I recognise the necessity for other changes to our lifestyle. I thank the member for Cunningham for making that point so eloquently. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3589
When speaking about eloquent speeches, it is probably not the right description for the member for Bundamba, who came up with some quite amazing statements. She listed a whole raft of healthy eating programs for children. I lost count. Mrs Reilly: Were there more than 10? Dr FLEGG: That is right; there were a lot of them. The reality is that these programs have been around for years and they do not work. In fact, the issue of childhood obesity has been dramatically deteriorating while we have been running this raft of programs. That is why we are looking for some more urgent and definitive action. The member for Currumbin, in her always eloquent manner, raised the issue of peer pressure and what effect that has on children. Again, that is a central plank of why we are targeting the worst contributor to childhood obesity in the worst environment, and that is at school where there is the minimum potential for parental influence and maximum potential for peer pressure. She also raised the issue of advertising. Again, advertising is a central issue in this debate. The Minister for Child Safety raised the issue of sports drinks. The reality is that the advertising, the push and the market share belong with soft drinks, and that is why they are targeted under this bill. The member for Hervey Bay—or Mount Ommaney, or perhaps it was a joint effort—made a contribution to this debate. He referred to the rowing done down Jindalee way, in the western suburbs of Brisbane. Encouraging activity in children is absolutely vital, not just in sport but in their lifestyles in terms of getting them out from in front of the computer and walking to destinations instead of riding. These are all absolutely vital, but our success to date in tackling obesity in children with exercise measures alone is appalling. In fact, this terrible epidemic that is raging has done so against a backdrop of all of these sorts of measures being promoted. The member for Hervey Bay fell off the rails towards the end when he was trying to justify the sale of soft drinks on the basis of tuckshops needing to make a profit. Fortunately, in this society we put the protection of our children ahead of those profits. The member for Gladstone asked me to clarify some matters, and I appreciated her comments. Firstly, she raised the matter of access to these products outside of school, and she is quite right. But what is happening at the present time is that they are consuming them in school and they are still getting them outside of school after they leave. What we are hoping for, and what I think unquestionably this bill will achieve, is a reduction in overall consumption. We do not see this measure as being mandated outside of school. The member also asked me to comment as to why I feel this measure as a stand-alone measure was of such importance. I think the member made reference to what the effect would be to totally eliminate soft drink. There are a range of reasons it was chosen as a stand-alone measure. Firstly, soft drink is the biggest single factor. Secondly, it has no food value. A lot of the foods that have been targeted tonight have some food value but, more particularly, even bad food stops people feeling hungry. If people eat a meat pie, they do not go out to get another meat pie. There is no societal effect from consuming soft drink and in fact studies have been done around the world to that effect. One’s consumption of food is not affected at all by how much soft drink they drink because it does not affect hunger. In fact, in some studies the children ate more when they drank soft drink. The other issue is that soft drinks are habit forming. They have additives such as caffeine to make them addictive, and they are very effective additives. They are backed up by massive advertising campaigns to encourage young people into a lifetime habit, and that is exactly what happens in teenage children through the combination of the massive quantity of sugar—there is a sugar-fix element—the addictive chemicals like caffeine, the peer pressure and the massive advertising campaigns that often associate these products with beautiful people in swimsuits and so on. But the advertisers are very good at this. The idea, as we used to see with advertising for cigarettes, is to get them hooked young because you get them for the rest of their life and they are much more impressionable to advertising when they are young. The combination of all of those issues is why we have targeted this as the first measure and as a stand-alone measure. The member for Yeerongpilly labelled this a stunt and said that it was doomed to failure. I have a bit of a problem with that, because in fact the government’s smart eating proposal was introduced as the government’s response to this bill. I introduced this bill in May when the government had nothing on the table and certainly no prospects of doing anything about childhood obesity. It was embarrassed and forced to respond to this bill sitting on the Notice Paper, so it introduced the Smart Choices program in response. So this is not a stunt; this is actually the bill that set the agenda that forced the Queensland government to respond. The government has been on that side of the House for a long eight years. Childhood obesity is not new, yet the government did absolutely nothing until the Liberal Party introduced this bill and said, ‘This is a serious problem. We take it seriously and it deserves a serious response.’ It was getting nothing. It was getting absolutely ignored by the government in Queensland. This is not a knee-jerk reaction; we have fought for a long time to try to get the government to take seriously perhaps the most serious health problem of our time. We have heard a lot about diseases such as bird flu. Certainly, the preparedness for that is fine. In fact, we expect that of our governments. But I can tell members that this epidemic has already arrived. This is real. Its effect on our society will be absolutely huge. 3590 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 26 Oct 2005
