10 Sep 2003 Legislative Assembly 3357

WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2003

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

PETITIONS The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Ambulance Service, West Mackay Mr Malone from 153 petitioners requesting the House to take the necessary measures to provide residents in the localities situated west of Mackay along the Peak Downs Highway and the Pioneer Valley with access to a timely and reliable ambulance service which eliminates the need for any further health or safety risks to the sick or injured.

Roundabout, Dawson Highway, Gladstone Mrs Liz Cunningham from 241 petitioners requesting the House to note their concerns at the number of traffic jams occurring in peak hour between the Kin Kora roundabout and the Garden Lovers roundabout, Dawson Highway Gladstone and to ensure an urgent review is done to identify ways to rectify this problem.

Funding, Gladstone Hospital Mrs Liz Cunningham from 217 petitioners requesting the House to note that funding for the Gladstone Base Hospital has not kept pace with the needs of the region and to: increase the financial allocation to the Gladstone Hospital; increase staff at the hospital (nurses, doctors and specialist); and reopen closed wards to ensure adequate bed space.

Farm Debt Mediation Bill Mrs Liz Cunningham from 766 petitioners requesting the House to support the private member's bill, Farm Debt Mediation Bill, currently before the House which provides a transparent process for both the farming families and financial institutions to adhere to.

Speed Limit, Nambour Connection Road Mr Wellington from 337 petitioners requesting the House to reduce the speed limit on the Nambour Connection Road in the vicinity of the intersection with Blackall Street to 60 kilometres per hour.

Public Radiation Therapy Centre, Nambour Hospital Miss Simpson from 4908 petitioners requesting the House to fund a Public Radiation Therapy Centre at Nambour Hospital.

PAPERS MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by The Clerk— Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province (Mr McGrady) ¥ Response from the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province (Mr McGrady) to a paper petition presented by Mr Wells from 33 petitioners regarding speeding and noisy traffic using Moreton Downs Drive, Moreton Downs Mr N Laurie Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie I refer to a copy of a petition forwarded to me from the Hon Dean Wells MP, Minister for the Environment and Member for Murrumba, nominating as the Principal Petitioners Messrs Leo Kalinowski and Ken Creek, concerning speeding and noisy traffic using Moreton Downs Drive, Moreton Downs. Attached are hard and electronic copies of my response to Mr Wells. Yours sincerely TONY McGRADY Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province 3358 Legislative Assembly 10 Sep 2003

12 August 2003 The Honourable Dean Wells MP Minister for the Environment and Member for Murrumba Deception Bay Shopping Centre Deception Bay Road DECEPTION BAY QLD 4508 Dear Mr Wells I refer to your representations on behalf of your constituents at Moreton Downs concerning speeding and noisy traffic using Moreton Downs Drive, and an associated Petition submitted to you by Messrs Leo Kalinowski and Ken Creek as the Principal Petitioners. I brought the Petitioners' concerns to the attention of the Assistant Commissioner, North Coast Region who has advised that he arranged for Senior Sergeant Garth Peake, the Officer-in-Charge of the Redcliffe District Traffic Branch, to contact Mr Kalinowski and Mr Creek about the traffic issues raised. Senior Sergeant Peake advised Messrs Kalinowski and Creek that the traffic concerns which the Petitioners have raised have been recorded on the Queensland Police Service Traffic Returns Analysis and Complaints System (TRACS), which was implemented by the Police service in 2000 to enable police officers across the State to register, assess, and deal with traffic complaints more efficiently, and provide complainants with feedback on the action taken in response to their complaints. In addition to isolating individual cases of poor driver behaviour, TRACS assists police to identify traffic "hotspots" and traffic infringement trends, thereby ensuring such problems receive appropriate police attention. In this way TRACS also enhances the effectiveness of police traffic enforcement activities by ensuring resources are deployed where they are most needed. The Assistant Commissioner has given an undertaking that Moreton Downs Drive will be subjected to random, proactive traffic enforcement activities and intelligence-driven patrols by his officers in order to address the concerns raised by the Petitioners relating to speeding and the noisy manner of operation of vehicles at the location. The Assistant Commissioner advises that police records show there has been only one traffic incident in the Moreton Downs area since 1997. That incident involved an unroadworthy vehicle which was being driven by an unlicensed and inexperienced driver mounting a roundabout and colliding with a fence outside Mr Creek's residence in Camay Court. Police took enforcement action against the driver of the vehicle involved in that incident. Both Mr Kalinowski and Mr Creek have been advised of the relatively good record of the area insofar as traffic incidents are concerned. The Assistant Commissioner is also pleased to advise that Senior Sergeant Peake has made representations to the Caboolture Shire Council's Traffic Advisory Committee with respect to the concerns raised by the Petitioners. The Caboolture Shire Council has completed line-marking upgrades to various roundabout intersections within the Moreton Downs area, and speed limits in various local streets in the area have been reduced to 50 kilometres an hour. The Assistant Commissioner is confident these improvements, coupled with the extra police attention he has advised of, will positively impact on the issues raised by Messrs Kalinowski and Creek and their fellow Petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner extends an invitation to any of your constituents who may have continuing concerns about the traffic situation in their local area to report the matter to the Deception Bay Police on telephone 3888 0700 for appropriate police action. It may also interest your constituents to know that the new anti-hooning laws introduced by this Government have been quite effective in deterring dangerous driving activities that place the safety of other road users at risk. As you know, the new provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment Act 2002 empowers police officers to confiscate the vehicles of motorists who drive dangerously or carelessly, such as when engaged in illegal drag racing or burnouts, for a period of 48 hours. In the case of persons who re-offend within three years, courts may order the impoundment of a vehicle for up to three months for a second offence, or its forfeiture for a third or subsequent offence. The new laws also tackle the problem of excessive noise from car stereos, which is often associated with the practice of 'lapping'. This practice involves driving repeatedly around a number of streets at slow speed, disrupting and annoying other people who have a right to enjoy the peace and quiet of their surroundings. Police now have the power to issue directions to drivers to cease using sound equipment for 12 hours where the noise from car stereos is considered excessive. A failure to comply with the direction could result in the equipment being confiscated for 24 hours and prosecution for failure to comply with the police direction. Since the new laws came into operation on 4 November 2002, a total of 596 cars have been confiscated right across the State. This includes a total of 38 cars in the Redcliffe District. Furthermore, only four offenders have been detected committing such offences on a second occasion, and only one offender on a third occasion. A further Beattie Government initiative aimed at dealing with the problem of 'hooning' in our communities involves the establishment of 16 district-based tactical crime squads. These squads each comprising 14 police officers will be created over three years to target crime and nuisance 'hotspots' of concern to local communities. The first eight such squads have been established and are now operational. 10 Sep 2003 Legislative Assembly 3359

While the capacity of Tactical Crime Squads to carry out district-based operations into problems such as 'hooning' will provide a boost to affected communities, the Beattie Government believes that other measures should also be pursued in an effort to address this issue. One of these measures is the Beattie Government's decision to form a Traffic Response Group, within the State Traffic Task Force, to specifically target traffic problems associated with 'hooning' behaviour. In order to establish this Group, the strength of the Task Force has been increased from 24 to 30 officers. In addition, further resources including two motor vehicles, one motorcycle, speed detection equipment, breath testing devices and ancillary equipment to the value of $300,000 have been provided for the functioning of the new Traffic Response Group. I trust this information is of assistance and that your constituents will benefit from the police actions and other initiatives taken in response to the traffic-related concerns raised. Yours sincerely TONY McGRADY Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province Minister for Environment (Mr Wells) ¥ Response from the Minister for Environment (Mr Wells) to a paper petition presented by Mr Johnson from 635 petitioners regarding the introduction of container deposit legislation similar to that operating in South Australia Mr N Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE Q 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 25 August 2003 forwarding a copy of a petition tabled in the Parliament on 21 August 2003 regarding the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation similar to that operating in South Australia. In Queensland the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a new Waste Management Strategy that will set the direction for waste management in the State for the next fifteen years. The process includes a stakeholder consultation phase. Assessment of economic drivers to maximize resource recovery, including Extended Producer Responsibility options such as Container Deposit Legislation (CDL), should take place within this process to ensure a strategic and integrated approach to waste management in Queensland. At present, all levels of government in Australia are considering the CDL option. The New South Wales report into CDL recommended that agreement at a national level for the adoption of Extended Producer Responsibility legislation be sought to address constitutional and cross—border issues. The implementation of CDL can have significant impact on local councils and the community. CDL works by adding a charge or levy that is greater than the refund offered, resulting in greater expense to the consumer. The levy is greater than the refund because the program has to be administered and collection facilities have to be managed and staffed. The National Packaging Covenant, the framework document for the management of used packaging materials in Australia, has the advantage of dealing with packaging waste through its whole life-cycle rather than solely at its end-life, which is the focus of CDL. The Covenant expires in less than two years. Whilst this voluntary initiative has enjoyed the support of Australian Governments and progress has been encouraging, the main administering body, the Covenant Council, needs to ensure that outcomes envisaged are achieved and are demonstrable. It is noted that the Covenant Council has agreed to a robust evaluation process which should be completed in time to allow the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, comprising the Commonwealth and State Ministers for the Environment, to consider options, including CDL, and whether the Covenant should be extended. It should also be noted that CDL may take some of the most valuable recyclable materials out of the household recycling stream. In turn, this may reduce the yield so significantly that it would be unviable for councils to continue with the household service. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working with local councils to improve waste and recycling services, and community awareness of the 'Reduce, Reuse, Recycle' principle. A significant part of the program is the implementation of recycling facilities in public places and better litter management. The Queensland Government is, through the EPA, constantly developing Smart State initiatives that will contribute to a reduction in waste disposal and consequently a reduction in costs for all Queenslanders. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely DEAN WELLS Minister for Environment 3360 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003

MINISTERIAL PAPER The following ministerial paper was tabled— Minister for State Development (Mr Barton)— Statement by the Coordinator General giving details of negotiations to acquire native title rights and interests for an infrastructure facility of significance relating to the Burnett River Dam

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT World Suicide Prevention Day Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.): Under the auspices of the World Health Organisation and the International Association of Suicide Prevention, today is the first World Suicide Prevention Day. I am therefore launching today the Queensland government's Suicide Prevention Strategy 2003-2008 and the associated action plan. I table both documents, which this morning will be distributed to all members of the House. As I say in the strategy foreword, the prevention of suicide is of the highest priority for my government. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. There are unacceptably high rates of suicide in this State especially among the most vulnerable in our society. Suicide is a tragedy that must be tackled by the whole community but I accept that Government must shoulder a fair share of responsibility. Our commitment for the next five years builds on the achievements and experience gained from the Queensland Government Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy, whilst responding to emerging evidence that says we need an effective whole-of-life approach to suicide prevention. For the first time, nine Queensland Government agencies have joined in a formal partnership to tackle the causes of suicide and self harm in the community. These agencies include Queensland Health, Education Queensland, Queensland Police, Families, Emergency Services, Corrections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Primary Industries and Employment and Training. The Strategy clearly emphasises partnership with other key stakeholders including commonwealth and local government, non-government and community sector groups, services and representatives so to achieve a whole- community approach. Queensland has the privilege to have within our State some of the world's most renowned suicide prevention experts. Amongst these is the work of Professor Diego De Leo and the Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention in Brisbane. The Institute is funded under the Queensland Government Suicide Prevention Strategy to provide the latest data on suicide in Queensland and undertake important research into the causes and nature of suicide risk and behaviour. In my view, whilst the work of each of the government partner agencies is important, we all share a responsibility to ensure that our loved ones, our relatives, our neighbours and our workmates are not left so isolated that they think suicide is a viable alternative to living.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Working with Children Checks Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.): The safety of our children is a key priority for my government. The working with children checks, performed by the Commission for Children and Young People, play an integral role in ensuring the suitability of people entrusted with our children. The checks began on 1 May 2001. From that date until the end of August this year 141,561 blue cards were issued by the commission. In the same period 33 negative notices were issued and 130 applications were withdrawn by the applicant after the commission sought further information about their criminal histories. The Commissioner for Children and Young People withdrew a further 3,243 applications because the applicants supplied insufficient identification. I am particularly pleased with the response to the blue card system in regional areas. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the details of the number of cards issued in each region for the information of honourable members. Leave granted. 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3361

REGION NUMBER OF CARDS ISSUED NEGATIVE NOTICES Cairns 3810 2 Townsville 6319 1 Mackay 3928 0 Rockhampton 3610 1 Bundaberg 3445 0 Sunshine Coast 7880 0 Gold Coast 10629 1 Mt Isa 924 0 Toowoomba 5323 1 *figures cover period from 1/5/01-31/8/03

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Institute for Commercialisation Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.): There are a number of matters I want to report to the House on. I will seek leave to have the details of them incorporated in Hansard because there is a very serious matter I want to raise later. The first matter I will report on is the Australian Institute for Commercialisation. The Australian Institute for Commercialisation is helping to drive efforts to commercialise research in the Smart State. Since its establishment in Brisbane a little over 12 months ago the institute has forged key links with government and research bodies in Queensland and interstate. In addition to the support it receives from my government, it has also secured extra funding totalling almost $800,000 from most Australian states and territories for joint projects and ongoing costs for this financial year. I think this is of importance to the House. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The Institute has also struck a partnership with the Victorian Government. That partnership provides $490,000 this financial year for joint projects and operational expenses. As a result of the partnership, the Australian Institute for Commercialisation has opened an office in Victoria, funded by the Victorian Government. The Commonwealth has commissioned the Australian Institute for Commercialisation to undertake a Funding Gap Survey and a study of Commercialisation Performance Outcomes. The Institute has also identified two major projects which are likely to attract Commonwealth funding—the Commercialisation Brokerage Service and Expatriate Linkage Program. It has also developed the Advance Program on Commercialisation for Decision Makers in conjunction with Melbourne University Private. It has also focused on forging positive relationships with key research bodies such as the CSIRO, Government agencies and the Federal Treasury. The Institute has identified five policy areas it will focus on in future: people and culture Intellectual Property matters and accountability for Intellectual Property benchmarking and providing best advice on commercialisation outputs industry-science relationships and innovation policy and industry clusters The Australian Institute for Commercialisation has also developed three programs to further its aims: AIC Connect which provides a platform for establishing national and global networks to co-ordinate and extend commercialisation activities. AIC Know-How which involves pooling knowledge on commercialisation practices with universities and industry AIC Assess which undertakes research to enhance decision making. The Australian Institute for Commercialisation is to be congratulated on the steps it is taking to commercialise the exciting research which is taking place in Australia. The programs it has established will open up economic opportunities and help place the Smart State, and Australia, at the forefront of research and development.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Wine Industry Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): I want to support, as I have in the past, and as you have, Mr Speaker, the Queensland wine industry. The doubters are doubters no more when it comes to the Queensland wine industry's 3362 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003 continuing success. Queensland's Sirromet Wines announced last week its launch of a national distribution and sales campaign in partnership with Beer, Wine and Spirits and Cellarbrations liquor chains. I am told that announcement means that this is the biggest national distributor of any Queensland wine. I have a report on the wine industry in Queensland. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I want to congratulate Sirromet's wine in taking our wine industry to another level. This will mean their wines in 223 outlets in New South Wales, South Australia, West Australia, Victoria and Queensland. Well done to Terry Morris and his team. On the export front our State's wine export sales have grown rapidly over the past two years and Queensland wine companies now export to 13 countries including the USA, UK, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, Netherlands, Iceland and China. One of the companies making quite a name for themselves on the international scene is 100% owned Queensland company Clovely Estate Wines, based near Murgon. I recently received a letter from Kate Davis of Clovely Estate Wines to say that their distribution in the USA has grown dramatically over the past few months since my trip to the USA in June. The letter thanks my Government for its efforts on that trade delegation, and for the work being done to assist wine companies to export. The Clovely Estate 'Queensland series' wines are now available in twenty-eight (28) US States and a further six states will be added to that list by the end of 2003. I'm also told the Kominos Wines from the Granite Belt is delighted with their exposure in the US from my Trade Mission. An initial shipment is underway. Mr Speaker, the Queensland wine industry honoured its own on Thursday night with two inaugural awards at the Queensland Wine Industry Association (QWIA) annual general meeting at Highfields, near Toowoomba. This year's Queensland Great Angelo Puglisi, of Ballandean Estate, received the Bassett Award and Bob and Una Gray, formerly of Rumbalara, on the Granite Belt, were granted Life Memberships. QWIA President, David Russell, QC, rightly said Angelo Puglisi was acknowledged as a major influence in the resurgence of the Queensland wine industry in the 1970s and 80s and continues to provide a leading example to the wine industry through the sustained high quality of his product and success in taking it to markets around the globe. I agree. The tourism component of the Queensland wine industry is also of particular relevance with cellar door sales currently accounting for 80% of sales. There are now over 120 wine licences throughout South East Queensland offering a wide range of products, experiences and services that include restaurants and cafes, gift shops, cellar door, tours and arts and crafts. Of these 120 companies, 48 produce their own wine on site and about 20 wineries do contract winemaking for other Queensland wine producers. The future for Queensland's wine industry is bright, Mr Speaker. At the moment, 95% of the 200 vineyards that exist here are small to medium sized enterprises and primarily family owned. Vineyard investment is increasing in a number of regions and retail sales have grown significantly over the past three years. But we need to remember that Queensland still only produces 2.5% of the national wine grape crush in Australia, well behind South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. There is considerable work to do to ensure the industry continues to grow—but my Government is doing everything possible to make a real difference to the Queensland wine industry. The Queensland wine industry has grown significantly over the years to cover a total of 1300 hectares. The majority of this growth has occurred during the past 7 years with significant plantings throughout the southeast corner of the State. An approximate summary of the current plantings of wine grapes in Queensland as of end of 2002: The Granite Belt—640 ha The South Burnett—400 ha Darling Downs—around Toowoomba—100 ha Inglewood District—30 ha North Burnett and Central Queensland—40 ha Sunshine Coast and Hinterland—20 ha Gold Coast Hinterland, Brisbane, Brisbane Valleys and the Scenic Rim—50 ha Somerset Valleys and D'Aguilar Ranges—20 ha Maranoa Region—Roma, St George and Surat—20 ha Total = 1320 hectares

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Rugby World Cup Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 a.m.): In just 31 days the Rugby World Cup will be watched by people around the world. We will be watching as we begin the Rugby World Cup 2003. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3363

Leave granted. To ensure that this event is a success the Queensland Government has implemented a one-off free public transport policy for RWC 2003 ticket holders. This is to continue and further encourage the hugely successful traffic and transport management initiatives undertaken since the Stadium's opening. There are to be 12 Rugby World Cup games in Queensland. It is about easing congestion during busy match periods—both for the benefit of Stadium attendees and also City residents. It is about a continuing to encourage Stadium patrons to use public transport. It is about removing any confusion. The State Government's provision of public transport is for Rugby World Cup 2003 matches in Brisbane and Townsville. All people need to do is show their official Rugby World Cup 2003 ticket on the bus or train and then join in the revelry of supporting their team with the crowd. My government is proud to support these major international events by offering locals and visitors a fast, safe and easy way of getting to and from the games. Many people have already benefited from the transport arrangements for previous league and union matches, and we wanted to continue our high standard of service. I am sure that if you plan your trip, use public transport and be mindful of security arrangements, your Rugby World Cup 2003 experience in Queensland will bring a lifetime of wonderful memories. In Brisbane free public transport is only available on QR Citytrain and Brisbane Transport bus services to Suncorp Stadium; and in Townsville for Sunbus and Hermit Park Bus services to Dairy Farmers Stadium. For the latest information about Rugby World Cup 2003 in Queensland and getting to the matches, visit www.qld.gov.au/rugby Closer to the event, phone TransInfo on 13 12 30 or visit www.transinfo.qld.gov.au for specific public transport details in Brisbane. Townsville patrons should call Sunbus on 4725 8482 and Hermit Park Bus Service on 4779 1658. All ARU volunteers were informed that free public transport was not part of the package when they signed up, and all signed up happily with that knowledge. The ARU indicated to all its volunteers across the country that while free meals, uniforms and accreditation would be provided, there was no allowance for free public transport. This has become an issue for a couple of volunteers only since the issue was raised with last week's State Government transport announcement. Our free public transport policy applies only to ticket holders. Any volunteers issues are for the ARU. They are their volunteers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Reconciliation Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 a.m.): Reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Queenslanders is vital if the Smart State is to live up to its reputation as a place where everyone is given a fair go regardless of who they are or where they live. My government is committed to the process of practical reconciliation because it will empower indigenous Queenslanders. It will give them access to the economic resources they need to shape their own destinies and develop self-confidence and pride in their identity. We are taking several steps to achieve practical reconciliation. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. ¥ Alcohol management plans to tackle the scourge of alcohol abuse which is devastating so many Indigenous communities. Plans have been developed by community justice groups in Aurukun, Napranum and Doomadgee with encouraging initial results. Alcohol management plans developed by Woorabinda, Lockhart River and Wujal Wujal were recently approved by my Government. ¥ The historic $55.6 million Indigenous Wages and Savings Offer has attracted strong interest from indigenous people throughout Queensland. We'll continue to work with indigenous people to ensure the money is distributed fairly and equitably. ¥ We are also exploring a number of options for distributing the $8.6 million Aborigines Welfare Fund in order to promote awareness and appreciation of Indigenous culture in the general community. ¥ The groundbreaking Cape York Partnerships program, enabling Government to work side by side with Indigenous people to build and develop the vital economic infrastructure of Indigenous communities, continues to make solid progress. Through the Partnerships, the Government has invested over $2 million in Indigenous enterprises in the last two financial years. 3364 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003