The member for Yeerongpilly, who also probably has not read the explanatory notes, indicated that we had undertaken no consultation. In fact, we carried out extensive consultation. A lot of it is listed in the explanatory notes. The member suggested to me that I should visit a school tuckshop. I can go one better: I worked in a school tuckshop. I am very proud of my time as a tuckshop dad. There are not a lot of us around. I can tell members in this House from first-hand experience how difficult it is to make any impact on this problem at all whilst the unhealthy choices are in the tuckshops and being promoted to children. Day after day in the tuckshop I saw the peer pressure. Any kid who bought the white milk or something like that was humiliated by his friends who were all drinking the branded, advertised product. I have done the cashier’s job at the tuckshop, which sold the white milk and the fruit, which was sitting in a basket. The choices were available. Some days we used to bring in sushi. In the two years that I worked in that tuckshop I sold one piece of fruit, and that was to a teacher. I do not recall ever selling any white milk. Ms Liddy Clark: But that’s changed now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The member for Clayfield will return to her seat. Ms Liddy Clark: But it has changed. Dr FLEGG: If it has changed, I am delighted that it has. It was not that long ago that I worked at the tuckshop. But that is not a reason for not taking the issue further and showing that we are serious about it. The member for Algester got up and said that she welcomed the bipartisan support, then indicated that she is going to blow it all and vote against the bill. There is nothing bipartisan about voting against this bill. She is being very, very partisan indeed. If the member has a concern about the issue, I urge her to vote on the side of protecting our children and indicating that this parliament takes the matter seriously. When the government votes down this bill—and even though most government members seem to have gone home, I have no doubt that they will still be able to marshall the numbers to vote it down—the message that will send to young people and parents is that this parliament does not take this problem seriously. The member for Algester referred to a tuckshop at Salisbury and the efforts that very dedicated people made to try to get children to eat healthily. I can tell the member that they failed absolutely dismally, because they did not have the backing of this bill. All of that effort that the member’s friend made—and I am not quite sure about the food the member described—all came to nought because we have not approached this issue in a determined way. In fact, the most outlandish comment made by the member for Algester was that this bill was somehow irresponsible scaremongering. I urge the member for Algester to find out something about the rate of childhood obesity and about the rate of type 2 diabetes in children—about what happens to their eyes, their limbs and their kidneys; about their psychological problems; and about their orthopaedic problems. This is not scaremongering; there is a massive epidemic affecting over 20 per cent of all of the kids in Queensland every day. The member for Algester thinks that the problem does not exist and that we are just scaremongering. In fact, after saying that she did not think that this sort of thing— Ms STRUTHERS: I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. I ask him to withdraw those comments. The scaremongering referred to his comments on the health debate broadly. I find them offensive and I ask them to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The member has asked for a withdrawal. The member has found the member’s comments offensive and she has asked that you withdraw. Dr FLEGG: I only quoted her. I did not make a comment. I only quoted her. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to withdraw or do you want to sit down? Dr FLEGG: I withdraw, but I simply quoted from the member’s speech. In fact, the member for Algester was saying that she did not think that these sorts of matters should be mandated, then turned around and urged the federal health minister to regulate the fast food industry and accused him of not being willing to take on the multinationals, which is, in fact, very much what we are doing here today. Mrs Reilly: Rubbish! So a multinational is a tuckshop, is it? Is it McDonald’s versus tuckshop? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Dr FLEGG: If the member does not think that any of the products are sold by multinationals, there is one mum who has never worked in a tuckshop. Mrs Reilly: I think I would know more about tuckshops currently than you do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mudgeeraba will cease interjecting. Government members, please come to order. 26 Oct 2005 Soft Drinks (Prohibition from Selling at Schools) Bill 3591
Dr FLEGG: They are embarrassed about their failure to stand up on this issue. I will make my concluding remarks now. A government member: Hear, hear! Dr FLEGG: I thought they would like that one. Mr Quinn: For the next 14 minutes. Dr FLEGG: I have 14 minutes in which to conclude. I will accept that interjection. I thought that I had only four. A lot of the issues that I wanted to refer to I have mentioned in my comments in relation to the contributions of individual members. Perhaps for a moment we can just put the politics aside— A government member: Oh! Dr FLEGG: There is one member opposite who does not want to put politics aside. That is their business. Over the past couple of days we have heard an awful lot, but I can tell members that the issue of childhood obesity is the most serious health problem that we are facing. Today we have seen a whole bunch of stuff mandated in a health bill, but nothing is as serious as this problem that we are facing. The frightening part about it is that we have not seen anything yet. It is only in the past 10 or 12 years that the childhood obesity rate has exploded. The implications of that explosion are yet to come. When we see them, there is no turning back. We cannot take people’s type 2 diabetes off them. We cannot undo the damage that it does to their bodies. It is up to us to be sufficiently far-sighted to act on it now. In preparing this bill, one of the many people I spoke to was one of Brisbane’s leading endocrinologists. He became quite emotional when I spoke to him. He said, ‘Look, people just don’t understand how bad this is and how many hundreds and thousands of children are now heading into diabetes in their early adult life.’ His comment was that his work as an endocrinologist used to be an interesting job. Now he sees nothing but young people with diabetes. That is the rate of the increase of this health problem and an indication of how serious it is. That is why I am so passionate about signalling that this parliament is serious about treating it and that this parliament wants to send the message that we know how serious it is and the price that we are going to pay for it in the future. It is not just a case of people living with diabetes. I have seen this myself and I have seen it multiple times. We are now seeing diabetes in very, very young people. The retinopathy that goes with the diabetes is now causing people in their 30s to go blind. Their renal failure is blowing out attendances at our renal dialysis units. I visited a renal dialysis unit in Rockhampton. The obesity problem and the incidence of diabetes in Rockhampton has caused considerable strain on that unit. It is trying to cope with the number of people who need renal dialysis. Diabetes causes massive orthopaedic problems in hips and joints. The small vessel disease that is related to diabetes means that people lose their limbs. We are looking at an epidemic of young people being confined to wheelchairs because of these sorts of complications. We are seeing the psychological damage that obesity does to people. The product itself, soft drink—for the reasons that I explained to the member for Gladstone—is the No. 1 product. It is the big one. It contains the empty calories. It is consumed in addition to other foods, not instead of them. It is backed by heavy advertising budgets aimed at young people. It contains massive amounts of sugar. Many soft drinks have drugs such as caffeine added to them in order to make them more habit forming. Even in California, with its beach culture and advertising type approach, Arnold Schwarzenegger has moved to do the very thing that I am proposing we should do here—that is, ban soft drinks from schools. Other states in America—and America has a far more difficult culture to come to grips with in terms of taking this sort of action—have recognised the seriousness of this issue. The overriding factor is that this problem is getting worse. All the things I have heard talked about today are not working to date. We have in this setting the obvious example where we need to take more extreme action. In closing, perhaps the best analogy I can think of in responding to people in this place who have said that we should let children make a choice is that at one time children were allowed to smoke. I meet an awful lot of people who started smoking when they were 10 or 12 who are now in their 50s or 60s, those who are still alive. What was the issue of smoking? They put a drug, nicotine, in the cigarettes to make smoking addictive. They backed it up with heavy advertising. I am old enough to remember the Marlboro man and a few other advertising campaigns that were heavily targeted particularly at young males. Does anyone here actually have a problem with mandating the banning of the sale of cigarettes to young people? Ms Struthers interjected. Dr FLEGG: No. We have heard this argument that there is a problem with mandating. Those who are running this line are trying to stick their heads in the sand and deny that there is such a serious problem, the results of which we are yet to see in terms of childhood obesity. It rivals the epidemic of children smoking back in the 1940s and 1950s and the price that they paid. None of us here would want to go back to that situation and remove any of that mandatory protection for children from smoking. I commend the bill to the House and trust that those opposite will take this responsibility seriously. 3592 Adjournment 26 Oct 2005
Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 21—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 38—Barton, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Lawlor, Livingstone, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, E Roberts, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells. Tellers: Reeves, Wilson Resolved in the negative.
ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.00 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Hospital Charges Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.00 pm): It is a shameful day in this House when the Premier stands up and brings in higher taxes, fees and charges and even considers means testing hospital access to try to raise money to fix the mistakes he and his predecessors have made. Queenslanders already pay for a free public health service and they pay more than enough to have First World facilities and a full complement of top-flight medical professionals—but what do we get? We get hundreds of millions of dollars of public money spent on football fields and pedestrian bridges and cultural precincts while our hospitals are running down, our few remaining doctors are overworked and our nurses are nailed to the wall. For nearly 16 years, health in this state has reflected the priorities of Labor governments. ALP members can bleat all they like about facing up to the problem, but who caused it. Who sat on top of the heap and directed money into high-profile vote-buying projects instead of looking after the health of Queenslanders? None other than Premiers Goss and Beattie—that is who. Who stood up in this place year after year and said everything was fine in Queensland Health? ALP premiers and ALP health ministers. Who told us just months ago, while Queenslanders were dying under the knife, that it was all okay and that our waiting lists were the shortest in the country? This ALP government—that is who. It did not face up to anything until it was caught out by one gutsy nurse, and what is the best it can do now? Bring in higher fees and charges and consider means testing for surgery, specialist outpatient services, spectacle subsidies, pharmaceutical safety nets and dental health services. Its even looking at capping that one. Let us be clear. Its answer is to make ordinary Queenslanders pay to fix its lethal mistakes and all while it keeps spending hundreds of millions on sports stadiums, football teams, cultural precincts and warm and fuzzy projects down here in the vote-rich south-east corner which is full of wealth takers, not wealth makers. It was an ALP government that brought in our free public hospital system. That was when the ALP stood for ordinary Queenslanders, when it stood for things like looking after each other. Today we have a government that has brought shame on the memory of those old-time stalwarts, a government that has presided over a health system that ranks bad PR as a more serious issue than patients dying. Now that it has been caught out, the best it can come up with is to betray the very basis of a free public hospital system. It must be deeply shameful to those people who believe in the old-time values of the ALP to see this government bring in this proposal. ‘Sorry’ is not good enough. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame, shame and more shame. Inglis, Miss R Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (10.03 pm): Ruth Inglis has been writing poetry since she was eight years old. Her inspiration came to her in her teens from her Sydney friends and things that they did while growing up. She has won or been placed in many competitions including the prestigious John Dunmore Lang competition in 1994 and 1995 and ‘It’s Rhyme for a Change’ in 2001, a competition sponsored by the South Australian Neurological Resource Centre, the Fellowship of Australian Writers, Northern Star Literary Award, Short Story Competition 2001, including the Arrow Awards Anthology 2001 (A Poet’s Journey), the Bronze Swagman 2003 Anthology, the 2003 Caboolture Libraries, ‘Our Worlds’ Anthology (two poems) and many others. Ruth has had several radio programs devoted to her work, been interviewed by and published in various newspapers and magazines in Queensland and NSW and even parodied in the Canberra Times. Since 1993 Ruth has been the leader of the poetry and writing working group at the Bribie Island Community Arts Centre and has often volunteered to share her knowledge of poetry at local schools, churches and service clubs like Probus and the View Club. A number of her poems were selected for study at a mature-age English class in Sydney and she has had some requests for poems to be used overseas in countries such as the US, England and Scotland. 26 Oct 2005 Adjournment 3593
I recently attended the launching of Ruth’s first book of poetry, titled Ties Too Strong To Break. The Reverend Graham Hine from the Uniting Church of Australia highlighted Ruth’s achievements and described the book launch as a significant achievement—a milestone in Ruth’s personal journey and a very public introduction of her work. Reverend Hine talked of Ruth’s diligence, perseverance and industry and, above all, her talent. He said her constant effort had paid off and she had produced a superb book of poems. If you consider that only four per cent of manuscripts submitted to publishers are in fact printed, it is a credit to Ruth having her anthology produced. Ruth’s book takes the reader on a journey from the land of her ancestors, Scotland, to where she lives today on our very own Bribie Island. I am proud to know Ruth and would like to share with you a few lines from one of her poems about Bribie Island titled A Feeling For Bribie Island— When you’ve spent the day in Brisbane And the Bridge comes into view Do you heave a sigh of gratitude That Bribie’s there for you The Island is a special place Like no other you have found And it weaves a special magic That wraps itself around When you feel the sea-cool breezes And you touch the stars at night When you close your eyes and make a wish Do you wish with all your might That you’ll never leave this Island Then the magic’s o’er you stealing And you know you have surrendered To that special Bribie feeling. This poem won first prize in the Bribie section of the Community Arts Centre Competition 1998, of which I was a proud sponsor. I am a lover of all the arts but have a passion for poetry and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ruth on her published book of poems. I am proud to have it