¥ Art is being used to drive the process of practical reconciliation by promoting communities' cultural awareness and self-expression, and by strengthening their economic capacity. ¥ We are taking indigenous art to the world. Last year we held a highly successful exhibition of Indigenous art in Berlin and we are planning further international exhibitions. ¥ The Queensland Indigenous Art Marketing and Export Agency and its online component, the Virtual- Gatherings website, will build on the Gatherings project which showcased our indigenous artists to the world. ¥ The Story Place exhibition at the Queensland Art Gallery highlights the work of 80 Cape York artists. ¥ At the end of this month, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Judy Spence and I will host some of the state's brightest young Indigenous people and leading entrepreneurs as part of the Young Indigenous Leadership Event, the Reconciliation Business Forum and the Reconciliation Business Awards. While successful reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Queenslanders will depend on the commitment and effort of all Queenslanders, these practical measures go a long way towards giving back to Indigenous people much of what has been taken from them. Most importantly, they serve as a potent symbol of the ways in which we are acknowledging the wrongs of the past. We are demonstrating that Indigenous Queenslanders are equal and respected members of the broader community. Hopefully these measures will continue to encourage young Indigenous Queenslanders to keep striving to realise their boundless potential as community members and future leaders of the Smart State.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Police Union, Mr R. Musgrove Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.): I have some extremely disquieting and ugly information which I need to share with the House about an attempt by a Queensland Police Union employee to prevent the Queensland government from introducing a drug and alcohol testing policy for the Queensland Police Service. Several weeks ago the ALP State Secretary, Cameron Milner, advised me that the union's media and government relations officer, Ross Musgrove, had raised this matter with him on 29 July. Mr Musgrove wanted the government to drop its plans to bring Queensland into line with Victoria and New South Wales. I am told by Mr Milner that Mr Musgrove then threatened an antigovernment advertising campaign by the Police Union if the government went ahead with the legislation. Mr Musgrove said that the union had five television advertisements and funds left over from its enterprise bargaining campaign. When I was advised of this, the draft legislation had not been to cabinet. I decided not to inform ministers of this threat until the cabinet submission had been decided on its merits—without any report of any threat. Cabinet decided on Monday just gone that this legislation should be introduced into parliament. After cabinet I asked Cameron Milner to give me a memo confirming what had occurred on 29 July. That memo is dated 8 September, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. MEMORANDUM TO: PETER BEATTIE, PREMIER FROM: CAMERON MILNER, STATE SECRETARY DATE: 8 SEPTEMBER 2003 RE: CAMPAIGN ISSUE—POLICE UNION Peter I recently had lunch at the invitation of Ross Musgrove from the Queensland Police Union and he raised the Police Union's concerns in relation to random drug and alcohol testing. Ross Musgrove says that the Police Union would not accept under any circumstances the proposed testing regime. Ross Musgrove then informed me that if we were to implement this policy then the Police Union would see it as a reason to restart a campaign against the Labor Party and re run television advertising against the Labor Government such as was seen during the Police Union's pay dispute. Further that they'd run a campaign amongst their members and the community before and during the next State election campaign not on the issue of random drug and alcohol testing but instead on law and order and policing numbers. I raise this issue with you because I am very concerned about the threatened Police Union campaign on law and order and implications for the next State campaign. Cameron Milner STATE SECRETARY PS: Let's never forget what the Police Union did during the Mundingburra by-election 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3365

Mr BEATTIE: This morning at 8.30 a.m. the draft bill was approved by the caucus executive and it will be introduced by the Police Minister, Tony McGrady, into this House at 11.30 a.m. today. I have now decided that it is in the public interest that the information should be made public as a warning to anyone who may think that this government can be threatened, blackmailed or intimidated. I will not be stood over and nor will my government. Today I have written to the Crime and Misconduct Commission to inform it of what has happened. I seek leave to have that letter to the Chair of the Commission, Brendan Butler, incorporated in the Hansard record of this parliament. Leave granted. Queensland Government Premier of Queensland Brendan Butler SC, Chairperson, Crime and Misconduct Commission, GPO Box 3123, Brisbane, Qld, 4001. September 10, 2003. Dear Mr Butler, I have been informed by ALP State Secretary Cameron Milner that he was approached on July 29 this year by Ross Musgrove, an employee of the Queensland Police Union of Employees, in relation to the Government's plan to legislate for the random drug and alcohol testing of police officers. Mr Milner has told me that if we were to implement this policy the Police Union was threatening to run a television advertising campaign against the Government and run a campaign before and during the next State Election on law and order and policing numbers. I enclose a memorandum to me from Mr Milner in which he sets out the circumstances of the approach and refer the information for your attention. I intend to raise this issue in Parliament today and enclose a copy of my draft ministerial statement. Yours sincerely, Peter Beattie MP, Premier and Minister for Trade Mr BEATTIE: This is a return to the behaviour which shocked Queensland in 1996 when it was revealed that the Police Union and the coalition had signed a secret deal. That deal resulted in the union running an extensive advertising campaign against the Labor government of the day during the Mundingburra by-election in return for the coalition granting it a wish list in a secret memorandum of understanding. I am announcing this morning very clearly that my government will not take part in any secret deals. We will not be blackmailed. We did the right thing in 2000—we kicked out the rorters—and we have set the highest possible ethical standards which we will maintain. We will not be stood over on this issue now or on any other issue. We will not bow to this desperate threat. Our legislation is good legislation that the vast majority of officers— Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I hear the member for Toowoomba South supporting this sort of behaviour. Well, we will not. Our legislation is good legislation that the vast majority of officers will proudly accept because it is designed to ensure that anyone affected by alcohol is not in charge of a gun, a high-performance car or motor cycle, or in life-threatening situations, as is the case in New South Wales and Victoria. Mr Musgrove said that if we were to do this the Police Union would see it as a reason to re-run television advertising of the kind seen during the union's pay dispute with the government. In addition, it would run a campaign among its members and the community before and during the state election campaign not on the issue of random drug and alcohol testing but on law and order and police numbers. This is precisely what happened in Mundingburra. The Police Union poured about $27,000 into an advertising campaign which was dovetailed into a campaign run by an alleged community group—the Concerned Citizens of Mundingburra—which was funded by the National Party. The Police Union campaign included an advertising campaign on Channel 10, Sunshine and Win television, with an order placed for 40 30-second spots on Channel 10 alone; a large billboard being towed around the streets of Townsville; letterbox drops; and advertisements in three newspapers and radio advertisements. The union even faxed a TV script to the office of the Opposition Leader in advance of the advertisement being shot. 3366 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003

As Commissioner Carruthers said at his inquiry, the draft advertisement was very significantly antigovernment. A new campaign would be grossly dishonest because we have increased the size of the Police Service by 300 officers every year. The coalition government could manage only 437 in two and a half years when it promised nearly 700. It would be grossly dishonest because we have cut crime rates after they rose under the coalition government. This attempt to influence the government to drop legislation is a throwback to the secret deal with the coalition and the pre-Fitzgerald era. The Fitzgerald report said on page 200 that union officials were amongst those who had to bear particular responsibility and enthusiasm for the old police culture. On page 212 Fitzgerald reports— Influence within the unions has in the past been associated with support for and promotion of the police culture of the Police Force, including the police code, and upon opposition to any significant reform. I understand that Mr Musgrove raised this matter with the ALP while the union president was overseas. I believe our Police Service is one of the best in the world, and every Queenslander should be very proud of our police officers. I have enormous faith in the commissioner, Bob Atkinson, who is a great Queenslander. The Police Union has made enormous advances since the secret deal with the coalition. Now the union must make it clear where it stands on this issue. Did it authorise and did it support this communication for Mr Musgrove? That is the real test. I want to finish by saying this: I do not mind the argy-bargy of politics. I have been around a long time. But I will not be subjected to threats and nor will my government. We will not be blackmailed to withdraw decent legislation by some threat of some political manoeuvre, and I would today urge all leaders of all political parties to stand up and say that this behaviour is a threat to the fundamental, honest democracy that Queensland now has. I want to make it very clear: I will never tolerate, and nor will my government, turning back the pages to pre-Fitzgerald. That is never going to happen while my government is in office.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Police Union, Mr R. Musgrove Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.45 a.m.): As the Premier has just announced, recently the government faced an ugly encounter when a Queensland Police Union employee, Mr Ross Musgrove, tried to bribe the government by insisting that they would mount a massive advertising law and order campaign against our government at the next election if we did not scrap a proposed drug and alcohol testing policy for the Queensland Police Service. Mr Musgrove stated that the advertising campaign would not include any reference to the drug and alcohol policy—obviously because it was good policy and would have public support. Instead, the campaign is to be about law and order issues. I am proud to stand here today and tell the people of Queensland that the Beattie government simply will not have a bar of this improper proposal. As the Premier revealed, Mr Musgrove recently contacted the Queensland ALP state secretary in an attempt to broker a secret deal. Mr Musgrove did this, as I understand it, whilst the union president was overseas. As the landmark Fitzgerald report noted, while the Police Union has a legitimate role to be involved in industrial matters, it should not get involved in political ones. Making threats of this kind surely falls into this category. This latest example of grossly improper behaviour by Mr Musgrove runs against all Fitzgerald's philosophies and recommendations. It is history now that the Mundingburra agreement between the Police Union and the National Party in 1996 was corrupt. When the National Party was faced with doing secret deals, it chose its own path and it paid the ultimate price. Today we are saying in the strongest possible terms that we will not follow their example. We have great faith in the commissioner and the Police Service leadership team and, whilst we negotiate in good faith with the union on industrial issues, we refuse to operate via secret deals with one of its employees. The drug and alcohol policy I will introduce into this parliament later today arises from a request from the CMC. We will not be intimidated, threatened or blackmailed by Mr Musgrove or anybody else into abandoning this policy. It is good, honest public policy which I believe will have the support of the community. If we fail to introduce it, we would fall behind the national standards. Both New South Wales and Victoria have similar policies, and the Howard government announced late last week that the Defence Force, having already had a drug testing policy for some time, will also introduce random alcohol testing. The mining industry and the transport industry have also had policies along these lines for quite some time. 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3367

This is about the health and safety of our officers and the safety of our community. As a result of introducing this new policy, we may face a major political campaign against us. If that is the intent of these people, so be it. This government will never, ever bow to the political blackmail of Mr Musgrove and his friends. Queenslanders deserve better than this, and I can assure them that we will not be bullied into abandoning good public policy for short-term political gain.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Literacy and Numeracy Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.49 a.m.): Our government has embarked on ambitious and far-reaching reforms to the education system. As part of our commitment to improve the focus on the middle years of schooling, we indicated in the white paper released last year that further consideration of assessment and testing in year 9 was warranted. To this end, parents and educators are being invited to comment on plans for Queensland's first high school literacy and numeracy test to complement the current testing program for primary school students. I would like to advise members that a consultation paper is being released today by the Queensland Studies Authority that canvasses four options for a year 9 test with responses due by 28 November. I table that consultation paper for the benefit of members. The government's landmark package of education and training reforms recognises the importance of year 9 and the middle years of schooling. Parents and schools need to know whether each student has a strong enough foundation in literacy and numeracy that will allow them to be successful in the senior phase of learning. The consultation paper will help us decide if a year 9 test is the best way to receive good information about a student's progress. The paper will be distributed to all schools and education stakeholders this week and is now available on the QSA web site. I would also like to release today the latest primary school testing data, which shows that average student performance has remained relatively stable for a number of years. The report, the 2002 overview of statewide performance in aspects of literacy and numeracy: Queensland years 3, 5 and 7 testing program, prepared annually by the Queensland Studies Authority, provides insights into the complex issues of literacy and numeracy standards and how these impact on students. For the interest of members, I also table the copy of the 2002 literacy and numeracy report. These tests cover reading and viewing, spelling and writing in the literacy area, and number, measurement and data, and space in the numeracy area. Around 155,000 students were tested across the state in August last year. All Queensland student levels were generally stable following significant rises in many areas from 2000-01. Year 3 reading and viewing scores increased slightly while year 3 spelling scores decreased slightly. Years 5 and 7 scores in reading and viewing, spelling and writing also decreased slightly. There were slight increases in scores of numeracy across all year levels. I am pleased to see increases in the performance of indigenous students in both literacy and numeracy. While we have a long way to go in this area, this improvement is encouraging. These results are a snapshot of students' literacy and numeracy capabilities. The tests reflect a student's performance on only one day of the year, but they are very useful when read in conjunction with a student's achievements throughout the year. Literacy and numeracy are the foundation of all learning and here in the Smart State our government is committed to continuing improvement in these areas.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Poetry on the Move Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.51 a.m.): Yesterday has become enshrined in the memories of seven young Queensland poets as the day they were publicly recognised for their literary skills. A Queensland school was also congratulated on its achievements during a teleconference as part of the National Poetry Week Program. The school and the seven students are the 2003 winners of the Poetry on the Move poetry writing competition. Poetry on the Move is a joint state government initiative between Education Queensland and Arts Queensland, which promotes poetry writing in Queensland schools and provides new publishing opportunities for our young writers. 3368 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003

My colleague Education Minister Anna Bligh and I are delighted with the overwhelming support we have received from students, teachers, parents and the wider community since the inception of the project in April this year. Over 800 school students from across Queensland supported Poetry on the Move by writing and submitting poetry for a chance to have their work published on buses and in other public places around the state. Yesterday I had the honour of announcing the names of the winning students and the winner of a school community category who has published an inspiring book of student poetry for their local community. Most of the winning students will be VIP guests at the Brisbane Writers Festival where they will be presented with a certificate. The first poetry bus on Brisbane streets will be unveiled on 7 October. The students' poetry will be displayed on other public buses in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville and the Sunshine Coast, as well as in other public places including bus stops and train stations. The winner of the school community category will receive a writer in residence at the school for two days to further develop the creative writing skills of their students. The state government recognises that to build a Smart State we must nurture and encourage Queensland's young talent base today so that their talents and potential are realised tomorrow. We are committed to ensuring that the next generation of young writers is given the support to ensure that the Smart State will continue into the future. The students come from both state and non-state schools and are deserving recipients of this honour for their contribution towards education and the arts. The 2003 individual winners are: Yolande Schuurs, of the Brisbane School of Distance Education; Lucy Borland-Sentinella, of Bardon State School; Anja Bremermann, of the Holy Spirit School; Sarah Mahoney, of Chancellor State School; Jondelle Watkins and Nicola Akom, of Stuartholme School; and Iman Esalamizadeh, of Corinda State High School. The 2003 school community winner is the Southside Education Centre, a community access school for girls. I seek leave to table the poems of the poetry on the Move competition winners 2003 and have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. POETRY ON THE MOVE COMPETITION WINNERS 2003 Years 1-2 Acrostic Poem Spaghetti is slippery and smooth Please can I have the cheese? Add some stinky cheese Get all the tomato sauce around your mouth Hot scrumptious spaghetti....yummy! Eat it quickly before it gets cooked ... crunchy! Top it off with delicious meatballs Try to suck it up I love spaghetti! Yolande Schuurs (Grade 1, Brisbane SDE)

Years 3-4 Limerick There was a boy named Jake who developed a birthday ache it was a pain as once again he'd eaten both candles and cake. Lucy Borland-Sentinella (Grade 4, Bardon State School)

Years 5-6 Formula Verse IN THE MIRROR ... In the mirror there is a girl In her hand she holds a picture In the picture there is a mansion In the mansion there is a room In the room there is a closet In the closet there is a mirror In the mirror there is a girl In her hand she holds a picture In the picture there is a mansion In the mansion there is a room..... Anja Bremermann (Grade 6, Holy Spirit School, Townsville) 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3369

Years 7-8 Haiku A MOMENT OF NATURE a delicate leaf dancing slowly in the wind falling forever Sarah Mahoney (Year 7, Chancellor State School)

Years 9-10 Lyric AUTUMN Angels bring a telegraph of time Repainting the days. Red, yellow, brown Leaves slowly falling to the ground. The trees whisper of a time anew When the angels will paint With a pallet of green and silver hue But for now they lie dormant Swaying to the endless tune of autumn. Jondelle Watkins (Year 10, Stuartholme College)

THE BEACH IN WINTER Icy water cracks and breaks The piercing sound echoes through the cold sharp air The beach is almost deserted. The wind stirs the sand And like a thousand needles it pricks the legs of a lonesome walker. Turned against the harsh-gusts The tree strain against its roots The leaves longing to reach something very far from here The sky is grey The horizon barely noticeable No one dares enter The threatening depths of the black ocean. Nicola Akom (Year 10, Stuartholme College)

Years 11-12 Song of social comment LIFE BEYOND ME It's 2:00 a.m. I wonder what I'm looking for, I wonder if what I'm looking for is you. I wonder where you are. I want to smell the roses, I want to smell your clothes. I want to be where you are. Want to be there forever. The tears have fallen into the river, formed a sea. If the sea is so bright can it be my fortune teller? Can it tell me the life I'm in? Can it tell me the life you're in? I have re-started my computer to look for you. Iman Esalamizadeh (Year 12, Corinda State High School)

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Suicide Prevention Plan Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.54 a.m.): I am pleased to join with the Premier today in launching the Queensland government's five-year plan to reduce suicide in Queensland. With strong leadership provided by Queensland Health, nine Queensland government agencies are formal partners in the strategic response to suicide prevention. The strategy clearly emphasises the partnership with Commonwealth, local government, non-government and community representatives in a whole community approach to this tragic and serious problem. A key aspect of the strategy has been the development of annual action plans by each state government agency, which would be evaluated by cabinet each year to ensure that targets were being met. These action plans represent the combined priorities of the nine government agencies involved in the strategy. 3370 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003

Some examples of action on the ground are that Queensland Health will employ 19 early intervention officers across 24 health service districts throughout the state. These officers will work with emergency departments, GPs, school based youth health nurses, youth services, and police and rural networks to identify and respond to early warning signs of mental health problems and suicidal behaviour. The Department of Education will continue to deliver programs aimed at developing resilience and good health in young people. The Department of Employment and Training will provide programs aimed at reducing vulnerability to suicide through improving employment and training outcomes. The Department of Families will employ indigenous program support officers in youth detention centres and conduct cultural programs for indigenous young people run by their community elders. The Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy will fund the development of infrastructure in Townsville, Mount Isa and Cairns to provide safer places for indigenous homeless people. The Department of Primary Industries will extend training to farm financial counsellors in the identification of suicide risk as part of its farm financial counselling service. The Department of Corrective Services, the Department of Police and the Department of Emergency Services will provide training aimed at recognition of suicidal behaviour and at developing protection for people in custody and groups at high risk of suicide. Our approach also recognises the primary role of families and communities in providing safe, supportive and nurturing environments for all Queenslanders.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sugar Industry Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.59 a.m.): I rise to advise this House of the future of the sugar industry regulatory reform. In June the Queensland government twice wrote to the federal government proposing solutions to address the differences between us on the details of regulatory reform of the sugar industry. These proposed solutions were genuine attempts by Queensland to finalise the commitment that our government has made in the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2002 to unlock the $150 million package for the industry. The industry is crying out for resolution on this issue. It has been nearly three months and no reply has been received. Growers and millers and supporters and opponents of change are desperate to know where our governments stand. The world sugar price has continued to drop and Brazil's production is growing. We cannot leave the industry and the communities that depend on it in such a state of uncertainty. Recently, the Premier wrote to Canberra to advise that, due to the delay by the federal government in expressing a clear and final position on proposed regulatory reforms, the Queensland government believes that it will now not be possible to implement reforms from 1 January 2004. This is the case even if the federal government were to reply immediately indicating support for our proposals. The industry would not have sufficient time to prepare for the changes if we passed the reform bill so late in the year. The industry has now lost the opportunity of a whole year of reform. The next earliest date to commence reform is 1 January 2005. The Queensland government maintains its commitment to the need for real reform of the industry's regulatory structure. The sugar reform bill remains in the parliament ready to be finalised; it will not be withdrawn. We await the support of the federal government. It is now nearly a year since our government signed the memorandum of understanding. The support package for the industry is on hold. The regional guidance groups have not been formally appointed even though the membership is jointly agreed. The sooner we can agree to commence the process of regulatory change the sooner we can commence working with industry to develop the new projects and skills that it will need for 2005. If the federal government has decided not to support reform, then it should let the Queensland government, the industry and the wider community know this. Everyone can move on from there. I hope, however, that the Prime Minister will affirm his earlier vocal support for reform, allowing both our governments to work together to help this great industry change and grow. 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3371

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Taxi Industry Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.00 a.m.): The Beattie government is committed to doing what is right for Queensland. Our decision last week not to deregulate Queensland's taxi industry is about delivering the best for Queensland and not simply following the line of Canberra's economic rationalists. Other states have tried deregulation and are now looking at ways to reverse deregulation, as waiting times climb and service standards decline. Queensland has one of the best taxi industries in Australia. In fact, I would say that we have the best taxi industry in Australia. The Beattie government is prepared to stick up for the interests of the industry and Queensland taxi passengers. Through a regulated industry, we can continue to ensure that Queensland taxis are safe and comfortable, they arrive at the time they are expected and are driven by drivers who know where they are going. Last week the annual Queensland Taxi Council conference was held in Yeppoon. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: I welcome the commitment by the member for Gregory to support this government's decision not to deregulate the taxi industry and the commitment of bipartisan support. I also welcome the same commitment that was given by the federal Liberal member for Longman and the coalition Minister for Employment Services, Mal Brough, who said that he also supported the Queensland government's decision not to deregulate the taxi industry. I also note that in response to a question that Mr Brough was asked at the conference he gave a commitment to lobby both Peter Costello and John Howard on Queensland's behalf to make sure that we were not financially penalised through national competition payments as a result of our decision not to deregulate the taxi industry. Therefore, I and other members on this side of the House will sit in breathless anticipation as we wait for the member for Longman and Employment Services Minister, Mal Brough, and the member for Gregory to get to Canberra to lobby their coalition mates there to make sure that we are not penalised millions of dollars, which has been threatened through national competition payments, or will it join the long list of health, disability services, training and transport where they have sat mute and watched Queensland get done over financially time and time again by their coalition mates in Canberra?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Justices of the Peace Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.03 a.m.): I want to advise members of an innovative trial program to make it easier for Queenslanders to access services provided by justices of the peace. There are more than 70,000 JPs across the state, yet the constant complaint wherever I go has been that people can never find a JP when they need one. Last year we moved to help Queenslanders solve this problem by introducing a directory of JPs on the Justice Department web site. Any Queenslander with access to the Internet can search the Justice Department web site for a JP in their area, from Thursday Island in the north to the New South Wales border and west to Longreach. Now we have gone one step further. We have recently established a trial program which involves JPs volunteering their time and being available at our local Magistrates Courts. To test this approach, we have initially established the program at eight of our local magistrates courthouses. The planned locations are Southport, Beenleigh, Ipswich, Toowoomba, Innisfail, Maroochydore, Gladstone and Charters Towers. JPs from these areas who volunteer to be involved are being rostered between 9 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. Monday to Friday. They are available to witness documents such as affidavits, statutory declarations and land title documents. The Magistrates Courts are a natural location for the JPs trial because many professionals, as well as members of the public, are attending the courts every day and require documents to be witnessed. We have already had a very good response from JPs to the trial concept. It is up and running in nearly all of the trial locations, only a few weeks after we sent the letters out seeking volunteer JPs. I encourage all JPs to get involved in this scheme and volunteer a few hours a week to assist their local community. I also want to thank those JPs who are volunteering their time and operating out of some shopping centres on the Gold Coast. I recently visited Ashmore and Robina shopping centres where these JPs are volunteering their time, and they are certainly 3372 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003 committed to helping the public. I am encouraging JPs to make themselves available wherever it is convenient to them. We will assess the court trial in around six months and any expansion of the scheme will depend on the interest and availability of JPs. Our JPs make a significant contribution to the administration of justice in our community, often being the only contact for some people with the justice system. So the role of JPs is continuing to evolve to meet changing demands and complexities, and this new trial at our Magistrates Courts will add to their contribution to our community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Suncorp Stadium Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.06 a.m.): The Courier-Mail in its editorial piece today suggests that there was some cover-up by myself over the issuing of defect notices over the state of the pitch at Suncorp Stadium. Let me say that I am astonished by such a claim because I have never hidden our displeasure at the way the turf has progressed and neither, for that matter, has the Deputy Premier. In fact, I have been so public about it that it has even reached the ears of journalists on the Sunshine Coast and Toowoomba. On 4 July the Sunshine Coast Daily had this to say— The State government had contacted the Suncorp Stadium builders about contractual defects concerning the playing surface. On the same day the Toowoomba Chronicle had this to say— Mr Schwarten admitted that there were some problems with the amount of sand on the field and some irregular growth patterns but he denied the field was dangerous. I now table both of those articles. But of course it does not end there. So big a secret was this that I chose to share it with each and every listener on the ABC Kirsten McGregor program on 3 July and ABC TV that night when I said— The Government has approached the Lang Park Stadium builders about contractual defects concerning the playing surface. I table the extract from the ABC News. Also, David Potter of the Courier-Mail—the same paper that ran the story this morning—ran a story on Friday, 13 June where I said, amongst other things— If there are problems, we want them fixed. There are remedies available to us if we don't get a quality turf surface. I table that. I also note Steven Wardill states in an article in today's Courier-Mail that he was 'able to obtain some documents' which proved that there was a defect notice submitted to contractors on 25 June. Let me tell the House how Steven obtained those documents: I gave them to him yesterday afternoon down in my office. Government members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Real nose to the grindstone stuff this. I also made the same documents available to other journalists on Monday when the TVs showed some interest in the story. There has been no cover-up and no secrecy from either myself or the Deputy Premier. Also, there was no secret about the second pitch, which went out to public tender in December last year. I tell you what: if we are keeping secrets, we are doing it pretty badly by putting it out to public tender. The Premier and the Deputy Premier are both on the public record about not only the existence of the second pitch but also the necessity for it. Let me state again: there were no safety issues with this pitch. As the Sunshine Coast Daily, which I referred to before, quoted me as saying— Nobody is suggesting that the playing surface is dangerous. If it were there wouldn't be any games on it. It is as simple as that! Yesterday I read out some of the statements made by Ricky Stuart and Wayne Bennett supporting the continued statement made by the Deputy Premier and me concerning the safety of the pitch. I table statements by others who can attest to the safety of the field, including a statement by Justin Hodges in the Sydney Sun Herald on 15 June 2000. He stated that the ground had nothing to do with his injury, that it was just a tackle and that it was the way he fell that did the damage. He said that the ground has copped plenty of criticism, but it was 'not that bad' and that he thinks the ground is safe to play on. He is the bloke they reckon did his knee in as a result of the ground. 10 Sep 2003 Ministerial Statement 3373