as part of my collection in my electorate office. I would like to conclude with Ruth’s words—- Never aim lower than the stars. The effort is worth it. Sugar Industry Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (10.06 pm): The cane industry involves some 6,500 canegrowers and their families in Queensland and around 35,000 to 50,000 jobs when one looks at direct and indirect employment. Anything that impacts negatively on canegrowers affects all of Queensland and the coastal belt in particular. The plan by Premier Beattie to dismantle the sugar industry’s single desk selling arrangement is the latest in a series of planned measures that will dramatically affect the ability of canegrowers to remain viable. I have no doubt that the Premier and whoever the minister for primary industries is this week will protest most indignantly that it was in consultation with the farmers and millers that this retrograde, damaging and ultimately ruinous step has been made. My interpretation of the negotiations and consultation is that the parties agree to discuss a further course of action that will be of benefit to all parties. This has not occurred. Instead the government has told canegrowers what they will do and has left no room for compromise. They have been told that they will lose the single desk and that it is only a matter of how this will be done. Those representing canegrowers’ interests are given no real or meaningful opportunity to have any sort of input into the future of their own industry. This has long been the style of this Beattie government. They call for submissions and promise consultations then completely ignore all input contrary to their already decided position. This is not negotiation, it is intimidation. That the industry is not in favour of this move has been made abundantly clear by the cane farmers in my Burdekin electorate, who have sent in over 500 individual letters—representing more than 80 per cent of the farmers in the Burdekin—to my office, and which have been tabled today, supporting the current arrangements and demanding the legislation not be repealed. The sugar industry in Queensland is a victim of a corrupt world trading system, not a victim of its own inefficiency or its unwillingness to adjust to substantial change. As 85 per cent of the current Queensland sugar production is sold on the export market, the world sugar price plays a very strong determining factor in the economic success of the sugar industry. More than 90 per cent of the world’s sugar is protected and it is estimated that the world sugar price is half what it would be under free trade. On 22 September over 100 sugar industry representatives from all four mill areas in the Burdekin met at a public meeting to express their anger and disgust at the possible abolition of the single desk 3594 Adjournment 26 Oct 2005 and demanded that the structure and legislative base of current sugar marketing arrangements remain in place. They were very concerned that the benefits obtained from the existing arrangements, including achievement of price premiums, more secure cash flows, coordinated and efficient logistics and confidence in the independence of QSL, would be lost and that they would be disfranchised by any further deregulation. In spite of this it is clear that the Beattie government intends to further deregulate the sugar industry and that its end goal may be to completely repeal the Sugar Industry Act. The Queensland Nationals did not support the legislation to partially deregulate the sugar industry when it came before state parliament in 2004 because we knew it would disadvantage thousands of Queensland cane farmers and their families. The Nationals will continue to stand up for cane farmers and we remain determined to fight the Beattie government and its deliberate attempts to inflict yet more damage on Queensland and its hardworking primary producers. Emergency Services Personnel, Awards for Excellence Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.09 pm): I wish to salute our superb emergency services personnel and in particular the Woodridge Ambulance Service, which was named station of the year in the recent South-east Region Star Care Awards for Excellence during Ambulance Week. The Hon. Pat Purcell, the Minister for Emergency Services, attended, as well as Commissioner Jim Higgins. Assistant Commissioner David Eales was a great MC and a large contingent of past and present paramedics, staff, community volunteers on our local ambulance committee, families and friends as well as the member for Springwood, Barbara Stone, and I were also on hand to congratulate the recipients. Paramedics at the Woodridge station work exceptionally hard. It is one of the busiest districts and their award as station of the year is well deserved. Acting officer in charge, David Hartley, accepted the award on behalf of his team, to great applause. I would like to highlight a number of other awards to personnel from the Woodridge station. Paramedic Mark Crossett was recognised with a 10 years service medal, and volunteer extraordinaire Ann Langley received a 10 years service award for her dedicated work on the local ambulance committee. Working as a paramedic entails constant learning and updating of skills. Cheryl Craig, Mark Crossett and Fiona Cunningham all received their Diploma of Health Science (Pre-Hospital Care). In recognition of the growth in the area and the high level of need, the number of paramedics has been doubled to 28, with an additional seven paramedics available to fill gaps when officers are ill or attending training sessions. This ensures that the station is always operating at peak level, with one officer in charge and 28 paramedics at all times. The men and women who serve our communities as paramedics are out there on the front line saving lives every day. It is often tough going for them. They may attend an accident involving someone they know or an incident involving multiple young people or young children. However, their imperative to save lives ensures their total professionalism and their complete concentration on the task at hand. The awards ceremony was brought to a beautiful close with the song Angel, sung by John Paul College student Emma Taviana. It was a fitting tribute to these brave men and women. Residential Development, Moranbah Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (10.11 pm): It is my great honour to table a petition containing 2,084 signatures on behalf of the residents of Moranbah and the Belyando Shire Council. The petition requests the House to support the proposed 350-lot NevTan residential development in Moranbah and respectfully requests that the minister for local government and planning permit the development of Moranbah in accordance with its strategic plan. The Moranbah residents are not asking for much. It is minuscule compared with the millions of dollars that the community contributes each year to the state coffers. This is a very simple process. All that the residents of Moranbah are asking is that the Premier and the minister for local government and planning recognise that while there is a strong demand for the doubling of coal production for at least the next 10 years, there must also be a need for the town of Moranbah to further expand and maintain a good quality of life. This is clearly demonstrated by miners who are leaving their families in Mackay and living in dongas, caravans and other surrounding towns to work in Moranbah because there is no accommodation for families, apprentices and employees. Every economic and social activity in the town is being frustrated due to the lack of appropriate accommodation. The local shire council had the foresight to approve a 350-lot residential development for the town to help solve the intolerable social, environmental and economic constraints that are experienced by the people in the region. The minister for local government and planning called in this application at the request of the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. The town plan for Moranbah was gazetted in 1995. This town plan details areas for the proposed urban expansion of the town. Gazettal by the state government of this town plan clearly indicates its acceptance of a compromise between the urban expansion of the town and the preservation of coal 26 Oct 2005 Adjournment 3595 resources. I put this question to the minister for local government and planning: was this development called in on the grounds that the government has an eye on the $19 million in royalties through the proceeds of the proposed open-cut underground mine on the doorstep of Moranbah? I raise these issues because there is grave concern at the moment. Families want an assurance that they can live in Moranbah and enjoy the quality of life that Moranbah has to offer without being subjected to contaminated dust, airborne silicon, excess noise, lights and other health risks associated with 24-hour open-cut mining operations on their doorstep. We are all for coalmining and we recognise the contributions of coalmining to workers and their families. However, a fine line needs to be drawn between expanding mining operations close to a township and protecting the quality of life of mining town residents. Local residents will leave the town in droves if the proposed open-cut mine in the vicinity of the township goes ahead. Moranbah is more than a mining town, it is a place where parents are raising their children and grandparents are retiring—a place they call home. I call on the minister for local government and planning to support the residents of Moranbah and permit the development of Moranbah in accordance with its strategic plan. Web Site Launch, Mudgeeraba Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (10.14 pm): On Monday night, under rather challenging circumstances, the Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs, Chris Cummins, came to my office in Mudgeeraba to launch my new web site. The address of the web site is www.diannereillymp.com. I want to make special mention of the challenging circumstances because we actually launched the web site in my office in the presence of 40 guests from the community—in the dark. Just after the function started at 6 o’clock, the lights went out. The computers stayed on for a while. That was lovely because they bathed the office and the guests in the warm, ambient glow of my home page. However, that lasted only a little while until they, too, went out. The selective power failure—‘selective’ because it affected only my office and none of the neighbouring ones, and only the lights and not the power switches, and did not affect the exit sign, which also cast a rather romantic glow across the room—was not caused by the looming thunderstorm or an Energex fault or any other regular blackout. I am pretty sure that the Parliamentary Service had paid the bill, but I will have to look into that. No, the lights just went out due to a simple, if inconvenient, powerboard crash. It was easily fixed in about 10 minutes by the landlord, but not until five minutes after the last guest had departed. The minister could have fixed it himself, being a former sparky, but he did not have the tools. However, this minor inconvenience did not detract from the spirit of the evening. I thank all of those who attended for their good humour and patience. It was pretty hot and sweaty in there without airconditioning. As I have said, the purpose of the evening was to launch my web site—a move that I have undertaken to further enhance my communications with my electorate and to improve access to my office and the government. My web site is designed to make it easier for the residents of my electorate to engage in the democratic process. Visitors to the site will be able to learn about recent state government initiatives that are particularly relevant to our region. They can click a button to email me their concerns and they can sign up for regular email updates. The web site provides up to date information on government programs, legislation, services and issues. It also has links to other relevant sites. The Queensland government has developed a number of successful online services, both for small business and to help community engagement. These include Smart Small Business, GoBis, SmartLicence, the