I repeat that there has been no attempt to keep the issue of the stadium turf out of the public eye. I suggest to the Courier-Mail that a search be made back to 4 and 5 July for articles by Paul Malone, Rosemary Odgers and Andrew Dawson, which I also table. In one article I stated, 'The contract said they would present us with a pitch that looked perfect and so they are in the process of fixing these problems. Nobody is suggesting the playing surface is dangerous.' In the other article the Premier is quoted as saying that replacement grass was already being grown and could be transferred to the field if needed at the end of the football season. No-one should have been surprised when the Deputy Premier announced just that last Monday. So secret was it that he had every TV station camera in Queensland out there. As to the resolution of these matters of disagreement between the joint venture and the Department of Public Works, I am confident that a resolution can be achieved without the need to take the matter further into a contractual dispute. The Multiplex Watpac joint venture has always been cooperative during the delivery of this first-class project and I am certain there will be a positive outcome to the discussions now going on between the Department of Public Works and the joint venture.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mushroom Month; Sugar Industry Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.11 a.m.): Last week I officially launched Mushroom Month. Mushrooms are often underrated, but the Australian industry is significant, generating almost $200 million per annum. Queensland is the third largest producer after Victoria and New South Wales. Australians' consumption of mushrooms has jumped from 650 grams to three kilograms over the past 30 years. Eighty-six per cent of Australian households buy mushrooms and 55 per cent of them buy mushrooms at least once per week. It is great to see the federal government playing its part for Mushroom Month, but the efforts that it has gone to to keep every section of the sugar industry in the dark about its position on reform have been remarkable. The current spot price of sugar teetering on US6c per pound should be energising those federal MPs who have a genuine concern about the future of the sugar industry. That spot price equates to approximately $200 per tonne. That is up to $130 per tonne below the survival price quoted in the federal government's own Hildebrand report. When I introduced the reforms in April this year, the government was accused of rushing through the reforms. This is clearly not the case. We signed the MOU with the federal government in September last year. We developed the legislative amendments to reflect the areas we had both agreed needed reform. We introduced the legislation in April and we have waited for four months for the federal government to tell us its position. We heard it say that the only outstanding issue was about arbitration and we offered compromise. As a government we believe in the sugar industry. We want to save it. The federal government—and that includes the National Party—is prepared to sell Telstra, but it is not prepared to save the sugar industry.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Drive Marketing Campaign, Southern Great Barrier Reef Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (10.13 a.m.): A major new drive marketing campaign linking Brisbane and the Southern Great Barrier Reef is set to accelerate a growing motoring holiday market for the destinations. The $160,000 campaign is a joint initiative between Tourism Queensland and three regional tourist organisations, Tourism Sunshine Coast, Fraser Coast South Burnett, and Bundaberg Region Limited. The campaign involves TQ and the three RTOs working together to promote the destinations, regardless of regional boundaries. It is a great example of organisations working together to promote not just their own regions but also a range of visitor experiences. Around 50 tourism businesses from the regions have contributed advertising dollars to the campaign and I congratulate the operators on supporting such a great initiative that I am sure will reap rich rewards. The drive market is critically important to these destinations. Tourism Queensland research shows that more than 80 per cent of all domestic visitors to these regions arrive by road. The 370 kilometres from Brisbane to Bundaberg could be just a four-hour drive, but the new campaign is all about encouraging travellers to take anywhere from four days to a month to complete the trip. 3374 Ministerial Statement 10 Sep 2003

The campaign will target couples and young families living in Brisbane, south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. Recent consumer research by Tourism Queensland has shown that visitors are looking for a range of information when planning their trips. So the campaign offers a range of information sources. The campaign centrepiece is a 24-page motoring guide, which offers destination information, suggested itineraries, themed experiences, detailed maps and colourful images. Some 75,000 copies of the guide will be printed and more than half the print run will be inserted into the Spring edition of Endless Summer magazine and distributed to visitor information centres in Brisbane and south-east Queensland. This multifaceted campaign uses just about every mechanism to ensure that the right information reaches the consumer. It provides information on touring highlights such as scenic drives, beaches, heritage towns, hinterland and country, national parks, wineries, markets, food experiences, islands and reefs and seasonal highlights. There are sections on the Sunshine Coast and its hinterland, including the beautiful Cooloola region; the Fraser Coast and South Burnett; and Bundaberg, the Coral Coast and country, the experience extending northward to Agnes Water, the Town of 1770 and Turkey Beach and inland to Mundubbera, Eidsvold and Monto—everything we need to know about the major attractions of each area. The guide is supplemented by a media campaign that includes a three-phase television campaign between October and May next year, supporting press advertisements and features in the Sunday Mail, advertisements in motoring magazines and a half-hour consumer travel program. Consumers wanting more information about the campaign are referred to a 1800 number, email address or web site offering information on all three participating regions. This is yet another example of how this Smart State government works with the industry to grow regional tourism.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Drought Management Strategy, Logan River Water Supply Scheme Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.16 a.m.): The Logan River catchment in south-east Queensland is presently experiencing one of its driest periods on record. Maroon Dam, which provides essential supplies for town supply, industry and irrigation, is the only major storage in this system and is currently holding about 16 per cent of its full capacity. Because of the drought, there is a need to monitor and review the current management of water from this catchment in case this drought persists. To this end, the Beattie government has recently developed a drought management strategy for the Logan River water supply scheme, which is currently being signed off by the Beaudesert Shire Council, SunWater, its local customer council and me. This strategy will ensure that essential water supplies are preserved for Beaudesert, Rathdowney, Kooralbyn, Jimboomba and South Maclean. It will also ensure that essential supplies are available for major industries and employers, such as Gelita and A J Bush, even though all essential supplies have been restricted to about 40 per cent of their normal demand. The drought management strategy also proposes various measures to be implemented to preserve the supply from Maroon Dam, which has not released water for irrigation since January 2003. Under the strategy, when river flows reach critically low levels, water will be shared on a roster system by unsupplemented irrigators on Running, Christmas and Palen creeks. This will ensure that sufficient water is allowed to travel further downstream to Bromelton Weir to ensure sufficient supplies for Beaudesert. The cooperation of all stakeholders—including unsupplemented and supplemented irrigators, towns and industries—is vital for the success of the strategy. I commend all the stakeholders, in particular Mayor Ron Munn, for their efforts in coming to an agreement given the various challenges faced by the community in the midst of a drought. The drought management strategy will go a long way to ensuring that communities, land-holders and industry all get their fair share of water during the ongoing dry period. To ensure that we are meeting community needs, a review of the strategy will take place with the stakeholders every three months until the drought ceases in the Logan catchment.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Bushfire Season Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.18 a.m.): The recent bush and grass fires around 10 Sep 2003 Private Property Protection Bill 3375 the state serve as a timely reminder that with the end of winter comes Queensland's bushfire season. While the fire season traditionally starts in southern states in summer, spring is usually Queensland's biggest threat. The latest risk mapping information reveals that, while not as serious as last year's drought-affected start to the fire season, more than half of Queensland is considered as having a high grass and bushfire risk. I am pleased to inform the House about some of the new initiatives being put in place by Queensland's firefighters for the coming season. In recent weeks more than 35 rural fire brigades—located in areas as diverse as Pormpuraaw on Cape York to Miles in the state's south- west—have taken delivery of new rural fire trucks. More good news is on the way with the construction of 80 new rural trucks at a collective cost of some $3.8 million. Never before in the history of governance in Queensland has a government been so committed to the bush in regard to the delivery of rural fire trucks. Members may recall that earlier this year—as the 2002-03 bushfire season was finally coming to an end—I mentioned that Queensland firefighters had already commenced planning for this season. This included a major workshop involving some 70 of the state's leading rural and urban fire managers, communications officers and union representatives who met on the Sunshine Coast. Specific focus was placed on threats to property in the urban-rural interface, or the 'I zone' as it has been dubbed by fire managers. Since then enormous planning and preparations have taken place to assess strengths and weaknesses and how operational response can be improved both in the short term and in the next five to 10 years. Also last week fire officers were given the opportunity of attending a presentation in Brisbane into the key outcomes of Project Vesta, arguably the biggest bushfire research project ever conducted in Australia and probably in the world. The seven-year project, which has been supported by fire agencies across Australia, including the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, has assessed the effectiveness of fuel reduction activities, the rate and spread of bush and grass fires and, importantly, the safety of firefighters. As members would be aware, Queensland has a large bushfire threat. But while our firefighters are better prepared than ever before, there is also an obligation on property owners and the general public to play their very important part in the months ahead. As Minister for Emergency Services, I take this opportunity to wish our firefighters and the community the very best for the season ahead. I ask them to remember that individual safety is absolutely paramount.

NOTICE OF MOTION Transport Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That this House notes the Beattie government's neglect of transport issues throughout the state, particularly in deliberative policy of causing traffic congestion, its reduced capital spending on roads and transport infrastructure, its mismanagement of public transport and its failure to adequately plan transport infrastructure to cope with Queensland's population growth.

PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION BILL Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.23 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the proper consideration of the impact of legislation on private property, and for the payment of compensation for the impact. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.23 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is the first of two bills which will enshrine in law a charter of property rights that will be the basis for greater security and fair dealing between successive Queensland governments and 3376 Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 private property owners. While fully recognising the power of parliament to make laws, our charter of property rights will ensure that, in the future, new laws that impact on private property rights will be made on properly tested scientific information rather than the emotive scare campaigns that have become the trademark approach of the current Beattie government. Under our charter of property rights, there can be no more blatant dishonesty in this parliament, the likes of which we have with the Cubbie Station issue, the salinity scare campaign and the vegetation management debacle. Compensation for property owners will be mandatory. The first part of this bill aims to ensure that parliament is properly informed when it considers the introduction of new laws which have the potential to impact on the property rights of individual private property owners. It requires the preparation and presentation to parliament of a private property impact study as a part of the process of preparing and considering new legislation that is likely to impact on the rights of private property owners. The impact study would be required to fully assess and determine the benefits and costs of the proposed regulation and determine to whom the benefits would accrue and who would bear the costs and suffer the impacts if the parliament made the proposal law. This bill will also provide a process by which a private property impact statement prepared by a minister as a necessary part of the introduction of new legislation can be challenged and tested before a court. It will allow the claimed scientific basis for the proposed legislation as well as the assessment of the claimed costs and benefits to be tested for completeness and integrity in the light of evidence of expert witnesses given before the court. This will ensure the information being provided to this parliament in the consideration of new legislation is complete and has integrity and will thereby prevent the sort of selective misuse of scientific information we have seen in this parliament in the recent past. The second element of this bill commits this parliament to a system of fair compensation when through the passage of properly considered legislation individual property owners suffer substantial loss of their property rights for the benefit of the wider community. Statute law is now failing to protect property owners when the title to a property is not acquired by government, but one or more of the rights to use the property that have normally been associated with that title is either restricted or removed by government acting for the benefit of the broader community. This bill recognises that the principle of fair compensation is no less applicable to an owner of private property who while retaining title to property loses the rights to use that property normally associated with property ownership. It enshrines in law that, where acting in the broader community interest a government imposes new statutory regulations that remove or restrict existing property rights, property owners shall be entitled to compensatory payments at least equal to the loss of value caused by the new regulations. It recognises the reality that this parliament of elected representatives has the undoubted power to make decisions on behalf of the Queensland community which may be for a wider community benefit but also has an undeniable obligation to ensure that individuals are not left to bear the cost alone. If the government, on behalf of the community, is not prepared or is unable to bear the cost of new regulations which are being imposed for the benefit of the whole community then there is no valid argument that individual property owners should be expected to suffer the impact alone. This bill will ensure that they will not be expected to do so. It will ensure that the costs and the benefits of new legislation are properly identified and it will ensure that the costs are borne by those who will enjoy the benefits. That is fair and reasonable and I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Robertson, adjourned.

LAND ACQUISITION AMENDMENT BILL Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Seeney, read a first time. 10 Sep 2003 Parliament of Queensland (Change of Political Status) Bill 3377

Second Reading Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.27 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This is the second bill that will enshrine in law our charter of property rights. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. This Bill like the Private property Protection Bill will enshrine in law a charter of property rights that will be the basis for greater security and fair dealing between successive Queensland Governments and private property owners. The reasons for the Bill is to ensure an upfront, clear set of principles exist to be followed when assessing compensation for landowners faced with State Government resumption of their land. This bill aims to ensure landowners faced with State Government resumption of their land are made aware as soon as possible that their land is to be resumed and the date at which the land is needed for government purposes. This bill will also ensure compensation provisions for State Government resumptions on their land are clear and take into account factors such as, market value for the property including any land devaluation caused by an expectation that the land could be resumed. Special knowledge of the land gained by a landowner over time including the carrying capacity of the land for crops or stock, and appropriate cropping and management systems for the land. Also personal cost to the landowner of moving from the land which includes costs involved in finding a replacement property including legal fees and stamp duty on the replacement property including all relocation costs including stock, machinery and household effects. Reasonable cost of independent valuation and legal advice incurred because of the Government acquisition. Any unintended taxation consequences incurred such as capital gains tax. The erosion of property rights without adequate and reasonable compensation because of State Government legislation is one of the major issue affecting primary industries today. Right now many primary producers in this state feel the financial investments they have made on their properties could be taken away without any compensation at the stroke of a pen. We have a duty to restore confidence back in the rural sector, that if their property right is taken away adequate compensation payable to the landowner That is fair and reasonable and I commend the Bill to the House Debate, on motion of Mr Robertson, adjourned.

PARLIAMENT OF QUEENSLAND (CHANGE OF POLITICAL STATUS) BILL Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.28 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.28 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The bill that I introduce today will stop members of this House from changing parties or becoming Independents without a mandate from the people who elected them. My bill ensures that if they do decide to abandon the party or platform on which they were elected, they must resign from parliament and contest the seat again at a by-election. Many people have told me that they are sick and tired of politicians jumping ship, changing parties or deciding to become Independents without so much as a by your leave or a nod of approval from the people who voted for them. However, this bill does not apply to a member who is expelled or disendorsed by their party. These members do not have to resign from parliament. Members will be familiar with the famous cases of Liberals Brian Austin and Don Lane who in 1983, with the promise of front bench positions, defected to the Nationals giving Bjelke-Petersen the numbers to govern alone. Betrayal understates the way their electorates were treated and I wonder if Lane and Austin would have made the jump if they had been required to go back to their electorates for approval. 3378 Questions Without Notice 10 Sep 2003

Other defections that have occurred recently in this House have not necessarily been for political gain, but they still leave the question hanging in the air: would the voters who elected these people as a representative of a party or as an Independent approve of the member's change? In 1998, 11 members were elected as representatives of the One Nation Party, but within a couple of years half of them had become Independents or helped to form the City Country Alliance. Debate, on motion of Mr Wellington, adjourned.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Suncorp Stadium Mr SPRINGBORG (10.31 a.m.): My question is directed to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer told Queenslanders that there would be no further replacement of turf at Suncorp Stadium. However, stadium management has previously said that at least 30 per cent of the surface at the northern end of the ground and along the western touch line would be badly affected by shade and would require annual replacement. Is the Treasurer sticking to his story this time that there will be no annual replacement of turf at Lang Park? Mr MACKENROTH: On Monday I held a press conference—all of the media were invited—at which I announced that we would be replacing the whole pitch at Suncorp Stadium. At that time I was asked questions in relation to the particular section that is in shade. I said that there may be a need to replace that part of it. There is no intention to replace the whole pitch. The member opposite should not try to take something I have said and make it into something I have not said, which seems to be what a lot of people are trying to do at present. It has always been the view of the Major Sports Facilities Authority that we needed to have a replacement pitch. That has proven to be a very sound decision that was made by it last year when it called for tenders in December and then when it let the tenders for the turf to be grown. We made the final decision after the Broncos game on Friday night, but we believed during the last week that it would probably have to be replaced. We have monitored the condition of the pitch since the first game. I have had many discussions with the Major Sports Facilities Authority in relation to what action would need to be taken. As I said, no final decision was taken until after the game. I would have preferred to make a decision that the pitch that was there last week could remain there forever. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: No, no. The Leader of the Opposition should go back to the farm and grow some. The decision that had to be made was made on the advice that was provided to me by the ground staff and by people who had done tests in relation to that turf. So the decision was made with the advice of experts, who advised that the pitch was in a condition such that it needed to be replaced. As I said, I would have preferred not to make that decision. For the Leader of the Opposition to try to tie something that I said yesterday to whether, in the future, parts of the pitch will have to be replaced I think is ridiculous.

Roma Street Parkland Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing. I refer to the state government owned and operated Roma Street Parkland. Can the minister confirm that taxpayers have had to foot the bill for $80,000 to replace a pop-up sprinkler system and that a further $150,000 will be spent replacing other sprinklers because of poor planning? Has the minister messed up again or, in typical Beattie government style, is he going to blame somebody else for his mess? Mr SCHWARTEN: It is a shame the Leader of the Opposition did not respond to the interjection I made earlier when we were speaking about grass. From the nonsense he comes out with, I think he is smoking it. The truth is that I cannot confirm those things. I do not know whether they are going to replace the pandanus palms down the end of it, whether there will be six weddings there on Saturday or just what the case may be because I do not actually sit in my office on a daily basis and go through the budgets of every single thing out there. We have people who are very competent to do that. 10 Sep 2003 Questions Without Notice 3379

I know that it really gets up the nose of the Leader of the Opposition that we have a parkland there. Do honourable members remember what the now opposition was going to do with that land? That is what cost Connor his job. His then shadow got him chased up to the backbench because he misled the parliament by saying that he did not have plans to put residential blocks on it. I can understand the embarrassment of the Opposition Leader that this has been the success that it has. It is an absolutely sterling success. This has been such a sterling success that people are queuing up to get married there and families and international visitors are enjoying the comfort of it. It just shows how pathetic those opposite are that they get down to this level of minutiae. I will check out the number of pop-up sprinklers that are there, how much water we are using every day and how many people— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: From the way he squawks, I think he has been spending too much time with the crows. He is starting to sound like one. The reality is that I am very happy— Mr Purcell: Minister, could you find out for me how many times the grass is mowed each week, please? Mr SCHWARTEN: We could probably find that out, too, if the member needs to know. I did not think he was as small-minded as the Opposition Leader. The fact of the matter is that we have a world-class park there. I will take the honourable member there. I doubt he has ever been there and actually enjoyed the wonderful ambience that is there. I do not think he really understands that all of those sorts of projects require maintenance. Please keep asking me your dud questions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Clayfield, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Brisbane Independent School in the electorate of Moggill and students and teachers from Goodwood State School in the electorate of Burnett.

Queensland Ambulance Service Ms LIDDY CLARK: My question is directed to the Premier. The Queensland Ambulance Service is one of the best in the world. Can the Premier inform the House how Queensland is maintaining that professional edge? Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to do that. I thank the member for Clayfield for her question. What an energetic member she is. She is very impressive and very talented. She is certainly a big improvement on the last member for Clayfield. I was a little disappointed yesterday when Lawrence went through the list of potential future ministers. The member for Clayfield should have been on that list, too. In fact, everybody on our side should have been on it. I cannot for the life of me understand why Lawrence only named some of them. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that every one of them is ministerial material. He should be so lucky. Later today— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I think the Minister for Public Works is right; maybe he is smoking something. Would he please stop it? Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Is that a medical term? In the National Party 'backbench' is a medical term. Later today the Emergency Services Minister, Mike Reynolds, and I will have the opportunity to see the latest intake of paramedic students in action. Queensland Emergency Services is staging a mock exercise at Hendra Secondary College around midday today—that college is in the electorate of Clayfield—which will expose the students to the sort of large-scale emergency they are likely to face once they are out on the road. The exercise will highlight the first-class training that all our paramedics receive preparing them for any emergency situation which comes their way. The 41 paramedic students and nine communication students whose skills will be on display represent the new generation of the Queensland Ambulance Service. They reflect its dynamic and professional nature, and reinforce the fact that the Queensland Ambulance Service offers a rewarding professional path and is a smart career choice for young Queenslanders. It is particularly appropriate that I will have the chance to see them in action during Ambulance Week. This intake of students and communications officers is the largest in the Queensland Ambulance Service's 110-year history. In this year's state budget we allocated a 3380 Questions Without Notice 10 Sep 2003 record $276.2 million for the Queensland Ambulance Service and provided for an additional 110 paramedics across Queensland. This group of students includes the first 22 out of the extra 110 paramedics announced in the budget. Today's exercise represents a major component of their initial 12-week training period before the students are assigned to a region and start their on-road training. These outstanding students represent my government's commitment to boosting ambulance services across the Smart State, and I am proud that we are maintaining and enhancing the Queensland Ambulance Service's reputation as a world leader in its field. Under my government, we have funded both fire services and ambulance services properly. I know there has been some debate about the ambulance levy. The reality is that we are determined to fund our ambulance services and our fire services properly. We are not going to have the old horse and buggy nonsense. We are going to fund key service delivery areas properly. That is what my government is doing, and we are seeing the results of it today.

Ministers' Code of Ethics Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Premier, and I ask: because his voluntary code of ethics has no enforcement provisions, will he seek a written assurance from his three retiring ministers that they will not engage in private consultancies, contracts or employment which allows them to profit from corporate knowledge acquired during their terms as ministers in his government? Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to take this question from the Leader of the Liberal Party. As I indicated yesterday, the Ministers' Code of Ethics is in the process of being amended. Cabinet made this decision some months ago, and cabinet is now completing the drafting. Cabinet decided to amend the code to include a requirement that ministers not take personal advantage in any future employment of information obtained as a minister and which is not publicly available. The Ministers' Code of Ethics is soon to be relocated from the Queensland Handbook to the Queensland Ministerial Handbook. The Ministerial Handbook will then include the updated version of the Ministers' Code of Ethics, which includes the restriction on the future employment of ministers. So it is already there. I have faith in the ethical standards of my ministers. What is important to remember is that the government, assuming we are re-elected—and that is a matter for the people—will have a clear understanding of any involvement any minister will have with any group outside of government because we will still be in a position to make decisions. We will ensure that the ethics and the spirit of this code of ethics are in force. If those opposite were to win the election, I am sure they also would enforce the code of ethics. Is it enforceable? The answer is yes—either by my continuing government or by theirs. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: It is not the Opposition Leader's question. In answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party, it is very clear that the code of ethics provides exactly what he asked me for yesterday and again today. Any future government will ensure that that is in force. My government will. If those opposite are elected and they are in government for the next term, then they will. So there is a clear enforcement of it. There are some other matters I want to make clear. Firstly, I have enormous faith in the integrity and honesty of Matt Foley, Wendy Edmond and Stephen Bredhauer. I have served with them in this parliament since 1989. They are decent, honest people and they will honour the code of ethics. I do not believe it is reasonable for those opposite to suggest that Wendy would go and work for the AMA. No matter how much I might try to force her, she would not do it. Even if I said to Wendy, 'I want you to work for the AMA,' Wendy would refuse. Will the minister give a commitment to the parliament today that she will not work for the AMA? Mrs Edmond: Absolutely. Mr BEATTIE: Okay. We have a commitment here. Will the minister work for the Nurses Union? Mrs Edmond: I've no plans to do that. Mr BEATTIE: So we have two commitments here that Wendy will not work for the AMA and will not work for the Nurses Union. I do not know what other commitments the opposition wants. 10 Sep 2003 Questions Without Notice 3381

An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: What about radiation therapy? Mrs Edmond: Well, I could go back to radiation therapy, but I would need to retrain to meet the highest standards. Mr BEATTIE: Okay. So I think we have clarified that issue. I could ask Matt whether he is going to go back on the stage, because he is a well-known performer. Mr Matt Foley: You'll have to speak to my agent. Mr BEATTIE: I will talk to his agent. Our standards about these ethics are very, very high, and I have spelled out how the enforcement will be done.

Veterans Mr MULHERIN: My question is directed to the Premier and Minister for Trade. Assistance for Defence Force veterans is generally a responsibility of the Commonwealth government, but is the Premier aware of any support his government is giving to veterans in the Mackay area? Mr BEATTIE: I want to thank the member for Mackay for asking this question because I know that he has a particular interest in this matter. I am aware that the member for Mackay has been instrumental in securing a permanent support centre for veterans, serving personnel and their families. I was in Mackay last week and the honourable member showed me some of the facilities that have been built by the veterans which he had supported, and I thank him for that. After an approach from Sean O'Mara of Mackay Veterans Support Group in September 2003— Mr Schwarten: A good bloke—I've worked with him. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. He started working with state, federal and local government agencies as well as the business community to get the wheels turning on this project. Just three years later veterans, serving personnel and their families have a place of their own to meet, work and socialise. I am advised that it is such a success that it is known in the Department of Veterans' Affairs as 'the Mackay model'. The centre's story shows what can be achieved when the community, business and all levels of government work together for a common purpose. While Vietnam veterans from the Mackay Veterans Support Group have done the lion's share of labour to make the centre possible, a variety of groups have helped out with funding, equipment, materials and services. The centre started taking shape when the Mackay City Council agreed to lease a block of state owned, council administered land to the veterans group for a peppercorn rent. The Housing Department—and I thank the Minister for Housing—gifted two homes which were relocated to the site with funds from the Gambling Community Benefit Fund. The Department of Veterans' Affairs pitched in with a grant to fit out and refurbish the buildings. The Mackay mayor, Councillor Julie Boyd, agreed after discussions with Tim Mulherin that eight council trainees who were funded by the Department of Employment and Training would work on the refurbishment. More funding from the Department of Employment and Training was used to engage a registered builder through Skills Training Mackay to train the trainees, including indigenous people, on the project. The federal Work for the Dole program rounded off the building work. Thanks to another Gambling Community Benefit Fund grant and a Department of Veterans' Affairs grant, the veterans now have funds for a shed for activities like woodwork, ironwork, leatherwork, and making fishing rods and lures. Community and commercial groups that have generously contributed include the Mackay Port Authority, Pioneer Asphalts, REB Engineering, Thiess, T. F. Woolam and Sons, A. E. Smith, Camilleri Sand and Gravel, Mackay Turf Supplies, MRAEL, Southern Suburbs Leagues Club, Port of Mackay Rotary, Porters Hardware, Strammit and Taylors Solicitors. The Mackay Veterans Support Group's motto is 'veterans assisting veterans', but the impact of the centre spreads way beyond veterans. It has reduced social isolation and improved the health and lifestyle of veterans and the positive effects flow to their families, friends and to the wider community. These are benefits that money cannot buy. Only a tight-knit community and partnerships with government and business can deliver such a terrific outcome. I want to thank the member for Mackay for the work he has done on behalf of those veterans. Well done. 3382 Questions Without Notice 10 Sep 2003

Ministers' Code of Ethics Mr SEENEY: My question is directed to the Premier. Yesterday in this House, at the Premier's instigation, we discussed important matters of honesty and accountability. During that debate, and again this morning, the Premier announced that cabinet had decided to further strengthen his voluntary code so that his retiring ministers will abide by his 1997 policy announcement. Could the Premier advise the House exactly when cabinet took this decision? In the interests of the honesty and accountability that he spoke so much about yesterday, will the Premier undertake to supply to the House a copy of the cabinet minute of that decision? Why did the Premier not tell the House about this decision yesterday in answer to the question that I asked? Mr BEATTIE: There is no rocket science in any of this. In terms of the cabinet minute, we do not have a practice of releasing them and nor did the member's side of politics. But the content of what is in the cabinet minute was contained in what I read to the House this morning and what I read to the House yesterday. So the member opposite already knows what was in it. That is the first thing. The second thing is that the decision was made some months ago. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was a cabinet decision in November 2002. It was part of a redrafting of the whole handbook and the code of ethics, which has taken some time because we did the whole book. If my memory is correct, it was in November 2002. The reason I delayed providing the opposition member detailed information is that I wanted to make sure I was accurate in the information I provided to the House. I know that when one is in opposition, one can basically say and do anything. When one is in government, one has to be accurate and reliable. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: No, I wanted to be absolutely certain that the information I gave to the House was accurate. I take seriously the responsibility of ministers—including myself as a minister—to provide accurate information to this House. On a number of occasions I have come into the House and corrected the record. Recently I made a small slip in relation to the use of the studios on Gold Coast, the Warner Brothers studios, about the period of time. I came back in here and corrected it. I knew that an embarrassing story would be run in the press, which subsequently happened, but I did it because I believe in ministerial accountability. I wanted to check and get the exact details so I could provide them to the House. So now I have informed— Mr Seeney: Why didn't you tell me you were going to check it? Mr BEATTIE: No, let me finish. Now that I have informed the member that the cabinet decision was in November last year— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I made it clear— Mr Seeney: What did you say? Mr BEATTIE: I made it clear to the member yesterday what the circumstances were. After the end of question time I rose on a matter of privilege and explained the circumstances behind it. The member for Callide came in here yesterday and referred to a document from 1997 which was superseded by a document in 1998. He knew that. The member knew that, but he came in here and deliberately misled everybody. I did not get up and make a big fuss about it— Mr Seeney: You knew about the cabinet decision. Why didn't you tell me about it yesterday? Mr BEATTIE:—when the member for Callide came in here yesterday and misled everybody. Mr Seeney: Why didn't you mention it? Mr BEATTIE: I wanted to make sure that I got the story correct about how the member had misled this House. I did not make a big thing about it. I just explained it. Mr Seeney: You didn't even mention it. Mr BEATTIE: If the member is going to make a point about something, he should tell the full story. One of the things members have to do in this place is tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 10 Sep 2003 Questions Without Notice 3383

Do we have a code of ethics in place which is a first for this state? Yes, we do. Does this government have the highest possible standards? Yes, we do. Compare our honesty and integrity to the corruption of the National Party and it is like chalk and cheese. That is the reality.

IBNR Tax Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Minister for Health. I note in media reports that a new tax being imposed on doctors by the federal government will result in a number of obstetricians resigning. Can the minister please explain this issue to the House? A government member interjected. Mrs EDMOND: Yes, I take the interjection from behind me that that is a very good question. It is a matter of some concern to members on this side of the House. I am surprised it is not a matter of concern to those opposite. This is the latest in what is becoming a very long list of debacles by the Commonwealth over its handling of health issues. This new federal government levy, the incurred but not reported or IBNR tax, is being collected for claims against medical mistakes which may have been made up to June 2002. Any doctor who was a member of the failed UMP at 30 June 2000 will have to pay the levy. This new tax is costing those obstetricians insured by UMP in the region of $130,000 over 10 years. I am advised that this has already resulted in a number of resignations in Queensland with a number of other doctors in this field seriously considering their options. Perhaps the worst aspect of this tax for Queensland specialists is that they are being asked to pay this onerous tax when clearly there is not the same litigation risk in Queensland. They are underwriting New South Wales risk. This is reflected in the fact that, for example, an obstetrician pays about $130,000 a year for medical indemnity insurance in New South Wales whereas in Queensland the premium is around $55,000. Another example is that orthopaedic surgeons pay about $38,000 a year for insurance whereas their New South Wales counterparts pay almost double that. Queensland stands to lose the services of many private obstetricians. What this means is that one of the main reasons that young people choose to take out health insurance—so that they can have the doctor of their choice when they start their families—has been seriously eroded. It is a bizarre situation where the Commonwealth government is pushing people into private health insurance with one hand and forcing them out with the other. Without doubt this decision will result in more pressure on our public hospitals when the Commonwealth is telling us that it is reducing the pressure. John Howard must believe that this state government has some capacity to perform miracles—perhaps in the vein of the loaves and fishes. He keeps making public hospitals do more and more with less and less. In the latest reports in the media it seems that the levy has been put on hold temporarily. This seems to be policy by lobbying and another sign that the federal government has just plain got it wrong again in relation to the health issues in this country.

Inner Northern Busway Mr JOHNSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. The one thing I can advise the Premier of this morning is that the Minister for Transport and Main Roads will not take up his contract as a pushbike test rider thanks to interference by him! I refer to the minister's statement to the recent estimates committee in which he advised that the Inner Northern Busway would be completed by December this year. Will the minister assure the House that this is still the case? Will he also advise this House when his proposal for bus lanes running in each direction in George Street to service the busway between Adelaide Street and Countess Street is likely to commence? Mr BREDHAUER: First and the foremost, I would like to defend the honour and integrity of the Premier in relation to the pushbike incident. It is not true that I am going to be a test driver for a pushbike company. Neither am I going to be a bus driver, and neither am I going to buy a taxi licence. Mr SPRINGBORG: Is that what why you're taking up marathon running—so you can keep both feet on the ground? 3384 Questions Without Notice 10 Sep 2003

Mr BREDHAUER: That is why I am talking up marathon running—to keep both feet on the ground. In answer to the honourable member's question, the answer is yes, the busway is still due for completion by the end of this year, as I advised the estimates committee and as I have advised honourable members previously. We are due to have buses operational early in the new year. The bus station contract, which is separate from the busway contract, is not due for completion until February, I think. So the entire project is not due for completion until probably February of next year, but the bus station contract is a separate contract from the busway contract. On the latest advice that I can recollect receiving from the department, the busway component is still due for completion by the end of the year, as I have previously indicated publicly. We do anticipate having buses running, which would presumably include the George Street stuff. I have not had an update on the detail of the on-street running in George Street in recent times. However, I would anticipate that if we were going to have buses operating on the busway early in the new year, that would be roughly the timetable for when we would have on- street running in George Street as well. I am happy to confirm to the member and to the House that information. Might I just take a moment at the end of my answer to wish a fellow by the name of Allen Jones, from the Department of Main Roads, all the best. He is retiring this week. He has had 17 years in the Public Service, including seven years with the Department of Main Roads. Jonesy, have a great time in your retirement. I hope you catch a few fish. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Noosa, could I welcome to the public gallery the principal and student leaders from Lawnton State School, which includes Lizzie Lavarch, the daughter of the member for Kurwongbah. Welcome. I call the honourable member for Noosa.

Opposition Public Works and Housing Policy Ms MOLLOY: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Housing. As the minister is aware, on 21 August 2003 the shadow spokesman for public works and housing said that the opposition had a policy on public works and housing. The shadow minister went on to say that he had the answers and subbies that do government jobs will get paid under a Springborg government. Will the minister advise as to whether or not he has viewed such a policy and what the policy implications are for the building industry in Queensland? Mr SCHWARTEN: The legislation was introduced to try to prevent people hopping the fence like he did. Have I seen the policy? No, I have not. The reason he blurted out the remark that he had a policy was because, I must confess, I did taunt him somewhat about the fact that those opposite were as free of policy as an eel is of hips. Mr Springborg: That's what you do. That's your nature. Mr SCHWARTEN: As is my nature. I think I said something about a snake and legs. His retort was that they would guarantee subcontractors payment if they won government. Have members ever heard that before? Mr Mackenroth: Ray Connor. Mr SCHWARTEN: Ray Connor said it and then went out and spent $2 million or $3 million on the Scurr inquiry, which was an absolute disaster—and we all know that—and embarrassed the government with his failure in terms of that beautiful parkland that he drew attention to this morning. It is a wonderful place. It is a $72 million project and he is worried about the sprinklers. That just shows how really connected he is to the issue, and the same applies to this issue of subcontractors. The fact is that anybody who guarantees every single person in business that they will be paid every single time they ask will become the laughing stock of this state. The truth is that the people in the industry I have spoken to know full well that we cannot do that. Subcontractors know that that is the case. Wherever I have announced his policy for him—because he has kept it quiet since then—there has been widespread mirth. Instead of just stopping at the policy, I actually went and searched the web site. I am a bit of a whiz, you see, with computers these days. I searched day and night, night and day looking for a policy. But I have to tell members that they have more chance of finding a yowie up in the Glasshouse Mountains than they have of finding the policy of those opposite on housing or public works, except that we know that they are going to guarantee that every single subbie in Queensland is going to be paid every single time they ask. 10 Sep 2003 Questions Without Notice 3385

I do not know whether we are going to have another Scurr inquiry costing $2 million or $3 million, but watch this space. I think Arthur Scurr is available again. We could bring him back! Why not listen to Dr Watson, because he actually tried to clean the mess up after Connor came along and, God, didn't that take some work! Then along came Judy Spence and she got the building industry reforms through this parliament and everybody supported it. The reality is this: those opposite should not try to make policy on the run like that in the parliament by big-noting themselves and dishonestly representing the situation out there. How embarrassing for you! They should know better than that—and so do you.

Burnett Dam Water Project Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for State Development. Griffith University natural resource economist Dr John Ward's study supports a Queensland Treasury analysis that states that the Burnett water dam project is not economically viable in that customers will have to pay $273 a megalitre to comply with the Australian government's water reform framework, which requires all new projects to be both commercially and ecologically sustainable. Considering that the government used sugar prices 40 per cent higher than current levels and failed to account for the $130 million worth of environmental costs the dam will cause, I ask the minister: have recent projections been taken? Will he table the current projections? Has the government's intention to support or start the project in November altered? How will he stop speculators purchasing water licences to sell at premium prices, as reported recently, for up to $3,000 a megalitre? Mr BARTON: I do not know that I will remember every facet of that question, but let me be very clear: in terms of the Burnett water proposal, this government made a very clear election commitment about it before the last election. This government also went through the most thorough environmental impact studies via the Coordinator-General. This parliament also then passed legislation relating to the setting up of Burnett Water, a company that we put in place under my portfolio to manage this process through. Also, some parts of the question that the member has raised more directly relate to the work of my colleague the Minister for Natural Resources, who has overall responsibility for the management of water resources. But in terms of putting the proposal in place, yes, we still believe that the Burnett water proposals—the major facility on the Burnett River—plus the weirs and the raising of several weirs are viable. Yes, those studies have been done. But this is all about ensuring that we do have appropriate, adequate water supplies for the Burnett region to make sure that we not only support farming in the region but also that we have the capacity for industrial development and the creation of jobs in industry in the Burnett area. I know that this continues to be of some conjecture, but I want to be very clear, because every time I go to Bundaberg people come to me and say, 'Well, there should only be one class of water and there should only be one price of water and that should be aligned to water charges related to existing facilities that have essentially been paid for.' I have always made it very clear that we do need to ensure that the price that is charged for the water is a genuine commercial price, otherwise we will have very considerable problems with the federal government, which will penalise us. Yes, I am aware of the crisis in the sugar industry. I spoke about that in a ministerial statement this morning, and we are trying to work that through with the federal government to get it to honour its obligations in that regard. But certainly I am proceeding. I also tabled in the parliament this morning a statement from the Coordinator-General with regard to the acquisitions that we are starting and doing not just with regard to native title but other acquisitions, because we are very clear in our commitment that we have already started ancillary work for the project and we anticipate the actual work on the major facility on the Burnett River to start later this year. It is on schedule at this time.

Small Business Mrs LAVARCH: My question is also directed to the Minister for State Development. Minister, the Department of State Development has launched several new programs as part of its drive to help Queensland's small businesses grow and prosper, and I ask: can he provide more detail of these initiatives? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for Kurwongbah for the question, because the member has played and continues to play an invaluable role as the deputy chair of the Queensland Small 3386 Questions Without Notice 10 Sep 2003

Business Advisory Council in championing the support from this government for small business, including the programs that I want to talk about today. The department is tailoring its programs and strategies to help small business grow. I want to outline some great new initiatives in this area. When we organise a seminar across a number of areas around the state and get 60 or more people attending, then we really know that we are meeting a need and that people are wanting to get that information. That was the case last year when we launched the Smart Women series of seminars for businesswomen. This year I am pleased to say that we are running even more of those seminars and the workshops are being extended right across the state to every region that is serviced by a state development centre. The focus this year will be on business marketing. This will give our growing numbers of businesswomen a valuable opportunity to build their skill base and contribute to meeting the government's objective of increased participation by women in the small business sector, and I have to say that those already involved in the small business sector have been very successful. The next few weeks will also see the holding of the new risk management workshops for small businesses in collaboration with CPA Australia. The department has responded to concerns that forward planning and risk management are lacking amongst small business. They will be held across the state and will deal with nitty-gritty issues such as covering the loss of a major client, increases in interest rates or costs or inadequate insurance cover. In running these programs, the department still draws on years of intimate insight into what it takes to start a small business, grow it and get it into the export market in particular. In 2002-03 the department ran approximately 850 seminars and workshops around the state attended by more than 30,000 participants. That is a very strong commitment to small business. These were supported by other services, some providing individual coaching and a growing number accessing via the web and offering step-by- step training. Companies in all parts of the state are endorsing the value of these services and will continue to benefit from them in terms of increased skills awareness, knowledge and confidence. It adds up to smarter Queensland businesses and smarter small businesses. Next week the member for Kurwongbah will assist me in chairing the next meeting of the Queensland Small Business Advisory Council where we have yet more concepts to get out there to really demonstrate strong support for small business in this state. I know that they greatly appreciate it, and I thank her for her support in that regard.

Ms P. Hanson; Mr D. Ettridge Ms LEE LONG: I ask the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice: can he give me an approximate estimate to date of how much the prosecution of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge has cost Queensland taxpayers? Mr WELFORD: No, I cannot. Frankly, it is not appropriate for me as the Attorney to interfere in the prosecution process. I would have thought that the honourable member would have been sufficiently aware of that. It has been said enough times already that there is no political involvement in either the decision to prosecute or how the prosecution— Ms LEE LONG: I rise to a point of order. I am not asking the Attorney-General to get involved in the prosecution process. I am just asking if he can give me an approximate estimation of the costs so far. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr WELFORD: Because it is not appropriate for me to interfere in the prosecution process, I will not in any way make inquiries in relation to the Hanson prosecution until all appeals are determined. It may or may not be appropriate at that time to try in some way to separately cost the prosecution of Hanson. It has, to my knowledge, not been the case that the individual prosecution of any person has been separately accounted for either by the Office of the DPP, the Justice Department or the government in the past, and I see no particular reason why it should be done in this special case.

Gateway Bridge Duplication Mr CHOI: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to the Beattie government's plan for the duplication of the gateway, and I ask: can he please advise the House of the progress with the Gateway Bridge duplication? 10 Sep 2003 Questions Without Notice 3387

Mr BREDHAUER: I was a little puzzled a couple of weeks ago to read in the Sunday Mail a claim by the member for Gregory that there was some secret plan to duplicate the Gateway Bridge that we were not divulging to the people of Queensland. I have spoken on this issue in the parliament probably 20 or 30 times. Mr Johnson: How are you going to get them to the bridge? Mr BREDHAUER: Did the member spill Berri yoghurt on his tie at breakfast-time? I must have spoken on this issue about 30 times in the parliament. Not only that, he claimed the corridor was a secret. The draft corridor for the Gateway Bridge and the approach roads has been on the Main Roads worldwide web site for about nine months. Mr Mackenroth: Robert Schwarten has seen it. Mr BREDHAUER: Robert Schwarten would have seen it when he was Net surfing at night looking for coalition policies. Not only that, two rounds of public consultation have been undertaken since November 2001 on a preferred route for the upgraded motorway. In June we announced that the Beattie government would establish a project team to develop a private-public partnership business case for the billion dollar-plus duplication of the Gateway Bridge. We have done the planning and now we are looking at a business delivery method that represents best value for money. The project team is now established and work is under way. It is due for completion around mid-2004. This decision represents a significant milestone in addressing the impacts of rapid population growth and industry growth. The current Gateway Bridge and Motorway are expected to reach capacity around 2010. We will get it right. We will make sure through our thorough planning and consultation that we deliver the best possible project at the best possible cost for the people of Queensland. I was a little concerned, though, to hear the Leader of the Opposition weigh into the debate last week when he said that he would fast-track the duplication of the Gateway Bridge. Members opposite have got form on fast-tracking major infrastructure projects. What about the M1? In 1995 before the election they said that the M1 would cost $450 million. They then fast-tracked the planning and concentrated two and a half years of preconstruction and design activity into less than one year. The costing went to $630 million. It then went to $750 million. It then went from $750 million to a final cost of over $950 million. The price more than doubled from their first estimate, and that was due in no small part to the fact that they fast-tracked the preconstruction and design phase. All members of the Queensland public should beware the snake oil salesman's promises to fast-track major infrastructure projects in Queensland.