introduction of e-petitions, the online broadcasting of parliament and the Get Involved community engagement site. These all demonstrate the new era of technology that we are in. I hope that through the web site, Mudgeeraba residents will have a greater opportunity to communicate with me, to have their say on current issues and to keep up to date with Queensland government initiatives and proposed policy changes. I thank the minister, Chris Cummins, for coming down to Mudgeeraba. I also thank Gary and Kelvin from the Office of State Development, who were on hand to hand out information packs on support for small business to our local business operators. I thank particularly those who came along on the night. Springfest, In the Bin and SWELL Festivals Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (10.17 pm): Springtime in Currumbin is a celebration of cultural activities. Once again, this year I am pleased to inform the House of the Springfest, In the Bin short film festival and SWELL sculpture festivals. All three events run simultaneously. With the majority of activities completely free or at a very reasonable admission price, it is no surprise that these events are well patronised by tens of thousands of people of all ages and walks of life. 3596 Adjournment 26 Oct 2005
It is a time of year when the Currumbin electorate proudly displays her true beauty as a stunning backdrop to these festivals. Visitors have always flocked to the picturesque Currumbin foreshore during holiday seasons and at weekends. Honourable members have heard me speak of Currumbin’s treasures on several occasions here in the House. Playing host to these festivities is, of course, good for our local economy. However, more importantly, it enriches our community’s heart and soul. Springfest is in its 13th year and has grown from a one-day carnival in 1992 to a 23-day program this year. Frank Hayhurst, Bev Hammond and the team of selfless volunteers are to be commended for the many years of dedication and generosity of community spirit that they have poured into this annual festival to ensure its longevity and success. Miss Springfest, the Pines Shopping Centre Junior and Senior Idol competitions, the colourful parade through the streets, and the family fun day with rides, sample bags, bagpipes and military brass bands combine to make Springfest a whirlwind month of fun and activity. Apparently, this year records were broken in the baby show and the art and craft festival. In the Bin, under the supervision of creator, Jed Cahill, stretches over the week of 17 to 23 September and offers 60 high-quality short films over four nights. This unique program showcases the creative talents of our film-makers and is held in the parklands opposite Currumbin’s famous wildlife sanctuary. Natasha Edwards and Kylie Mitchell-Smith are the insightful duo who have nurtured and developed this Art Out There concept. They deserve our accolades for their magnificent efforts in producing the third SWELL festival, which spills onto Currumbin beach and foreshore. Over the seven-day festival, the SWELL program incorporated twilight sculpture tours, meet-the- artist sessions and a live music stage. Up at the Vikings surf club, nestled into Elephant Rock, a display of small sculptures tempted art lovers who wanted sculpture on a more moderate scale and price. It is a remarkable feat when one thinks about this whole concept. I am unaware of this type of event happening anywhere else in the world. Natasha and Kylie have literally put art on the beach for everyone to enjoy. Forty-six Australian and six international artists displayed this year, and the winner of the people’s choice was Andy Scott’s giant horse. Last month SWELL organisers were thrilled to receive $45,000 in funding from Arts Queensland. This is a fitting recognition of their outstanding efforts. Port Douglas Community Services Network Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (10.20 pm): On Friday, 14 October I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the Port Douglas Neighbourhood Centre and Cubby House Childcare Centre with Minister Warren Pitt, the local federal member, Warren Entsh, and the mayor of the Douglas shire, Mike Berwick. The President of the Port Douglas Community Services Network, Lisa Rackstraw, gave a great speech at the opening of the neighbourhood centre. I would like to read some of her words into Hansard. Lisa stated— There are buzz words that are often thrown around within the community sector. Words such as partnerships and collaboration. Often such words are seen to be rhetoric or jargon with little substance. I think that the Port Douglas Community Services Network has shown the true substance that exists within its name. That of a Network—able to form workable, valuable partnerships and work in cooperation with many stakeholders. It is due to the partnership of local, state and federal levels of government alongside the community and the business sectors that has made possible the reality of our vision and the reason why we are celebrating here today. We view this as groundbreaking work and an innovative success to be celebrated for the local community. This neighbourhood centre shows that with hard work, determination, a sense of humour, some conflict resolution skills and the willingness to succeed that successful multilevel partnerships are possible and that everyone will benefit as a result. The Centre has grown from a small house to a community hub that is accessed by many different services in order to offer a variety of responses to the needs of the people in the Douglas shire. The importance of community ‘spaces’ where people can freely come together to participate in community life can’t be underestimated. In a world of increasing change, consumerism, a rapid pace of life and clashes of ideals, having a ‘place’ that provides opportunities for community celebration, community gathering and inter-community relations becomes increasingly important. The new neighbourhood centre was designed specifically to incorporate a sense of belonging and a sense of place that is so vital to the identity of any community. ...