Mrs N. Crick Mr WELLINGTON: I refer the Minister for Police to the Nancy Crick suicide police investigation. A number of people who were present when Nancy Crick passed away have asked me to ask the minister to please inform the House of the current status of the investigation and whether charges will be laid against any people who witnessed the death of Nancy Crick. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is out of order, firstly because it was not directed to the correct minister. I do not think it should be asked of the Minister for Police. The question is out of order. Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. We have had the Police Commissioner in the media responding to this issue. The Police Minister has been in the public responding to this issue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Clerk's advice, which I accept, is that the charging of anybody does not lie with the Police Minister; it lies with the Commissioner for Police and, as such, the question is still out of order. Mr WELLINGTON: I will take the matter up with the minister later.

Telecommunications Access, Remote Areas Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to the fact that, as we all know, Queensland is a very decentralised state and using technology like the Internet is one way that people in more remote areas can at least access information, products and services. I ask: can the minister inform the House whether our remote communities are getting access to this technology in the first place? 3388 Questions Without Notice 10 Sep 2003

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. In fact, the honourable member and the member for Ashgrove joined me a few weeks ago in the Torres Strait, the cape and the Gulf of Carpentaria in a number of remote Queensland communities when we dealt with a number of energy and telecommunication matters. Queensland is Australia's most decentralised mainland state. We are a state where more people live outside the capital city than within it. There are a number of people in remote and rural communities, and they have similar rights to telecommunications justice as people in the city. Sadly, the federal government purports to represent people in the bush through the National Party but it consistently sells out people in those communities when it comes to telecommunications deals. The federal government is obsessed with setting up inquiries into telecommunications. Whenever it wants to sell Telstra, it sets up an inquiry. So it set up the Estens inquiry not to find out how telecommunications was going in regional and rural Queensland but to sell Telstra. Surprise, surprise! What did the Estens inquiry find? That telecommunications in the bush were adequate! Anyone who talks to anyone in rural and remote Queensland knows, and the Minister for Primary Industries knows, that they are far from adequate. On the weekend, Telstra told Australia that it was going to implement the findings of the Estens inquiry. Big deal! The bar has been set so low with the Estens inquiry, and what the federal government expects is that people are tripping over it rather than jumping over it. One hundred and eighty-one million dollars is what the federal government is promising from the sale of the second half of Telstra—less than one per cent delivery to people who are so often the core constituency of members opposite. On the other hand, this government is prepared to look after the interests of people in rural and remote Queensland. This government says to the people in the Torres Strait, for example in the community of St Pauls, 'We will use our telecommunications demand and aggregate that to get them a CDMA tower.' This government says to people in nine other communities in rural and regional Queensland that they will get CDMA towers as a result of the government's demand being aggregated. Some 80 different communities will have Optus and GSM towers as a result of government spending over the next few years. This is about using taxpayers' money more sensibly without flogging anything in Telstra. In terms of the communities in the Torres Strait, we have worked with the federal government on the Island Watch project. My department has been facilitating the roll-out of the program. I was speaking with some people in the St Pauls community—the honourable Minister for Transport knows them extremely well—and they say that to go to a sporting competition on another island costs them $6,000. That means some $6,000 to have a game of volleyball. That is not something that people in terrestrial Queensland have to put up with. It is about time we helped them more and the federal government came to the party in telecommunications.

Drought Assistance Mr ROWELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities. Every three days the federal government pays out as much drought assistance through Australia as the paltry $7.2 million contributed by this government over the last five years. When is the minister going to provide some worthwhile assistance for this debilitating problem affecting primary producers in Queensland? Mr PALASZCZUK: At the outset I say that, as minister, I am very proud of the work that our government is doing with our producers in terms of this dreadful drought. Our DRAS scheme has been in operation since the early 1990s. The DRAS scheme was used by the member's government when he was a minister. The member had the opportunity to make changes to this scheme. He made no changes whatsoever. The only reason the member is bringing this up is that he wants to make political capital out of the poor people suffering out in western Queensland. That is what he is trying to do. Unfortunately, the opposition can go on and on, but the reality is that the state government is spending more money than it spent during the drought of the 1990s. We are spending more money than the opposition did when in government. I stand by our government's spending. I am proud of our government, and I am quite sure that the producers out there support our government and appreciate our support for them during this drought. Interruption. 10 Sep 2003 Questions Without Notice 3389

PRIVILEGE Roma Street Parkland Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing)(11.22 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege concerning a matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition this morning in question time. I am advised that contractors are currently working in the old Albert Park area of the Roma Street Parkland upgrading the irrigation system to the same standard as the newer areas at a cost of around $80,000. During construction only broad area sprinklers suitable for large grassed areas were installed as the formal garden areas were not developed or planted, as they are now. I am advised that the system is being upgraded with the latest software and two additional remote controllers which will provide a more defined system to adequately water the flower beds that have been developed. This will ensure economical use of this valued resource. The Tories over there think that water is there to be wasted. Mr Johnson: Come on. You know better than that. Mr SCHWARTEN: It is true; they do. This will ensure economical use of this valued resource by using only the minimum quantity of water for each garden bed or lawn. We are reusing all the original sprinkler heads and fittings in the same area or as replacements in other parts of the parkland. This upgrade will ensure that this world-class parkland is maintained to an acceptable standard at minimal cost. The decision was made to carry out this work because this area has become very popular and is in constant demand for weddings and larger family gatherings. Contrary to the opposition's pathetic assertions, this is about upgrading the amenity of the park and ensuring that we continue our environmentally sustainable agenda in this world-class public park. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Pumicestone, I welcome student leaders and teachers from Bribie Island State Primary School, Banksia Beach State Primary School and Beachmere State Primary School in her electorate.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed.

Young Workers Advisory Service Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: I also welcome them and the principals who accompanied them to the gallery. My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer the minister to a recent media report on the success of the government's Young Workers Advisory Service. Can the minister outline the work of the service in helping our youngest and often most vulnerable workers? Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member for her question. I know the honourable member has a particular interest in young people, because she has been heavily involved for a number of years in drug and alcohol education and advisory programs in a number of schools in her electorate. She should be congratulated on that. Our young workers, those aged between 15 and 24, are often the most vulnerable in terms of being exploited at work. Audits by my inspectors have shown that these young workers, more than any other group, can often be the victims of sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination, dismissal or underpayment of wages. As part of our election commitments, this government established Australia's very first Young Workers Advisory Service, which was funded by my department. Today, I have to say that the service has exceeded all expectations in its ability to help Queensland's young workers understand their rights and responsibilities in the workplace. In just a year and a half the service has provided advice and assistance to almost 1,800 callers and recovered more than $360,000 in compensation and unpaid wages. Some of this work involved representing these people in the Industrial Relations Commission and the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Two-thirds of callers to the Young Workers Advisory Service were young female workers. Almost 20 per cent of callers were between the ages of 15 and 18. More than 70 per cent were between the ages of 18 and 25. The majority of callers, around 36 per cent, were from the sales 3390 Privilege 10 Sep 2003 or personal service groups, including the retail and fast food sectors. About 35 per cent of callers were employed casually. The most common issue that young workers call about is their pay and conditions of employment. Some 40 per cent of callers had concerns about dismissal or redundancy. A number of callers had questions about bullying. There have been a number of examples of young workers being exploited, including businesses using workers for short periods with the promise of a job which never eventuates, young workers being employed on training wages and receiving no training, and casual workers having their hours and shifts cut to make their positions untenable before they turn 18 and qualify for a higher wage. The service is also about helping young workers. One young worker, who was an apprentice, was having trouble with his job and was worried about losing his job. He knew that he did not have the right attitude. The advisory service sat down with that young man and assisted him through that program. I am pleased to say that he finished his apprenticeship and he is now training a young apprentice himself.

Stock Routes, Public Liability Insurance Mr HOPPER: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines. Is the minister aware that, under the stock route regulation introduced by his government, land-holders wishing to graze the land in front of their property during a drought now have to obtain $10 million in public liability insurance, costing between $450 and $600, before a permit can be obtained? In addition, the land-holder is charged $1.50 per animal. In times of drought, these are unreasonable charges and will drive drought stricken land-holders to the wall. Should the government show some compassion and provide an exemption from these charges in a drought? Can the minister explain why the government requires a $10 million public liability coverage when the amount for properties is only $5 million? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I have only just become aware this week of that issue. I have instructed my department to brief me on that. I share some of the concerns the member has expressed about such a high level of public liability coverage being required of people who wish to move stock along stock routes. However, I think it needs to be recognised that, in the increasingly litigious society that we live in, such increases in public liability insurance coverage are reflective of a number of the insurance issues that we all face. But, nevertheless, taking on board what the member has said, I have asked for advice from the department as to whether there are other ways to provide some relief from having to pay for such hefty public liability insurance coverage. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

PRIVILEGE Crime Statistics Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.31 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. This morning in parliament the Premier said that under his government the crime rate in Queensland had fallen. I wish to table some documents relevant to this. I refer to the government's own figures relating to offences against Queenslanders. In 1997-98 the number of offences against the person was 28,249 and in 2001-02 it was 32,584. A better measure is the offence rate per 100,000 population. In 1997-98 it was 816 while in the last full reported year it was 881. A government member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: It actually came out of your own documents. Then again, as the Courier- Mail said today, you are totally unaccountable and would not be interested. The other area is offences against property. In 1997-98 the number was 265,381. In the last year it was 292,662. Using the per 100,000 population reporting methodology, in 1997-98 it was 7,662 and in the last year it was 7,910. It has actually increased, not decreased. These are the Premier's own police figures. Mr BEATTIE: I will respond in due course, Mr Speaker. 10 Sep 2003 Police Service Administration (Alcohol and Drug Testing) Amendment Bill 3391

POLICE SERVICE ADMINISTRATION (ALCOHOL AND DRUG TESTING) AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (11.31 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Police Service Administration Act 1990, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (11.32 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing a bill to the House that addresses two issues that are of primary concern not only to this government but also to the people of Queensland. Our Police Service—the Queensland Police Service—is highly respected and leads the Commonwealth as an example of integrity and initiative in policing. As I have said on many occasions, I believe our Police Service is amongst the best in the world. One only needs to cast their memory back to the success at CHOGM for proof of this. The Beattie Labor government has worked hard to ensure that our Police Service and its conditions are continually enhanced. In doing so, we have always been conscious of the needs of our police officers in terms of providing them with appropriate powers to get the job done. We were the first government in the world to provide legislation that addressed and minimised the risk of contraction of a potentially fatal disease when our police officers dealt with criminals. It was this government that introduced part 5 of chapter 8 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 which contains provisions that allow for the immediate blood and urine testing of offenders who spit or otherwise transfer bodily fluids to police officers or victims of crime and potentially place them at risk of the transfer of a sexually transmitted disease. Within five hours our police officers can be certain as to whether a risk exists, and if one does doctors can administer immediate preventative treatment. Members of this House have previously acknowledged this world-first initiative. I do not intend to bask in the recent achievements of this government. I am committed not only to arguing for greater and balanced powers for police officers but also to demanding that the welfare and integrity of our police officers are maintained by this House passing necessary legislation. I refer members of this House to a pressing need; that is, offering more support to our police officers and their support staff who work in critical areas. Each day we witness acts of bravery of police officers performing their duty in the interests of their fellow members of the community. The recent fatal wounding of Perry Irwin is a reminder to us all of the dangers they face. We also witness previously unsolved crimes being re-investigated and solved with the assistance of hardworking police officers from the scientific sections of the Police Service. Officers in sections like this work with sheer dedication behind the scenes as part of a fully integrated and efficient modern Police Service. They are indeed the quiet achievers of the Police Service. The important role police officers and critical support staff play is enormous, and no member would doubt this. This is why we as a government negotiated an extremely favourable enterprise bargaining agreement to financially reward police officers for the work they undertake. More than 80 per cent of police officers agreed to the EBA and they are now receiving the benefits of that agreement. However, EBA aside, we as a community often revel in the achievements of our Police Service but also overlook our responsibility towards them in terms of their welfare. Therefore, the bill I introduce today is based on the welfare of our police officers and critical support staff and the welfare of the broader community. It is not an attack on the honesty or credibility of police officers and critical staff members. 3392 Police Service Administration (Alcohol and Drug Testing) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

Each member of this House can be proud that the days of systemic corruption in portions of the old Queensland Police Force are gone, as is the old Police Force. Our new Police Service is led by a commissioner who has integrity beyond reproach, commitment to his job beyond question and a level of compassion appreciated by all police officers and QPS staff members. Members of this House would also appreciate that, when faced with the huge responsibilities of protecting and serving the public and bringing violent criminals to justice, some people may resort to alcohol or illicit drugs as a relief from the stressful circumstances they find themselves in. In some cases that stress may even lead to chronic substance abuse. No member in this House could honestly sit back and say to me that we should turn a blind eye to this activity. Our police officers carry guns and are often required to engage in high-speed pursuits. They need to have their wits about them at all times, because they never know when they will be faced with a life and death situation. For a police officer there is never an opportunity to sit back and think that all the work is done, because there is no finishing line when it comes to attacking crime. For these reasons, I believe that as a government we have a responsibility to our officers and to the wider community to ensure that we have appropriate detection and rehabilitation mechanisms in place to deal with substance abuse within the Police Service. In providing a rehabilitation mechanism for affected members through this bill, there is also a responsibility to ensure that the public integrity of the Police Service is maintained. Public confidence in the integrity of the Police Service cannot be maintained by guesswork. It can only be done by providing the commissioner with the necessary legislative tools to detect any problems that may exist with his staff and to address them quickly. While it is regrettable, it is a fact that there will be times when certain persons within any organisation will not respond to help that is offered to them. As unfortunate as it seems, disciplinary action must eventually be taken against those persons. Police officers and critical support staff are not an exception to this rule. Indeed, police officers and QPS employees must present an image of leadership to the community. They fulfil a special role in our society which is accompanied by special responsibilities. Therefore, the bill I introduce today also allows for disciplinary action to be taken by the commissioner to maintain the high standards of integrity that now exist within the Queensland Police Service. I stress that the preferred option of this government is detection and rehabilitation. I can foresee that there will be objections from some organisations arising from this bill. However, it is the result of wide consultation and a lengthy working party process that involved three unions. I would hope that people will recognise that this is a welfare based bill. I will never shirk from my responsibility of ensuring that the Queensland Police Service remains the finest policing organisation within the Commonwealth. If in so doing I offer new policies that arouse criticism then I will accept this. It is the primary responsibility of this government to act in the interests of the welfare of the community. Very briefly, I will turn to the issue of random breath testing of police officers. I can see no reason that would create a problem for anyone. Parliament has wisely given an exemption to police officers, fire officers and ambulance officers to exceed speed limits to attend emergencies. Therefore, there should be no objection to random testing in the public interest. As I have previously said, our Police Service is the finest, and I have confidence these measures will only serve to enhance it. This bill will be the first measure in implementing drug and alcohol testing legislation. Clearly, the bill does not contain every legislative tool necessary for the testing scheme. Therefore, after it is passed by parliament, a regulation containing the machinery aspects of the scheme will be developed. By 'machinery aspects' I mean things like a tamper proof computer program that will be used for the random selection of police stations and establishments whose police staff are to be tested. During the development of this regulation, I will reconvene a working party that includes relevant union membership to discuss those issues that need to be addressed in the regulation. I do not intend to address specific issues of this bill today other than to say that it has been drafted in the best interests of police officers and the community. In saying this, I note that the New South Wales Police Service and the Federal Police have drug and alcohol testing regimes. I should also point out that in my previous role as Minister for Mines and Energy I devoted a great deal of my time to ensuring new health and safety legislation was introduced which also involved drug and alcohol testing of mine workers. At the time, I gained the full support of the relevant unions for these reforms. They understood that, like policing, mining was perilous if you are under 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3393 the influence of alcohol or drugs. They acted in the interests of the welfare of their members—a position which I believe was the right one for them to take. The intent of this bill is that, if a problem is identified, rehabilitation is the preferred option in the interests of the officer and the community at large. However, it is also important that the Commissioner of Police is given the appropriate disciplinary powers he needs to deal with any problems. This bill achieves a good balance between these two objectives. I am proud to introduce this legislation today. When faced with the choice of maintaining the status quo or enhancing the welfare of police officers and the community, I will choose the latter any day. This is about ensuring we do all we can to help police officers who have a problem and ensure the integrity of the service is preserved. As minister, I have not only a responsibility but also an obligation to act on any new measures which might achieve this goal. In this sense, I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation into the House today. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, adjourned.

EVIDENCE (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 13 May (see p. 1699). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.44 a.m.): At the outset I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. This general issue has been very much played out in this place, in the media and in the general community over the last few years. I suppose this is the conclusion of a process which has been ongoing now for a number of years with regard to law reform. Certainly the Law Reform Commission in Queensland has looked at this matter over a considerable period of time—going back half a decade, I would imagine. We have before us today a piece of legislation which realistically balances the requirements of accused persons and child witnesses, who in many cases have been offended against. It ensures a process which is fair and which does not overly traumatise a child witness. I have said in this place before, and I will say it again today: a court process is extremely traumatic, both for a witness and for an accused person. A fair degree of pressure is placed on those involved by the process of examination and cross-examination. To many people, sometimes it seems as though a game is being played. In their minds it is not necessarily about getting to the truth of the matter or getting to the facts; it is about wearing somebody down. It is concerning to me that whilst our adversarial process has some advantages it also has some disadvantages. This was brought home to me some time ago when I heard a speech delivered by a Supreme Court judge in Queensland. This judge was asked, 'Is the court process about getting to the truth?' He said, 'No'. He did not elaborate. That is a widely held view. We have to establish the facts, but with people arguing and carrying on we do not necessarily get to the truth of the matter. We try to establish the facts, but all this stuff that is tossed up in the air does not help that process. We can compare our system to the inquisitorial process which is in place in many European countries. It has also been interesting for us to note what is happening in Indonesia at the moment. The judges in the Bali bombing trial are trying to establish not only the facts but also the truth of a range of peripheral matters. There are different systems. We have some problems with ours. The inquisitorial system has some problems. But we really need to look at the way our rules of evidence operate and the way our adversarial system operates. Sometimes it is about obfuscation rather than getting to the truth. I think this legislation is about cutting to the chase—trying to get to the parts of a child's evidence which are important, which are compelling and which need to be taken before the court. About three years ago I was reading about a case in the newspaper following an expose on one of the investigative television programs about the way children had been treated by the justice system in the process of cross-examination. Children were basically brought to tears and subjected to the most extraordinary types of cross-examination that was aimed at wearing them down. I suppose the job of a defence counsel is to try to paint the best possible picture for the accused person. It does not mean that we should subject the witness to that sort of fear and almost abject terror. That really does need to be looked at. 3394 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

Sometimes it almost reaches the point of bullying that witness or that child witness. Some of the state's senior defence counsel—and even silks and QCs—are pretty daunting people. There is no doubt about that. But I am not convinced that we need to go through the process, which has been reported on, that has subjected child witnesses in particular to that sort of cross- examination to really get to the nub of establishing a fact. Therefore the amendments which are before us today do preserve that balance. We should be careful about not becoming overly hysterical when we are dealing with these particular matters when they go before the courts. Child sexual abuse is something that I am personally concerned about, as are all members of this parliament, but we have to ensure that we have a justice system which is about natural justice as well. It is true that most witnesses who go before a court tell the truth. Most victims of a crime tell the truth. However, from time to time, regardless of the nature of the alleged victim or the witness, some people do not tell the truth for whatever reason. That is why there is a court process that is designed to sort that out. This is to ensure that when a person is convicted that person has been convicted beyond reasonable doubt. I have no time whatsoever for paedophiles or for people who abuse children. They are human scum. When they are convicted, if properly convicted, the book should be thrown at them. However, we have to make sure that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person who has been convicted and sentenced is guilty of the offence of which they have been accused. This bill complements a bill which passed through this parliament earlier. That bill was the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. That bill introduced new penalties into the Criminal Code. It altered sentencing principles and enhanced the powers of the courts and corrections boards to require ongoing reporting of offenders. It was something which the opposition supported at the time, as the Attorney-General would remember. As I also understand it, this is the final part of that two-part reform process. The bill aims to ensure that a child should not, under most circumstances, have to give evidence more than once. Alternative measures are used where possible and trials should be resolved as quickly as possible. I would like to touch on the last point. It is very, very important to ensure that there is a quick and efficient process of justice when dealing with children who are victims of abuse or of a crime and the witnesses thereof. It is very difficult sometimes for some people to retain in their mind with clarity matters that they may have raised in allegations against somebody a couple of years earlier or whatever the case may be. In my capacity as shadow attorney-general I have had dealings with young people who have come before the justice system when they have been charged with an offence. The court process takes 12 or 18 months and they wonder to themselves, 'How is this really serious? How am I part of the justice system? If it is serious, why is it taking so long to get to a particular stage?' That is not to say that I am opposed to matters which have been allegedly committed against children some years ago or many decades ago being brought before the justice system. What I am saying is that once a matter has been raised, reported to police, investigated and handed on to prosecutors, then it needs to be appropriately and quickly dealt with by the court process. I believe the provisions in this bill deal with that. Amendments to the Evidence Act 1977 are designed to restrict the right of a defendant to require an affected child witness to attend and be cross-examined at the committal stage. Once again it is about trying to establish the fact and trying to ensure that only reasonable access to that child witness is given to the defendant. The new section of the Evidence Act 1977 creates a presumption in favour of pre-recording the evidence of an affected child witness. Where pre-recording has not occurred the mandatory use of audio visual links is available. Again this is an important provision which is about not overly traumatising that child witness. Nevertheless, it is about making sure that appropriate and proper evidence is available. It is about using technology to gather that evidence and present that evidence in a way that is useful to the court when it is deciding the case which is before it. That will be in the area of prerecording, as the section mentions, and also the mandatory use of audio visual links if available. The use of that technology will remove the child witness from the trauma which can be associated with being in that particular courtroom. The amendments also provide that once a committal has occurred and an indictment presented the child's evidence for trial can actually be taken and recorded well prior to the trial in a pretrial hearing. Once again it is an extension of the principle of trying to reduce the trauma on child witnesses. The prerecording of evidence will enable the defence to cross-examine the child 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3395 prior to the trial commencing and ensure that defendants are not unduly prejudiced by limits on the right to cross-examine at the committal process. I mentioned the importance of ensuring that the accused person has certain rights preserved. That is, we have to make sure that somebody cannot make an allegation and not have that allegation reasonably tested, because the consequence of somebody being tried and convicted is that their liberties are going to be significantly reduced. We know that. We have to make sure that the truth is ascertained. This particular aspect of the bill will ensure that the rights of that defendant or accused person are not going to be unduly prejudiced by any limitations of the right to cross-examine at committal. If members go to the Western Australian experience—and the Attorney-General might confirm this for the benefit of the House—it will be seen that the committal process involving children has been abolished. A matter virtually goes straight to trial. That is my understanding and I stand to be corrected by the Attorney-General if something different is the case. The bill provides that sensitive material—obscene or indecent images—is disclosed to the defence only under conditions to ensure that the privacy of the complainant is not compromised or under the specific direction of the court. Once again, they are relatively sensible provisions. There are also limits on the disclosure of witness contact details to the accused person, including addresses, to ensure that a witness can provide evidence to the prosecution without fear of retaliation. From time to time all of us, even in this place, are concerned about raising matters because of fear of retaliation, not only against oneself but also possibly against one's family, loved ones or friends. I believe that the capacity or clear thought processes of a witness are inhibited when they are concerned that information may be disclosed in such a way that might cause them to come under some degree of duress by the disclosure of that information. The provision in this bill gives witnesses the certainty that they require—the security, the peace of mind—to be able to provide their evidence in such a way that they do not feel that there may be retaliation against them at some future time. There has been crucial evidence in a range of cases and investigations in the past which may not have come forward because of the fear of retaliation that key witnesses have with regard to matters that have been raised or brought before criminal investigation authorities in this state and, no doubt, elsewhere. That is an important assurance which witnesses in this case do require. Pretrial directions or rulings may be appealed on a point of law to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General. At present, the prosecution has no remedy to challenge a pretrial ruling that results in a case being discontinued. Once again, that seems to me to be fairly well commonsense. An amendment of the Criminal Code creates an irrebuttable presumption that a child under the age of 12 cannot consent to sexual intercourse. This is to ensure that certain conduct can be charged as rape rather than the lesser charge of indecent dealing with a child. This is one issue which many people in the community raise with members of parliament—that is, a person charged with an offence that involves sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge with a child is not charged with rape but indecent dealing with a child. People ask, 'What is really the difference? Why do you charge them with what seems to be a lesser charge?', when quite frankly in a commonsense way it appears to the community to be rape. This ensures that that particular issue can be properly addressed and clears up what I believe is an inconsistency and something which falls short of the expectation of the community at large. It is probably true to say that children today are somewhat more worldly than they may have been 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago because of what they are being exposed to in terms of television, the Internet and the free dissemination of information, either written or otherwise. While there is little doubt that they are more worldly and more wise than they were years ago, I cannot come to grips with the fact that a child under the age of 12 can be considered to have consented to sexual intercourse. Regardless of the way that society changes, this bill is commonsense and basically says that in no case could a child under the age of 12 in any way have consented to sexual intercourse. That will address that community concern. The bill removes the marital communication privilege to ensure that marriage spouses can be compelled to give evidence about each other. In the past marriage spouses have been able to hide behind that particular privilege to stop them giving evidence about or against each other. This seeks to ensure that there can be some compulsion on a marriage spouse to provide evidence which is crucial to the prosecution and which is crucial to resolving the case before the 3396 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 court. In a modern world, most people would probably expect and understand that that is a reasonable expectation. Sure, relationships and married relationships which are a consequence of a contractual arrangement between a man and a woman are very special to people. There is no doubt about that. Many of us are in such a relationship. We know that there are certain things that happen within the sanctity of that particular union as to the way those people communicate with each other and all those sorts of things. Whilst it is unwritten, nevertheless it is a part of that married relationship between that couple. However, that should not mean that they are able to hide behind what could arguably be considered as an antiquated provision of the law to stop them providing evidence which may be crucial to a particular court case. As I also understand it, there was a consultation draft of this bill released to stakeholders and published on the Justice web site in November 2002, some 10 months ago. As I said, many of the provisions of the bill have come about as a result of the Queensland Law Reform Commission report, parts 1 and 2, which was released in 2000. This has been going on for a long time. It has been quite well considered by and consulted on with the various interest groups—those people who have an interest generally in this area. There are obviously going to be some cost implications with regard to the administration of these new provisions, but that is a justifiable consequence of passing good law. This is a pretty good bill. It preserves the arguable and justifiable rights of the defendant or the accused person and also the child witness to ensure that the very real evidence which they need to provide which is crucial to that case can be provided in such a way that that child witness is not going to be unduly intimidated or traumatised by the process. I would suspect that the balance of what we have here is a reasonable balance. I would be concerned about anything that would go too much further—anything that would seek to in any way curtail the rights of a defendant or accused person any more than what we have here. This tilts the balance in an appropriate and justifiable way towards child witnesses to ensure that they are not unduly traumatised or intimidated by the court process whilst preserving reasonable expectations of natural justice for defendants. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (12.06 p.m.): I support the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill, which amends the Criminal Code, the Evidence Act 1977 and other statutes. It essentially deals with and improves the treatment of child witnesses by the criminal justice system. Courts can be very cold and intimidating places, even for adults, and they are more so of course for children, especially children who may have gone through a trauma. This bill makes our courts more sensitive when dealing with those children who are either victims or witnesses. The reforms aim to ensure that a child should not have to give evidence on more than one occasion and that measures to reduce the stress when evidence is required should be taken wherever possible and that the trial should be resolved as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the reforms do not compromise the right of an accused to a fair trial, nor do they lower the high standard of proof required to gain a conviction. They recognise that a witness giving evidence in court, particularly a child witness, is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, as all witnesses should be. The bill has many facets which will be dealt with by other speakers, but I want to concentrate on one issue in this bill, and that is the doctrine of recent complaint. The bill will amend the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 in relation to the issue of recent complaint. Clause 40 will insert a new section 4A which abolishes the special rule relating to recent complaint evidence—that is, how, when and to whom the person first complained. The judge must also direct the jury that a recent complaint supports the evidence of the complainant as it is consistent with the conduct complained of and a delayed complaint is therefore more likely to be false. That was the assumption. The High Court assumed that a delay in a complaint by a person who has been sexually assaulted was inconsistent conduct and therefore that adversely affected the complainant's credibility. That rule is based on the expectation that a victim of a sexual offence can complain at the first opportunity. It assumes that as a matter of human experience victims of sexual assault will complain promptly of the assault. But the available evidence suggests that, especially in relation to child victims, for a variety of reasons an early complaint is not necessarily possible or to be expected. Many genuine victims will never make a formal complaint. In this regard, there is a variety of reasons why a formal complaint is not made or delayed. One reason that I have heard on more than one occasion from at least two victims is that they do not want to embarrass their parents by making a complaint and often they wait until the parents have died before they make a complaint. The fact that a complaint might be made 20 or 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3397

30 years later is not to say that it is not a genuine one; often it is just delayed out of consideration for other family members. The basic assumption behind the rule has been criticised by many eminent judges. Proposed section 4A makes two significant changes to the law. Firstly, it makes evidence of a complaint admissible in sexual offence cases regardless of when it was made. Secondly, it prohibits a judge from instructing a jury that the law regards the evidence of a complainant to be more or less reliable based only on the length of time between the commission of the offence and the making of the complaint. Mr Justice Thomas commented on the admissibility and relevance of complaint evidence. He stated— In my view it would assist any jury in a case involving a sexual complaint to know how and when any complaint about the conduct of the accused person first emerged. Evidence of this kind is pivotal to explaining how the complainant comes to be in the witness box and the accused in the dock. An assessment of the truth of the complaint can hardly be attempted without some knowledge of how it first saw the light of day. It is my view that evidence of first complaint should always be receivable in cases involving sexual misconduct as evidence which permits a better understanding of the story, irrespective of when it was made. To say that an early complaint is merely a bolster, or a later complaint a drawback to the complainant's credibility is an oversimplification. I believe that to be the case. The explanatory notes state— Section 4A also makes it clear that nothing in the provision derogates from the power of a court in a criminal proceeding to exclude evidence if it is satisfied that it would be unfair to admit the evidence, nor does it preclude the making of any other comment that is required by law or that it is appropriate to make in the circumstances of the case. The evidence of the complaint may be admitted regardless of when it is made. Also, a judge is not to warn or suggest to the jury that the law regards the evidence of a complaint to be more or less reliable based solely on the length of time between the alleged commission of the offence and the making of the complaint. I commend the minister and his hardworking departmental and ministerial staff on this important piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (12.13 p.m.): I rise to speak on one aspect of the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill. Clause 56 seeks to amend the Evidence Act in a major way that goes far beyond anything to do with the protection of children. We say in this place and elsewhere that marriage is sacrosanct. We pay lip-service to the institution of marriage. However, I see the abolition of what has been the law for centuries—namely, that a person cannot be compelled against his or her will to give evidence against his or her spouse—as a straightforward attack on the sanctity of marriage and the fact that marriages are supposed not to be dissoluble. Worse, in this case it is being done under the guise of an amendment to the law that seeks to protect children. It is dishonest to try to slip through a huge amendment to the whole law of evidence under the guise of something to protect children. Perhaps it may be possible to support an amendment to the Evidence Act abolishing the spousal privilege in the very limited case where it applies to the protection of children or evidence in cases involving children. Perhaps that would be supportable as a special case. It would be very easy for the Attorney-General to have said that this abolition applies only to that limited case and does not apply to other criminal cases. But he has not done that. I am astounded that the government has done this and has tried to slip it through in a bill dealing with the protection of children. It is a mammoth change to the criminal law and the Evidence Act of our state. When I first read this bill I thought that the abolition of spousal privilege applied only to the protection of children in cases involving children. I then looked at it further and was astounded. I thought I must have been misreading the provisions. I asked a few questions and a few members of parliament were of the same view: 'No, it would apply only to the protection of children.' Then when I asked at ministerial level—though not of the Attorney; I did not see him at that time—I was informed that, no, it was intended to be exactly the way it appears, a total abolition in all criminal cases of the privilege of one spouse not being compelled to give evidence against another. The only argument given for the total abolition of spousal privilege is that it does not apply to de facto cases. De facto situations are not marriages and they do not have that same sanctity that a marriage has. I am also concerned with the fact that this has retrospective application. Within the bond of marriage one spouse could well have two years ago said to the other spouse, 'I robbed a bank,' or, 'I held up a service station,' knowing full well that his or her spouse could not be compelled later on to give evidence because of the standing of the law at that time. Now, as I read these amendments, that is retrospectively abolished. A person who has incriminated himself or herself to a spouse two years ago on the basis of the law at that time could now find that that spouse could be compelled against his or her will to come forward and state the self-incrimination 3398 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 that was made within the bonds of marriage and in the knowledge that it could not be compelled. I believe that is very unfair and unjust. There are a lot of things in this bill that are good and supportable. However, on the basis of the change to the Evidence Act that will take away another recognition of the sanctity of marriage, I cannot support the bill at all. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.17 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to support the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill. It has been stated that in Australia one in five girls and one in 10 boys might be sexually abused in childhood. It has also been documented that in 90 per cent of cases of child sexual abuse the offender is known to the child. In today's world, where the Internet plays a large role in our young people's lives, the danger of sexual abuse can now be found lurking in cyberspace. Statistics indicate that 20 per cent of teens and preteens have received a sexual invitation over the Internet. As access to the Internet becomes more available, this figure will increase. For victims of child abuse and their families, facing the perpetrator and having to go through the justice system is quite daunting. This bill introduces a series of reforms that will improve the treatment of child witnesses. My electorate is home to the office of Bravehearts, an organisation that is committed to supporting victims of child sexual abuse. They have spoken to me about the trauma of substantiating a claim and then proceeding through the justice system. I am pleased that the Attorney-General has introduced reforms both through the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 and now this bill. These reforms aim to alleviate a lot of the trauma experienced by the victim in the criminal justice system. The bill identifies that a child should not have to give evidence more than once. Special measures have been introduced for affected children. Affected children are children under 16 who are witnesses in proceedings related to sexual or violent offences as well as witnesses aged 16 and 17 years who also satisfy the test for special witnesses in section 21A of the Evidence Act 1977. A special witness is defined in section 21A as a person who, if required to give evidence the usual way, would as a result of a mental, intellectual or physical impairment or a relevant matter be likely to be disadvantaged as a witness or would be likely to suffer severe emotional trauma or would likely to be so intimidated as to be disadvantaged as a witness. The special measures include presumption in favour of prerecording evidence, the mandatory use of closed circuit television where available or screens where it is not the entitlement to a support person in court while a child gives evidence, and the exclusion of all but certain specified persons. They can include their representatives, court staff and support person for the witness. All other people can be excluded from the court while a child gives evidence and there are restrictions on cross- examination in committals. Another major reform of this bill is the changes to the recent complaint rule. It has been well documented and researched that, in the case of sexual offences, often the victim delays reporting the complaint. Certainly the organisations in my electorate have raised this with me. They have told me how difficult it is and have talked about the trauma associated with reporting the incident. I know that the member for Southport outlined the reasons a lot of people do not report offences early. I am certainly very pleased to see this in the bill. Now the court cannot suggest that the law regards a complainant to be more or less reliable based solely on the timing of the complaint without consideration of the facts of the particular case. Other measures that apply to children concern new division 1B, which sets out the principles to be applied when a court is dealing with a child witness. I welcome the discretionary power given to the court to limit the questioning of a special witness by time or the number of questions asked on a given issue. It is important that child victims and witnesses are placed in an environment that does allow them to participate in the judicial process in a way that protects them and does not alienate them. Child protection is a high priority for the Beattie Labor government. The introduction of the blue card system is only one example that bears testament to this. This bill strengthens the blue card system by allowing the Police Commissioner to inform the Commissioner for Children and Young People when a person the police reasonably suspect holds a positive suitability notice is charged with a criminal offence. This does not change the existing obligation of employees working in regulated employment to inform their employer of any change of their criminal history. I am pleased to see the removal of the marital communications privilege which ensured married spouses could not be compelled to give evidence about each other. I am pleased to see 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3399 this because this privilege will remove a real concern that abusive spouses have been able to pressure their spouse into withholding evidence. I think that is a very important point to be raised when looking at that part of the bill. There are many other amendments that certainly give greater rights for victims of crime and improve the processes of the criminal justice system. However, due to the time it would take to speak on them I will not. I congratulate the Attorney-General on the work being done to ensure child sex offenders are detected and appropriately punished for their crimes while achieving a fair balance in improving the way the criminal justice system treats child witnesses. We must remember that these children are accusing adults of sexual crimes. I do not care what age a person is; this would be very traumatic. For a child it must be even more traumatic. These legislative reforms will prevent more trauma to the child by improving the justice system for them to be a child witness. I take this opportunity to thank Megan Dixon for the hard work she has done. Whenever I ring or someone from my office rings Megan she is always there and available to answer my and my staff members' questions. I really appreciate that. She is brilliant; she is great. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (12.23 p.m.): I join with the opposition in supporting the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. I believe in the fundamental objectives of the bill. I believe it provides for changes to the procedures for giving of evidence by children and that those fundamentals will create an environment through legislation that is supportive of child victims of sexual and physical abuse. Quite obviously, I believe it is essential that the criminal justice system operates in a way that does not alienate child victims from a judicial process through which they have a right to seek redress. I have just finished reading Bryce Courtenay's book entitled Matthew Flinders' Cat, which I think is one of his recent books. It has taken me quite a few months because usually I read Bryce Courtenay when I travel, but I have only finished it in the last couple of weeks. I think the Attorney-General should read Bryce Courtenay's book if he has not read it. He should have a look at the section which specifically refers to Queensland in a very derogatory manner. The basis of the book is that a QC who becomes a derelict on the streets of Sydney obviously becomes friends with a young child who is a street kid. The young child gets himself into trouble. Then the reference to what happens in a children's court and the specific reference to Queensland is extremely derogatory. Anyone who reads the book would have a very bad opinion of Queensland's legal system for young children. Mr Poole: You started that book 18 months ago. Mr LINGARD: I told you I read when I travel. It is probably the one I was reading when travelling with the member opposite. I think when the Attorney-General reads it a comment or letter to Bryce Courtenay referring to this particular legislation would be appropriate. I would hate to see that comment again referred to by Bryce Courtenay. It is extremely derogatory to Queensland's legal system. I obviously agree that the 10 acts—they include the Bail Act, the Childrens Court Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the Evidence Act and the Justices Act—should be amended. The intent of the legislation is to encourage more children who are victims of sexual and physical abuse to come forward. We would obviously agree with that. I refer again to the book that I have been reading. I believe that if any child had the thoughts that are outlined by Bryce Courtenay then quite obviously one would understand why children do not come forward when they have had something happen to them. Hopefully, it will completely change the environment for children in the Queensland criminal justice system. Hopefully, it will make our courts more sensitive when dealing with children who are victims or witnesses and ensure the legal process does not add to their stress and suffering. Obviously, if it does limit the trauma and stress for a child appearing in court hopefully it will improve the reliability of evidence and the intentions of young children to come forward. I agree with the prerecording of all evidence at a preliminary hearing unless the court orders otherwise. I support the mandatory use of CCTV or screens, the entitlement to have a support person in court seated nearby and within sight, the mandatory exclusion of all but certain persons from the court when the child is giving evidence about a sexual offence, the restrictions on the right to call a child as a witness at committal hearings and the restrictions on the type of questioning that can be conducted if a child is a witness at a committal hearing. 3400 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

This legislation involves abolishing the recent complaint rule which required judges to direct juries to question the credibility of a complainant who did not immediately report abuse. I refer again to the book by Bryce Courtenay. To think that what he says can happen in Queensland courts is objectionable. I note the comments of the member for Surfers Paradise about husband and wife evidence. However, in child abuse cases I would have no concerns about removing the right of a husband or wife to refuse to give evidence against their spouse. I believe in enshrining for the first time in statute the obligation of the prosecution to disclose their case to the defence and also amending the Criminal Code to include a presumption that a child under the age of 12 does not have the capacity to consent to sexual acts. I note that measures such as court design, witness support, guidelines for interviewing and counselling protocols will be considered. I support the Attorney-General in any intention he has to improve whatever we can for young children who find themselves in this sort of situation. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.28 p.m.): The Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003 amends, among other statutes, the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act 1977. The first stage of the Beattie government's reforms to improve the treatment of child witnesses by the criminal justice system was the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act. This bill represents the second stage. This bill essentially implements significant recommendations made in reports by the Queensland Law Reform Commission, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on providing evidence from vulnerable children about sexual and physical crimes against them. About nine drafts of this bill were released to various government and non-government agencies, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Families, the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, the Commission for Children and Young People, Education Queensland and Queensland Health. As a result of the submissions received on the various drafts, further drafts of the bill, or excerpts of it, were provided to the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Bar Association of Queensland, Legal Aid Queensland, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Queensland Police Service for comment. The extensive consultation and desire to protect our children are evident in the final product. The predicament of children who are victims of sexual and physical abuse is an important issue of concern to all Queenslanders. They often put up with abuse for years, and some believe that it is their own fault for being bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. No-one has the right to force themselves on another, and this is particularly so in the case of minors, people with a disability and those who are intellectually impaired. The real and undefinable costs of this despicable abuse to the victim and to our community are significant. It cannot be swept under the carpet nor dismissed as something that was acceptable at the time. In order to protect our community, it is vital that perpetrators of child sexual and physical abuse are brought to justice by our criminal justice system. This can occur only if children report the abuse and participate in the court process. Can members imagine what the world would be like if the paedophilia that existed 20, 30 or 40 years ago was reported then? It was not reported because children did not feel safe in reporting it, and look at the mess it has made of so many of their lives. If children do not feel safe and supported by our criminal justice system, they will not participate in these processes and there is a very real risk that alleged offenders or perpetrators will not be brought before the courts for their actions. The criminal justice system's treatment of child witnesses, particularly child victims of sexual assault, will be improved by this bill. The Project Axis inquiry found that about 50 per cent of the victims of child sexual abuse never report the abuse. Less than one-fifth of those who report to police at all do so within a month of the incident, and many will not disclose information about the incident until they reach adulthood. Children who are the victims of abuse from family members or other trusted adults are even less likely than adults to complain at the first reasonable opportunity. It is therefore of vital importance that children are treated with dignity, respect, care and humanity by our criminal justice system so that they will report abuse and participate as witnesses in the court process. I have been told that some children's experiences in the criminal justice system deter them from making further reports of sexual or other abuse. These amendments are designed to meet specific objectives, and I believe that they do it well. The objectives are: that a child should not have to give evidence more than once; to 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3401 preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the integrity of the evidence of a child witness; that measures to reduce stress when evidence is required should be used where possible; to limit, to the greatest extent possible, the distress or trauma experienced by a child witness as a result of giving evidence; to ensure that in a criminal matter an accused person receives a fair trial; and that trials should be resolved as quickly as possible. These reforms do not compromise the right of an accused to a fair trial, nor do they diminish the high standard of proof required to secure a conviction. These reforms recognise that any witness giving evidence in court, but particularly a child witness, is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. The mandatory use of audiovisual links is catered for through the use of CCTV and prerecording the evidence. This is seen to be fair to both the accused and the witness. The real advantage is that some child abuse cases proceed that might not otherwise proceed and distress to the witness is minimised. The amendments provide that once a committal has occurred and an indictment is presented, the child's evidence can actually be taken and recorded well prior to the trial in a pretrial hearing. The prerecorded tape of the evidence from the preliminary hearing is used at the trial before the jury so that, ordinarily, the child need not appear in the court for the trial. If a child is traumatised by cross-examination at committal, he or she may refuse to testify at trial or the prosecution may discontinue in the interests of the child's emotional wellbeing. Perpetrators therefore evade justice, not through legitimate issues relating to the child's evidence but through the intimidation of that child. The bill also recognises that in some cases it may be necessary in the interests of justice to permit cross-examination at the committal. These proposed reforms will ensure that flawed prosecutions are discarded at an early stage and also will reduce unnecessary delays in the criminal justice process and reduce the trauma to vulnerable witnesses. The bill also makes a range of procedural changes to the criminal justice processes to ensure the efficient and effective operation of trials and appeals. This bill is part of a comprehensive reform package directed at improving the way the criminal justice system treats child witnesses and ensuring that those who offend against children are detected and punished for their crimes. It is a significant initiative that delivers on one of this government's priorities of looking after our children. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (12.34 p.m.): At the outset I congratulate the Attorney- General on bringing the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003 to the Queensland parliament. I believe that this is a courageous, gutsy effort that shows that this Attorney-General is committed to doing something about bringing the scum of society to justice and about protecting our children by allowing them to volunteer that information through the court process. I heard what the member for Southport said earlier. I know that he is a professional lawyer, and it is always interesting to hear the different perspectives of members of this House when they address issues such as this, especially those who have professional qualifications. The real problem of many of our children is the fear that they will be branded as an outcast because of the fact that their innocence was taken from them by some low-life scum who has no respect for themselves let alone the most precious resource we have—our children. The minister in his second reading speech addressed the issue of court hearings. He said— The reforms aim to ensure: that a child should not have to give evidence more than once; that measures to reduce stress when evidence is required should be used where possible; and that trials should be resolved as quickly as possible. Today, with modern technology, prerecordings can be made. I believe that we have to make the court process as comfortable as possible for children so that they can give evidence in a very private and friendly environment. What is most important is that they are able to volunteer in the court process what they have been subjected to, because it is evidence against a perpetrator. More importantly, we have to remember that these children have been scarred with the worst scars. As I have said before, I believe the worst crimes against humanity are crimes against children and the rape of women. Regardless of where in the world it occurs or who is involved, those people are scarred for life. A person who is murdered knows nothing more about it, but the people I refer to carry those scars. 3402 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