The connections and relationships that can happen here in this space will form the foundation for the organisation and the community as we face the future together. The Port Douglas Community Services Network recognises the hard work and future learnings that it as an organisation needs to embrace continually alongside the community to create a vibrant and healthy organisational and community culture. It was a great opening held in a fantastic space that showed that the three levels of government can work together for the benefit of the community when they decide to do so. 26 Oct 2005 Adjournment 3597
Redcliffe Hospital Foundation Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (10.23 pm): I rise to speak about the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation, a charitable organisation that I have spoken about before. As I may have mentioned, the chairman of the foundation is Dr Boris Chern, the head of oncology at the Redcliffe Hospital. Wayne Taylor is the foundation project officer, on loan from the hospital until 1 December. After the formation of the foundation, their first major project is to refurbish a block of flats owned by the hospital. I am told that those flats were previously used to house doctors, but it seems we do not have many doctors out there anymore. At present, it is expected to cost about $150,000 to bring the flats up to standard. The flats will be used to house family and friends. I am pleased to say that local hardware store Bunnings supports the project with products and a Saturday barbecue that will provide much-needed funds. Local couple Dorothy and Ken Wheeler are also running a charity auction of teddy bears to be held at the Redcliffe Leagues Club on 7 December. The leagues club is donating the room, the wine tasting and other facilities for that event. I lay down the challenge to all members to sponsor a bear. My wife and I have sponsored a bear, which has been named Terry. It is dressed in a suit, what else? Some of the bears are hand made and all the sponsored bears are themed. As I said, I lay down the challenge to other members of the House to sponsor a bear, which will then be auctioned on 7 December. Perhaps ministers and their shadows could get together in a bipartisan gesture and sponsor bears jointly. Who knows what we could end up with? Members can see me or contact Wayne Taylor at the Redcliffe Hospital to put in a bid to sponsor a bear. We are promoting only 120 bears and it is for a very worthy cause. Export Education Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (10.25 pm): Export education is a major source of income for Queensland universities, technical colleges, schools and other training providers. Queensland has so much to offer overseas students: high-quality educational institutions; a safe, clean and friendly environment in which to study; and a dynamic economy with business and employment opportunities to be pursued. Export education is an important element of our state’s economy and is directly responsible for the employment of many thousands of Queenslanders in both education and support industries and services. In 2001, the government adopted the Queensland education and training strategy, which had as one of its aims to double export education and training revenue to $1 billion over a period of five years. In 2004, over 53,000 overseas students studied in Queensland supporting 9,000 direct jobs and contributing over $926 million to the Queensland economy. Queensland’s strategy for the development of export education opportunities is being driven by Queensland Education and Training International. QETI provides direct support to the education sector in pursuing export opportunities and has implemented successful marketing and profiling activities in western and eastern Europe, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Latin America. In September I visited Japan as part of a parliamentary trade delegation led by Minister Desley Boyle. I took the opportunity to have discussions with Sophia University in Tokyo, which has exchange agreements with Queensland universities including the Australian Catholic University and the University of Queensland. Discussions with the university confirmed the interest and the opportunities that exist in export education. Significant points raised in discussions include: Sophia University has a target of having 10 per cent of its students involved in international exchanges during their undergraduate degree; the Japanese academic calendar is consistent with Australia and this helps to encourage and facilitate exchange arrangements; an attractive option for Japanese students is to enrol in short-term courses of four to five weeks duration, particularly in the off-semester period occurring in February-March and August-September; around 85 per cent of students participating in longer term programs, that is over one year, in overseas countries are female; and universities need to actively pursue the opportunities available through exchange programs or fee-paying courses for international students. During discussions, Sophia University also expressed interest in acquiring information about the range of short courses available from Queensland universities. These issues confirm the potential of export education to Queensland based education and training organisations. Queensland is an attractive place for overseas students to study. Export education is an essential element of our Smart State Strategy and the health of our state’s economy. As members, we need to support and encourage our educational institutions to continue investigating and engaging in export education opportunities. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.28 pm.