This legislation will enable police to attain a better clear-up rate of this type of crime in our society. If children can come forward and tell their mum or dad, a teacher or a friend what has happened to them, the police will attain a better clear-up rate through the justice system. As the member for Southport said, some people are coming forward 20 and 30 years later. Those people have never enjoyed a happy relationship like many of us have. They have never been able to have children of their own because of the scars that have been given to them by the scum of society. At the same time, if we can get children into the court process and they are given some sort of love, care and protection, as well as proper counselling, many of them can go on and have a happy and enjoyable life. I think one of the most important things the Attorney-General has embarked on is addressing this ugly situation within our society. I do not say it lightly, but I think the next thing he has to embark on is addressing the penalties that this element of our society receives for this crime against the most vulnerable section of our society—our children. Regardless of whose kids they are, those kids are our responsibility. My children have grown up. I have three grandchildren—soon to be four. I do not care whose kids they are; they are our responsibility. If something happened to one of my grandchildren or one of my children, I do not think there would be anyone in this country who could hold me back, and I think that applies to a lot of people. One thing I would like to do is take a blunt pocketknife to some of these blokes who think this way, who subject our kids to this terrible trauma and wreck their lives. In supporting this piece of legislation, I congratulate the Attorney-General because I believe this is one step in putting these people on notice that enough is enough. We are not going to wear it anymore. I heard the member for Springwood make mention today in the House of Bravehearts. Bravehearts is an organisation that is bringing some of these issues out into the open. We have to take notice of what some of these people are saying. There are people volunteering information to various organisations such as Bravehearts, justice organisations within our community, the police, a friend, a loved one or somebody close, mum or dad or the teacher at school. We have to do what the Attorney-General has done: make absolutely certain that we have enveloped all the ideas so we can embody them in legislation and make absolutely certain that we can protect this most important part of our society—our children. It gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! Before I call the honourable member for Nudgee, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of ex-federal minister Susan Ryan. Welcome. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (12.41 p.m.): I am pleased to follow on from the member for Gregory, who so passionately made a number of important points about the need to defend and protect children in the community. The opening paragraph of the Parliamentary Library's research brief on this issue really drove home to me the necessity of this legislation. It referred to a study which found that only 44 per cent of child sexual complainants in Queensland said that they would ever report abuse again. That statistic alone is one of great concern and in my mind underpins the very real need for legislation of this nature. If such a large proportion of child sexual complainants would not be prepared to raise such issues again, we have a situation where the perpetrators will continue to get away with this abhorrent crime. In a sense, that situation undermines one of the fundamental elements of our justice system, and that is that we need to provide a system or an environment, particularly for children, in which they can provide full and frank evidence which enables the truth of matters to be determined. Additionally, we need to provide a system which protects the integrity of the evidence that is placed before judges and juries. I believe that the proposals outlined in this legislation—as I believe all speakers to date are saying—will go a long way towards achieving those objectives. Another significant factor which further underpins the need for legislation of this type is research which shows that one of the worst fears of child witnesses is being watched by an accused during a court proceeding. The principal aim of this bill, therefore, is to reduce the trauma or the potential for trauma of child witnesses who may be victims of serious offences, particularly child sexual offences or sexual abuse. The reforms arise out of recommendations from a number of bodies—the Queensland Law Reform Commission, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—and they are the second phase of reforms introduced by this government to protect vulnerable witnesses. This bill, in particular, focuses on making the courtroom environment more child friendly but does so in a way which, importantly, does not compromise the rights of an accused to a fair hearing. 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3403

As I have indicated, the bill builds on some recent amendments to the Evidence Act, which sought to protect children from being cross-examined by an unrepresented accused and also from inappropriately aggressive cross-examination. It has been suggested that the accuracy and effectiveness of the evidence given by children often depends upon skilled interviewing and appropriate questioning. That is in stark contrast to some of the examples we have heard in recent times about the quite aggressive questioning of some child witnesses in some cases. The bill sets out a number of provisions which aim to create an environment which facilitates this—that is, the creation of an environment which enables skilled interviewing and appropriate questioning to predominate by a number of means. For instance, generally children will not have to give evidence on more than one occasion. Trials involving children are intended to be resolved expeditiously, and alternative measures for taking evidence from children will be used where possible. As the minister said in his second reading speech, these reforms will completely change the environment for children in the Queensland criminal justice system. One of the crucial steps in our justice system is the committal stage of a proceeding. It is at this stage that children will be given special protection after the passage of this bill. A child will generally give his or her evidence in writing or via a prerecorded statement, and cross-examination at the committal hearing will be allowed only in special circumstances and under strict conditions. If a magistrate is satisfied that cross-examination is appropriate, then further controls will be put in place to protect the child. For instance, repetitive and intimidating cross-examination will be prohibited and a barrister will not be able to pursue what are commonly referred to as 'fishing expeditions'. There is no limitation to the right to cross-examine a child should the matter proceed to a trial. Part 10 of this bill provides some special provisions for child witnesses. There will be a set of principles for dealing with child witnesses which will be included in the act. Under section 21A of the current Evidence Act, a court has the discretion to make orders concerning the giving of evidence by what are referred to as special witnesses, and that can extend to the clearing of a courtroom while a child is giving evidence or that the evidence be videotaped instead of being in the form of direct testimony. A proposal under this bill is to extend the definition of 'special witnesses' to cover a child under 16. Previously, the act provided that that applied only to children under the age of 12. Another provision will relate to what is referred to as an 'affected child'. This has been referred to by other speakers, but essentially child witnesses and certain other young persons can be deemed to be an affected child, which in the first instance will mean that their evidence will be prerecorded. Affected child status will include situations where the offence is of a sexual nature and violence where there is a family relationship between the child and the accused. Again, these provisions are directly targeted at reducing the trauma or the potential for trauma of child witnesses. There have been a number of other provisions in this bill outlined by other speakers, but I think all members in this House agree that this makes some very sensible and practical changes to the environment in which children will be required to give evidence. It is there to protect their interests and also to ensure that accused persons get a fair trial. It will make the court system more sensitive to their needs and reduce the amount of stress and trauma that they are facing. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (12.49 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003, which will change the way applications are made for restraining orders without notice. It will also change the definition of 'disqualifying term of imprisonment'. It has been suggested that this will be achieved in a number of ways, but it is the Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act and the amendments in committee to which I now turn. Townsville is one of the fortunate places to have a drug court pilot program at the Magistrate's Court. The eligibility of participants under the amendment will be widened by defining a 'disqualifying term of imprisonment' as a single term of imprisonment of more than one year. The court diversion program is a responsible social strategy that is used to keep people with a drug dependency out of prison. As a former teacher and counsellor, I saw first-hand how easy it can be for those caught up in drug addiction to gradually fall into a life of crime to feed their dependency. This diversion program is interventionist and targeted to those caught early in their spiral. The programs have the potential to improve the overall social and emotional wellbeing of participants, 3404 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 dramatically reducing recidivist criminal behaviour. I am a great believer in prevention and early intervention. Measures to reduce criminal activity directly related to drug dependency must be applauded. There are many reasons people fall into habitforming behaviours like drug taking, but no-one taking part in these risktaking activities can ever imagine the horrors associated with it when it is too late. I have seen lives shattered and families trying to grapple with a loved one caught in the grip of drug addiction. The tension, disappointment and fear is only one part of this horrifying experience. To watch one's child sink to levels of degradation, ill health and psychotic behaviour, coupled with lying and theft from family, is something no parent ever wants to experience. Practising tough love is not always as easy as it sounds. There is always the fear that applying logical consequences to certain behaviours could result in death and most parents would rather not face that. The drug court diversion program saved my friend's daughter from a life of crime and certain death. This girl did not come from a dysfunctional family and had not been sexually or physically abused. In fact, she had very supportive parents and had not been exposed to lies, deceit, theft, prostitution, et cetera. On top of that she was beautiful. But drug addiction does not single out just the most vulnerable. This young woman fell to the depths of depravity and was inches away from prostitution. Her short crime spree to feed her heroin habit put both herself and her family in a constant state of despair. She is one of the lucky ones who did not go to prison. Her life was turned around by the drug court diversion program. To say that she was lucky is an understatement, but because of this government's social policies it is programs like these that not only prevent further crime but also save lives. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (12.52 p.m.): I thought dinosaurs were extinct. That was until I heard the contribution offered by the member for Surfers Paradise this morning in this chamber. The member for Surfers Paradise spoke about the sanctity of marriage and how some aspects of this bill before the House undercut or undermine the sanctity of marriage. What a perverse, twisted interpretation of this bill. Speaking from my own experience, I did not marry to get protection from criminal offences; I married for love. I wonder what twisted perversion of marriage the member for Surfers Paradise has in mind. Why should a person who commits a criminal offence be protected because they are married to someone? I cannot begin to understand the archaic, dinosaur attitude that the member for Surfers Paradise has in this place. I would also like to point out that if the member for Surfers Paradise spent more than a few minutes in this chamber he would know that it is completely inappropriate to talk about specific clauses in the second reading debate and that the appropriate time for that is during the committee stage. So not only has he shown that he is a dinosaur but also he has shown his ignorance of the accepted practices and standards of this House. I would like to say that being a witness in a court hearing is stressful for witnesses of any age. Having been a police officer for 13 years, having appeared in court on many occasions and having worked with witnesses and supported witnesses through many, many court hearings, I know from personal experience that appearing in a court is stressful for police, it is stressful for adult civilians, it is stressful for adult expert witnesses and it is certainly stressful for child witnesses. This bill is about decreasing that stress. It is important to understand that we will never eliminate the stress of giving evidence in court, but this bill is about minimising the stress placed on child witnesses. Is this bill about trying to get quick and easy convictions? No! It is about protecting child witnesses' rights and their welfare. Other members have spoken in detail about the specific aspects of this bill and their impact on the court process, so I do not intend to repeat that. However, it is important to acknowledge that this bill will go a significant way towards making it easier for witnesses to give evidence. That is all it seeks to do. It does not undermine the ability of the defence to run a defence or to adequately defend their client. This bill is only about decreasing stress on child witnesses. I would like to compliment the Attorney-General on bringing this great piece of legislation before the House and I would like to thank his department and departmental officers. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (12.56 p.m.): We all agree that sexual abuse of a child is the most abhorrent of crimes. In my opinion it is unforgivable. On occasions these rock spiders are unrepentant and some will never be properly rehabilitated. The Beattie state government has 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3405 responded to the growing community concerns about these horrific crimes and has begun a major overhaul of Queensland's laws against child sex offenders. This bill before us deals with the way the criminal justice system treats children in the legal process, which can often be described as harrowing to say the least. This bill will make our courts more sensitive when dealing with children who are victims or witnesses to ensure that the legal process does not add to their stress or suffering. At the same time, by limiting the trauma and the stress for a child appearing in court we will improve the reliability of evidence. We all must recognise that a witness giving evidence in court, particularly a child witness, is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Less than three years ago I was required to appear in court to give evidence in a land resumption appeal proceeding. While I had nothing to hide, and the judge reported just that, I did find it a very daunting process. We must acknowledge that, yes, anyone who has been accused of committing a crime has a right under our democracy to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. Although the accused has the right to proper legal representation, I strongly support the right of the victim. I mentioned previously that the low-life and scum who harm our children often have no remorse. They have no guilt. They do not believe that what they have done is wrong. Once they have been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, if they cannot understand how a proper society acts and has judged them: why should we segregate them within our prison system? If the scum of the world who destroy the innocence of the young deny that they require rehabilitation, we cannot rehabilitate them. Like an alcoholic or a drug addict, the individual must recognise their weakness, their sickness. The cyclic repetitiveness of child sexual abuse can be broken by someone wanting rehabilitation. It can also be broken by chemical castration. One member suggested castration by a blunt pocketknife. I do not agree. I believe that if any of these compulsive repetitive paedophiles do not accept the judgment of our civilised community once incarcerated, they should not be protected from others serving at Her Majesty's pleasure. The bill also gives rights to the victims of crime. The bill allows a judge in a criminal proceeding conducted in the Children's Court the power to permit persons with proper interest in the matter, that is victims of crime, to be present provided that the child's interest is not prejudiced. That provision is contained in section 20(2)(d) of the Childrens Court Act 1992. The bill makes a range of procedural changes to criminal justice processes to ensure the effective operation of trials and appeals. I commend the minister, the cabinet and the Beattie government by commending this bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.30 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill and to congratulate the Attorney-General for the introduction of the measures included in this legislation. It has been recognised over a number of years the detrimental effect that court appearances have on children who have been traumatised by child abuse. It has also been established that the court process can, at times, be a greater trauma for the child to endure than the offence, particularly where the offence was committed when the child was relatively young. I also commend the Parliamentary Library for its research brief on taking children's evidence using technology in relation to this bill. It certainly presented a number of issues and perspectives that helped greatly to understand the broader impacts of giving evidence and, more particularly, the options that are available to reduce the trauma that is involved. That document—and I know that a number of members have already quoted from it—states— A number of studies have found that the design of courtrooms to enable the accused to see a witness clearly (a corollary of the traditional principle that an accused should usually be able to confront and challenge witnesses against them), can have a negative effect on a child witness, particularly those already traumatised by alleged physical or sexual abuse from the accused person. Evidence shows that the worst fear of child witnesses testifying in court is that of being watched by the accused. ... The very presence of the accused may bring back bad memories or act as an implied threat. Sometimes the intimidating behaviour can be overt, in the form of a habitual cough or other, sometimes deliberate, distraction. The impact of those unspoken triggers indicates the value of the alternative witness recording options that this bill will introduce. Previously, there was the option for courts to allow a child witness to have their testimony recorded and for there to be a blind or other such means established so that there was no visual contact between the child witness and the accused 3406 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 person. There has been a dearth of incidents where that opportunity was not agreed to by either the prosecution or the judge of the day and therefore it has become necessary for this parliament to recognise the importance of implementing some of those recording options—those options of separation—in a mandatory fashion. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the definition of a child witness and the principles that would apply when dealing with a child witness in a proceeding. The bill states that the child is to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion and measures should be taken to limit, to the greatest practical extent, the distress or trauma suffered by the child when giving evidence. Again, I commend the minister for that recognition in the bill. Nowhere in the legislation does it say that the child should be given any additional opportunities not to be forthright and not to tell the truth. There is no intention in any of this legislation to allow for any less than fair treatment of the accused person, but the bill does allow for fair, equitable and compassionate treatment of those children under the age of 12 who are giving evidence in a trial. I also welcome the changes to the evidence of the complaint generally admissible. There are many reasons a person does not disclose incidents, whether they occurred in their young childhood or up to 12 years of age. The member for Southport commented on a number of those very accurately in that people in their adult years who have disclosed incidents from their very young days have said that they did not want to bring embarrassment or shame to their family. There were also other fears of the family taking the law into their own hands, because parents speak very strongly against perpetrators who harm their children. It is not uncommon to hear parents whose children have been harmed in the broadest range of ways—whether it is kidnapping, abuse, pornography, paedophilia or whatever—say, particularly fathers, 'If I could get my hands on them, I'd kill them.' Whilst it is wrong and we do not condone the actual action, I am very pleased to hear the strength of that parental feeling in parents. A lack of caring would be a tragedy in our society. The bill allows for a broad range of options as to the manner in which evidence may be received from a child. It does not limit it to any one method, and that is also to be welcomed. Different children at various ages, both chronological age and mental maturity, are able to manage different recording types. Different recording types are available in different venues. Also, the type and the graphic nature of the evidence may mean that certain types of recording are more appropriate. The bill is broad in its capture of the opportunities that are available to those involved in the judicial system to ensure that all matters that the witness should be asked to cover in terms of the allegations and the charges that are laid are able to be addressed and that the accused person, to the extent that they are going to feel that they are being dealt with fairly, can know that those options are available which will at least allow for that evidence to be collected in as expansive a manner as is possible. The bill also deals with witnesses in a criminal proceeding, and I acknowledge the comments of the member for Surfers Paradise. He spoke very passionately about his views. He stated that the removal of the inability to compel a husband or wife to give evidence against each other is something that he does not support in the broad criminal proceedings agenda. However, he did make an exception to that. Where it involves child sex offences or child offences, I believe his words were that he would be able to accept that. The issue of the broad criminal agenda is something that is a debate for another place. It is in this legislation, and on that basis I have no problem with its breadth. However, I have a question for the Attorney-General in terms of its application. This legislation talks about the compellability of a husband or wife of an accused person in criminal proceedings. Once this bill is passed, they will be competent and compellable to give evidence in a proceeding in any court, either for the prosecution or for the defence, and without the consent of the accused. In many instances, I have not supported the recognition of de facto relationships. However, a significant quantity of Queensland legislation recognises de facto relationships as para-marital relationships. I query whether the compellability will extend also to de facto relationships. I reiterate that in many instances I have not supported the recognition of de facto relationships. However, in respect of child abuse the capture has to be as broad as possible, because in many instances abuse occurs in de facto relationships. It may be that the current law applies only to husband and wife relationships. The minister is indicating that that is the reason. However, there is a litany of examples where a child to one parent becomes part of a blended family in a de facto relationship and that child is subsequently abused either by the non-paternal 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3407 father or the non-maternal mother in that relationship, and there is plenty of evidence to show that. It is incredibly important that all people involved in a relationship who may be witnesses to the abuse of a child are compelled to give evidence in that case and compelled by the laws of evidence to tell the truth. I commend also the clauses regarding unauthorised possession of or dealing with recordings in relation to evidence given by children. I can remember, but I do not remember the time frame and I have not looked it up, that we went through changes to law in regard to a prisoner's ability to access trial evidence under FOI because there were prisoners who were accessing information for two reasons. They were accessing information in order to apply pressure on people involved in the court case. The second reason, in particular in relation to paedophilia and child sex offences, they were accessing trial transcripts and other information was that those perpetrators got their jollies out of reading about the discomfort of their victims or reading about the events that occurred at their hands. I commend at least this constraint in the legislation—that a person who without authority has a recording in his or her possession, supplies or offers to supply a recording to any person, plays, copies or erases a recording or permits a person to play, copy or erase a recording, will be committing an offence. I would have probably set the penalties higher, but I commend the minister for acknowledging the fact that those will be offences, because that can traumatise the victim again. The amendment to section 349, recognising that a child under the age of 12 is incapable of giving consent in the instance of rape, is one which I would have hoped in our community was self-evident. We understand that children are becoming small adults at a younger age. In many instances that is a negative, not a positive. It is not that they are physically maturing sooner; they are being exposed to adult entertainment, issues and conversations from a much younger age. However, that does not alter the fact that they are children. The implications of consenting to a sexual relationship at the age of 12 or under cannot be understood by children. It is the responsibility of the adult to exercise restraint, accountability and some sense of maturity and take responsibility for their actions in terms of engaging in a physical relationship with a child under the age of 12. A significant amount of attention is given to disclosure obligations. I read the supporting information and the reasons for it and some of the case law attached to that explanation. I wish to put on the record, though, that for victims of these sorts of crimes the knowledge that the perpetrator has access to all of the information, including their witness statements, and in some instances victim impact statements, can have another traumatising effect on that victim through their knowledge that, from the victim's words, the perpetrator is able to read and reread the evidence from the victim's perspective. The level of discomfort of a victim would probably depend on how detailed that evidence is. I do not think there is an easy solution to that. I just wanted to put on the record that with full disclosure there comes a price, and that price is not paid by the perpetrator; it is paid by the victim. The last point that I wanted to speak on concerns the notice of change in a criminal history. I commend the minister for this. Over a number of parliaments, more and more protections for children have been put in place, and these are welcome. The blue card was brought in by I think the previous families minister, and the current minister is continuing the checking of people who have regular contact with children in terms of their suitability based on their criminal history. I welcome the change in this legislation that where the Commissioner of Police reasonably suspects that a person who is charged with an offence is a person mentioned in the section—that is, in terms of their suitability for contact with children—the Police Commissioner may notify the Commissioner for Children and Young People about the person's criminal history. My only comment is: why was this not made an obligatory notification, that is, that the Police Commissioner must notify the Commissioner for Children and Young People about the change in the person's criminal history? That would close a loophole not necessarily of overt intention but of omission on the part of the Police Commissioner, in terms of having the time to fully understand the implications of a person's changed criminal history. Or the Police Commissioner may not be fully up to date with what the person who has had charges laid against them is currently involved in. Therefore, I query why the Police Commissioner, where any person is charged with assaults or offences against children, should not have a mandatory requirement to notify the children's commissioner about the person's criminal history change. I am sure that in future there will be many more opportunities to increase security and protection for children. Given the atmosphere and the attitudes of members of parliament on both sides, I believe those opportunities will be taken. I again commend the Attorney-General for the 3408 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 changes brought in by this legislation. I believe it will afford a great deal of protection for children who are the unfortunate victims of perpetrators. I commend the bill. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (2.48 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill. In simple terms, the bill deals with the way the criminal justice system treats child witnesses. It is based on a report by the Queensland Law Reform Commission and its recommendations. The Attorney went through a long process of consultation with youth advocates, the judiciary and legal professionals. I commend the Attorney-General for the amendments before the House today. Simply put, this introduces practical changes to the ways in which a child gives evidence as well as amends the laws of evidence and the trial process. It looks at the whole picture of what happens when children, particularly those who have been abused, have to appear before a court. The issue of sensitivity is very clear. One of the bill's goals is to not add to the child victim's distress or suffering. It is important not only to limit the trauma and distress of a child's court appearance but also to improve the reliability of evidence that is given by those children. I think the bill meets this goal quite broadly. I am pleased to follow the member for Gladstone in this debate. Usually she goes through legislation with a critical eye. She had nothing but commendation for this legislation. I would like to divert very briefly and say that this week is Child Protection Week. This bill is one of the many actions of the Beattie government that reaffirms its commitment to the protection of Queensland children. For example, it follows the fact that the Beattie government brought on the Forde inquiry to investigate what was happening in institutions to make sure that we do not have again what happened in the past when child abuse and neglect occurred and when the cover-ups were widespread. We found extra money following the Forde inquiry. In the budget previous to this one we found $188 million to ensure that we improved our capacity to deal with child protection. I have been incensed by some of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition has made in the media recently. The Families Minister just announced a number of changes, including to the process of reviewing cases of abuse, and also announced additional money for SCAN coordinators. All he could say was that it was only catch-up. I say to the Leader of the Opposition—and I hope that he reads the Hansard—that this Beattie government has been in a situation of catch-up from day one. In the days when the National Party was in government I remember sitting in this House as the shadow minister for families and a report was presented by the then Director of Children Services, Graham Zerk, who said that the Bjelke-Petersen government did not have the resources to meet its statutory obligation to protect children and that it was grossly underresourced. It could not meet those obligations. Yet now we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that what the Beattie government is doing now is simply catch-up; it is disgraceful the way we play a role here. It is a similar situation in relation to the so-called gurus who sit in the press gallery who gave Judy Spence a negative rating as a minister when she was trying to do something positive. Where were they when I was in opposition and I was saying in the parliament week after week that it was disgraceful? There were child protection workers with case loads of up to 140. The child protection workers lived with such stressful situations that they could not manage it and they would get burnt out and leave. Another one would then come in and rediscover the wheel. This is the environment we are talking about. This is the environment that the CMC ought to be looking at in our society—the environment of sheer neglect. Governments have a responsibility and a statutory obligation to protect children when their parents cannot or will not. We have a statutory obligation to stop the neglect and abuse of our children when their parents do not take responsibility or refuse to take it. Graham Zerk was sacked when he told the parliament the truth in the eighties. So let us not have pious comments from those opposite. This is the second piece of legislation from the Attorney-General, but more needs to be done. There is no magic wand. Processes are being put in place, not just money. We are undertaking work on every part of the equation. We are introducing the legislation, we are finding the resources and we are trying to put the processes in place so that we do meet our statutory obligation to our children. I join with the member for Gladstone in lauding this legislation and commending the Attorney-General. It is a piece of legislation that is typical of this Attorney-General. It is par excellence. It is long overdue, but it hits all the right spots. I am pleased to stand up in this House and commend him for it. 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3409

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (2.54 p.m.): I, too, rise to speak briefly and also to add my strong and heartfelt support to this bill brought to the House by the Attorney-General. Other speakers who have preceded me have outlined the specific elements of the bill, and I do not wish to be repetitive. The crux of the bill aims to protect child witnesses to sexual abuse who come before our courts. The bill brings Queensland into line with national standards and it puts in place a range of measures which will make the courts more accessible and, hence, justice more accessible for young people who, very sadly and very horrifically, have experienced sexual abuse. We can talk about this bill in isolation, and it certainly stands alone as worthy of support. But what is most important about this bill is that it is a part of a package of measures which this government has introduced to allow children to come forward to speak about the abuse that is occurring to them, to get justice and to be heard. One of the measures that came before this bill was the Forde inquiry, which this government instituted in 1998 shortly after being elected and which revealed some horrific instances of sexual and physical abuse of children in state-run institutions. The Attorney-General has already brought in legislation that deals with paedophile networks. The serious violent offenders legislation that we debated in this House not long ago is helping us to keep serious violent sexual offenders—the kinds of people who prey on children—in jail. We have considerably increased the funding to the Families Department and, perhaps most importantly of all, we have put these issues on the public agenda. We are currently running an advertising campaign, which I note the opposition regarded as some kind of publicity stunt, to put these issues on the agenda, to say that we as a whole community must stop sexual abuse. Sadly, child sex abuse is a fundamental result of the huge power imbalance that exists between adults and children. Sexual abuse of children is allowed to flourish only because offenders can be confident that their child victims will not speak up and, indeed, if they do they will not be believed and they will not be heard. So to describe a publicity campaign as some kind of publicity stunt from the government I think fundamentally misses the point of child sex abuse. This government has been consistent in its dealing with these matters. We have consistently spoken up. We have consistently rejected those who have been found to be sexual abusers of children and we have consistently put in place measures both to protect children from having this happen to them and to protect children as witnesses when, sadly, abuse has occurred. Ten years ago these issues were not on the agenda and there has been a lot of discussion in the community about how horrific it is that we see so much evidence of child sexual abuse these days. It has been suggested to me that a lot more sexual abuse seems to be going on now than perhaps there once was. The question of whether there is more sexual abuse of children now is a question which we will simply never be able to answer. How can we ever quantify the numbers of children who were abused in state-run institutions, who were abused by churches and who were abused in their families? How can we begin to count the number of people who walk around in our community now and still bear the scars of that abuse but find it impossible to come forward and too embarrassing and too hurtful to speak of? A very good friend of mine who grew up in a church-run home suggested to me recently that things are much worse now than they used to be. As I spoke to her I recalled a book I had read some years ago—Bill Hayden's autobiography. In his autobiography he recalls growing up in South Brisbane, I imagine around the forties. He makes only a passing reference to a dirty old man who used to hang around in South Brisbane. This fellow seemed to think that he had the right to prey upon little children. It seems that this character did this perhaps with the knowledge of some children like Bill in the community, but nothing was ever said and nothing was ever done. I think the best we can do is put these issues on the agenda, speak about them openly and protect the children who do come forward. That is what this bill is about, and I very sincerely commend it to the House. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (2.59 p.m.): I wish I did not have to address the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill and cover all of the aspects that should be discussed here this afternoon. We are talking about the protection of children, who are vulnerable people in our society and who cannot necessarily protect themselves without additional help from adults to whom they look for guidance. I would like to give a precis of the attitude of some solicitors and barristers who have contacted me. They said that they appreciated that as an ex-policeman I might have certain views of cross-examination and such matters and not agree with them, when in actual fact I do. They do not necessarily disagree that some solicitors and barristers abuse the privilege of cross- 3410 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 examination and the fact that they are dealing with vulnerable people in court, but they say that it is important for procedures to remain in place to ensure that false and malicious complaints are weeded out. They go on to say that they would expect that most politicians, unless they happen to be lawyers, might not understand either the tactics or the purpose of cross-examination and that it would only be when one of their own was accused that they would appreciate how easy it is to make such complaints and how difficult it is to defend them. They go on to say that any competent criminal lawyer will confirm that it is not usually productive for the defence to yell and scream at the committal stage, most particularly with young witnesses, and that such behaviour before the jury does not usually endear defence counsel or the accused to them. They say that, provided that the questions at committal are put in a considered, non-intimidating manner and are relevant, there should not be any other limitation placed on the defence. After all, not all persons charged are guilty, and malicious complaints of old sexual offences, if in fact they are, without a right to thorough cross-examination do not in their opinion balance the rights of the complainant against the rights of the accused, who is not guilty, after all, until the charge is proven. That person could spend a great many years in jail because his or her defence was unduly handicapped by unusual assistance. Surely the only restriction should be by a competent magistrate or judge who, with the benefit of prosecution statements, knows when cross-examination is relevant or not. That was a precis of the opinions of legal eagles who contacted me. I felt it important that this House should hear what they had to say. I supported the first part of the government's reform package aimed at improving the treatment of children in the court system. I did, however, express strong reservations about vulnerability of the accused which might accompany any additional protection for children in these distressing cases. The administration of justice should always emphasise the protection of the rights of the accused. It is fundamental to our justice system. In this part of the reform process I again support the reform package's aims to extend the protection of children in the giving of evidence. Again, I must insist that the rights of the accused not be entirely lost amidst the very understandable desire to protect vulnerable children from further hurt. This bill, as I understand it, provides for the prerecording of evidence from child witnesses in all but exceptional preliminary hearings, therefore limiting cross-examination to the trial. We all recognise the trauma that can be caused when a child faces a court but, again, the rights of the accused must be defended at every turn. The child must be treated carefully, of course, and the presiding judicial officer has the power to curb the defence in its zeal. However, there are those in the legal fraternity who have very serious reservations about this remote form of evidence, where a child's uncontested evidence can have a crucial bearing on a person's freedom or incarceration. Amongst those sceptics is the learned British judge Lord Justice Waller, who came to the conclusion that video recorded evidence was by no means a basis for the better administration of justice. Having tried both systems, he found that a child in a witness box was a more reliable witness. In his experience, justice was best served by having that child in court. I will quote Justice Waller's experience in two cases. The first case came before the introduction of the video link. The defendant was charged with sexual offences against his stepdaughter. This little child, by the time of the trial, was aged seven or eight, and she gave her evidence live from the witness box. Judge and counsel removed wigs and robes, but otherwise the court was still daunting. The child gave her evidence-in-chief in considerable distress but described, according to other witnesses, the incidents that the prosecution alleged clearly. She was then cross-examined. The defence case was that the incident simply had not happened. Defence counsel was reportedly gentle in his questioning, but when he came to put to the girl that the incidents had not happened she simply looked at him and would not answer. It is reported that everyone in the court could feel that what she was indicating, if she could have expressed it, was, 'How could anyone not believe me?' The jury did convict, and Lord Justice Waller was particularly convinced that it was because of the personal appearance in court by the child—her physical presence and her body language—that the jury in actual fact believed that the alleged offences happened. Lord Justice Waller was not sure that evidence given via a video and then via a video link ever had the impact that live evidence had. But he asked what damage was done to the child by having her relive that experience. Was the defendant able to put his case fairly to a child that young? Do the interests of obtaining a conviction of that man, so at the very least to discourage others, outweigh the damage done to the child? 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3411

The second example was taken from the post video link era. Under the procedure then in force the child would be interviewed by a welfare officer near the time of the complaint in a room made as friendly as possible. That interview would be videoed and would stand as evidence-in- chief, but the cross-examination would take place at the trial through a video link many months later. By then the child had very little time to get accustomed to the court atmosphere before facing what could be hostile questioning. He or she could be caught out on details by counsel for the defence because of memory lapses. The child would then begin to think that she would never be believed about anything. Indeed, in this case she finally became very distressed, saying words to the effect, 'Doesn't anyone believe me?' But that cry for help via a video link had nowhere near the same impact as the silence of the little girl in the witness box in the first example. As the learned judge commented, very little can be done to assist the child, even if the court feels it appropriate to try to do so. The chemistry that exists in the live evidence context, where the jury will have heard the evidence-in-chief, as compared with the video evidence brought out by a welfare officer, is very different. The jury acquitted the defendant in the second case. It is difficult for the chemistry to work via a video link as it works in live proceedings. The difficulty is exacerbated by the imbalance in the way the evidence-in-chief is produced and the way that evidence is tested in cross-examination. I take the point that the mandatory use of closed-circuit TV or screens could protect children from being intimidated; however, this is to assume that a child could not be prone to flights of fancy in the atmosphere of a video session, to the great cost of the defendant, where a properly conducted courtroom cross-examination might elicit the truth with little more risk of trauma to the child than if it were conducted remotely by video. I suggest that the present system of justice can and often does provide children with dignity and respect and at the same time protect the innocent from injustice and a terrible stain on their character. It has occurred to me that where there are particular concerns about individual children's vulnerability in the court a decision to have the child appear in person might be made on a case-by-case basis by a committee comprising the judge, prosecution, defence and representatives of the jury. I have not gone into how this could practically work or, indeed, if it really is a practical solution, but it was suggested to me that perhaps with extraordinarily young child witnesses we would not be able to make that decision. Although I understand the intent of this bill, and I do appreciate it, we are not only talking about the vulnerability of children but also addressing justice for the accused. For this reason I cannot support the legislation as it stands. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (3.10 p.m.): It gives me a lot of pride and satisfaction to rise to support the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. Children are the most vulnerable members of our community. They are innocent and trusting. They depend on adults such as us for protection and comfort. Unfortunately, at times such trust is grossly misplaced. The plight of children who have fallen victim to physical and sexual abuse is an important issue of concern to this government—and indeed to all members of this House. On the one hand, it is important that our criminal justice system is effective in bringing perpetrators of child sexual and physical abuse to justice. On the other hand, it is important that we do not trade expediency with the truth. It is accepted that crime against children demands the most meticulous and detailed investigation to ensure not only that culprits are brought before the law but also that the truth is discovered. Sometimes this can only occur if the children who are the subject of such abuses participate in the court process. For all its benefits, the criminal justice system remains a threatening and foreboding institution for all who fall within it. Any adult who has testified in the criminal court can recount the degree of personal stress experienced when called upon to give testimony and subsequently defend that testimony under hostile cross-examination. For children and young people required to testify in the criminal court, the prospect of appearing as a witness can be frightening in the extreme. The court experience can be quite damaging for children who have been victims of child abuse and who are called upon to relive the experience of that abuse or neglect within the context of the criminal justice system. Concern in regard to potential negative effects on a child or young person that stem from entanglements with the criminal justice system is commonly cited as a reason for non-disclosure or retraction. In most criminal cases, children must take that long walk from the courtroom door to the witness stand. Children are particularly vulnerable witnesses. Imagine the emotion that grips 3412 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 young children who are required to speak publicly in the forbidding and foreign environment of a courtroom. Many children are required to describe on the witness stand the unspeakable acts of an adult sitting only a few metres away. In many cases, the child testifies against a loved one—even a parent. Finally, once the child tells what happened, defence counsel may cross-examine with an eye towards destroying the child's credibility. The right in criminal cases to confront a witness, including the right to cross-examination, is acknowledged, but some defence lawyers purposely cause extreme stress and anguish to children so as to discredit them. I am pleased that this bill allows judges to retain a certain latitude to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issue or witness safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Judges do have the responsibility and authority to protect children from harassment and intimidation in the courtroom. This bill is part of a comprehensive reform package directed at improving the way the criminal justice system treats child witnesses and ensuring that those who offend against children are detected and punished for their crimes. It is a significant initiative that delivers on this government's priorities of building safer and more supportive communities and delivering a better quality of life to all Queenslanders. I am pleased that these particular reforms aim to ensure that a child should not have to give evidence more than once, that measures to reduce stress when evidence is required should be used where possible and that trials should be resolved as quickly as possible. It is also important to realise that these reforms do not compromise the right of an accused to a fair trial, nor do they lessen the high standard of proof required to gain a conviction. I thank the Attorney-General and his staff for drafting this bill. I would like to render my support for the passage of this bill in the House. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.14 p.m.): I rise today to speak in support of the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. The changes and initiatives introduced in this bill are solid indicators that this Beattie government is serious about addressing the concerns raised by the community with regard to the sexual abuse of children. From the outset, I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General for what the parliament has seen as an enormous effort to introduce the changes necessary to send a very clear and strong message that the sexual abuse of children is not acceptable in today's society. These changes are what our communities and the electorates that we represent expect of us, and I am very proud to be a member of this government and to be here today to see these changes go through the parliament. The bill changes the way that the criminal justice system treats child witnesses and also introduces a number of initiatives and processes that will change the environment children are required to enter into when going to court. Essentially, the bill aims to ensure that a child appearing in court as a witness or as a victim will not experience any added stress or suffering. The bill introduces legislative amendments that are certainly worthy of mentioning in great detail. The changes will improve the reliability of evidence by creating a more sensitive court system for child witnesses and victims to enter into. As I believe the minister in his second reading speech has outlined these changes clearly, I will not seek to cover these details again. However, I would like to highlight key initiatives that alone represent the government's commitment to building a safer community. The bill introduces a scheme for a prerecording of a child's evidence at preliminary or pretrial hearings to allow for children not to have to appear in court. It also provides for closed-circuit televisions to be able to be used, even providing that prerecording can take place at other locations if the court or the trial does not have the facilities to allow prerecording to be done. The bill provides for the mandatory use of audiovisual links and the use of screens when a child gives evidence. The bill also demonstrates this government's recognition that the experience a child will go through is no doubt one that could be frightening and embarrassing. Therefore, the bill provides that non-essential persons are excluded from a court when a child gives evidence about sexual offences. In some cases this provision can also be utilised when a child is giving evidence for an offence of violence. Two other extremely significant amendments that I support are the new section 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 that abolishes the recent complaint rule and the amendments to sections 8 and 11 that remove the marital communications privilege. I strongly support this latter amendment and believe that to speak out against it is almost a gruesome reminder that, despite the changes we see here today, ugly community attitudes that allow such 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3413 issues to remain behind closed doors are still difficult to break down, and that saddens me deeply. I wish to take this opportunity to commend Di McCleod and the team at the Gold Coast Sexual Assault Support Service for their dedication to helping young women and young children who have been sexually abused and also for the work that SASS does to change community attitudes towards sexual abuse by actively working to promote the rights of women and children. I congratulate the minister and his department, but I also would like to congratulate my fellow colleagues and those on the opposition benches who have spoken in support of this bill. If there is one piece of legislation that I believe we can be rightly proud and passionate about, I believe it is this. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.20 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses issues which I believe are at the core of Australian society. They include the belief that childhood is precious and that children should benefit from all the protection society as a whole can offer. They include how the justice system, on which we rely so much, interacts with children. These are, as I have said, important issues. This bill also deals with a host of other issues, all under the guise of the interests of the child. For example, it deals with the capacity of an accused person to defend themselves. It deals with the rights that person has—and remember, an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise—to even know all the evidence against themselves. It deals with husbands being able to be forced to give evidence against their wives and wives against their husbands. It is far more than just a bill about evidence given by children. Among the things that struck me as I read the explanatory notes and the minister's second reading speech were the claims about extensive consultation. The government asked the government; it asked lawyers; it asked judges; it asked child advocacy groups. However, in the material to which I have referred it did not ask anyone who had faced an allegation and successfully proven their innocence. I do not think it would have been unreasonable to do that. Much of this bill deals with matters directly related to an accused person's ability to defend themselves. Speaking to some of those who have actually done that might have been useful. I expect there are some who will say that consulting with lawyers fulfils that role. I do not think so. They are not the ones personally accused, nor are they the ones facing the costs and the disruption some of these new laws will require. For example, there is in this bill the option of a court transferring a case to another location if necessary to access certain audiovisual equipment. That will quite possibly add a significant extra financial burden to the cost of an accused person's defence. Legal representatives will charge for travel and possibly accommodation, witness expenses would increase and so on. I am also concerned about provisions reducing the likelihood that a child could be cross- examined at the committal stage, especially if such cross-examination would take place at trial. In this case my concern is whether this approach could make committal more likely, leaving defendants more often having to meet the expense of preparing for a full District Court trial. I am not arguing against easing the burden on child witnesses, but I am pointing out that there is still a cost attached, and in this case it appears that it is to be borne entirely by the defendant. That is not a just result. I also point out the underlying presumption that an accusation is as good as a conviction. It is evident even in the minister's second reading speech in which he said— This will make our courts more sensitive when dealing with children who are victims or witnesses and will ensure the legal process does not add to their stress or suffering. No-one wants to add to a child's stress or suffering, but nor should any of us, including the Attorney-General, be assuming that someone is the victim and therefore the accused is guilty before the trial has even begun. I am particularly concerned at the removal of the marital communications privilege. This is just too much. As I understand it, there is no restriction now on spouses giving evidence against their partner if they want to do so. This bill creates a situation in which they can be compelled to do so. In that kind of situation I do not think it is unreasonable for a spouse, when giving evidence, to attempt to support their partner. In turn that could result in a conviction against them for contempt of court or perjury and we could see a child left entirely parentless—one in jail for the original offence and the other for attempting to support them while giving evidence. It may be unlikely, but it is a potential created by the amendments to section 8 with the repeal of subsections (2) to (7) and the new subsections (2) and (3). 3414 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

As these are amendments to the Evidence Act, does this ability to compel husbands and wives to give evidence against each other apply to all other matters? I believe it does. If so, this is a massive change to one of the most basic assumptions of our existing legal system and, indeed, of our society. To bury in this bill and to fail to adequately highlight its significance would be calculating, cynical and plain dishonest, to say the least. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (3.24 p.m.): I am pleased to join other honourable members in this House in supporting the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. It is timely that we should be speaking about this bill this week when this week is Child Protection Week. I am pleased and even proud to inform honourable members of the House of the very active time we are having in Cairns this week with Child Protection Week. Catherine Gray, who is the coordinator of the Family Support Program run through Lifeline in Cairns, has been a convenor of the Child Protection Week working party in Cairns. They have put together an amazing program of events. We all know that the theme is that child protection is everyone's business. To that extent they have been very keen to make sure that all of the activities in Child Protection Week are as visible as possible and that they are brought to the attention of the wider community as much as possible. They have included events such as a sausage sizzle in town, Family Fun in the Tropics, a postcard competition entitled 'What does childhood mean to me?', a creative parenting workshop, a meeting about balancing work, family and play, a session entitled 'Feeling good about yourself', training and other events. It is a busy week in Cairns. I would like to give recognition to all of those who have done the hard work of organising these events, not just because they have organised this week but because they are people who are devoted to preventing child abuse week in week out, year in year out. Organisations in the Cairns region such as Lifeline, Cairns Shared Family Care, Wu Chopperen Social and Emotional Health, the Women's Centre, the Regional Domestic Violence Service and Youth Empowered Towards Independence and even organisations like the Girl Guides and the Scout Association are part of the events this week. The names of private sector organisations that give time and time again to good community causes are on the sponsors list, too. These organisations include: Birch Carrol and Coyle in Cairns, Piccones IGA, George Pickers, Irelands, Woolworths Cairns and, of course, our famous Taipans basketball team who, in between playing magnificent basketball and training hard, do all that they can for the youth of our community. There is no doubt that this bill is needed and is timely. Unfortunately, I have some figures that will be very sobering for members of the House to hear. The Cairns Juvenile Aid Bureau is a busy bureau. In fact, we have had to increase the allocation of officers to the bureau recently. We have brought their total strength to 16. The figures that I place before the House come from their work over this last year. They say that child abuse is quite a significant problem. In the 2002-03 financial year, Cairns JAB dealt with 298 reports of ill treatment of children, 82 reports of serious assaults on children, 31 reports of rape and attempted rape, and 328 other offences against children. Through the good work of the JAB, 90 per cent of all offences committed against children were solved, with 802 charges being presented to the courts for determination. The result is that child victims of crime are receiving better support than they have in times past. This is a slight diversion, I admit, but I would particularly like to pay my compliments to the officer in charge of the Cairns Juvenile Aid Bureau, Detective Senior Sergeant Maurice Carless, who won the Courier-Mail Police Scholarship. He has been examining the latest techniques in child abuse investigation in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that not only Cairns and the far north but the whole state of Queensland will be better informed for his studies when he returns. For many years the JAB in Cairns has worked closely with the SCAN team that has been ably led for most of its years by paediatrician Dr Ross Messer. We are as well organised as you can probably be in the Cairns area in terms of managing child abuse when it is reported. The truth is that in generations past we have not paid enough attention to what could be regarded as the retraumatisation that can occur for children who report abuse. I remind honourable members of another unpleasant fact, and that is that far and away the majority of child abuse occurs within the home. Can members imagine the pain, the fear, the anxiety and the confusion for a child in reporting child abuse within his or her own family? We cannot even imagine that, but added to that is what psychologists regard as a retraumatisation process—that is, making that child in very difficult circumstances, sometimes in front of the 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3415 alleged perpetrator, repeat and discuss the details of what happened and then be cross- examined by adult lawyers who believe that they are doing their best to defend their client while at the same time increasing the trauma. This bill ensures that we do our best to make sure that courts get proper evidence from children in a way that is as least traumatising as possible yet has proper regard to the presumed innocence of the person who is charged. That person, of course, has the right for that evidence to be taken in a fair and proper fashion. There is at our disposal, as the bill makes clear, many choices as to how that evidence can be taken other than what might be termed the old-fashioned and high anxiety-producing way of a courtroom full of threatening adult figures engaging in a combative style of questioning. I therefore support the bill. Before I conclude, I pay compliments also to the Australian Institute of Criminology for its excellent paper in the trends and issues series titled The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. There are some very unpleasant examples given in that paper as to why we need this bill before the House. I pay my full regards to all of those who have been part of drafting the bill and, of course, to the Attorney-General, who has put it before us. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.31 p.m.): It is very appropriate that we are debating the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill during Child Protection Week. At the outset, I commend the Attorney and his officers for the immense amount of work that has been done in bringing this bill before the House. I want to look briefly at the background of the bill, why it is before the House at this stage, what has happened in the past to bring it here and then touch on some of the significant aspects of the legislation. Legislation of this type must, of course, take into account various principles and facts of life in terms of the legal process—that is, litigation involves a contest, if you like, between competing interests. We have an adversarial system in Australia. It is an oversimplification to suggest that here we have a contest between a child's interests and the interests of the accused. There is more involved than that. At the end of the day, what is important is that justice be done and be seen to be done by the community at large. The discussion as to whether or not reform in this area should be implemented goes back many years. In some of the material I have read, reference to the Sturgess report as far back as 1985 is apparent. One of the major works is The receipt of evidence by Queensland courts: the evidence of children report—a lengthy report which was published in December 2000 but which had been commenced some years prior to that. It was an inquiry whose task was to review the capacity of the judicial system, both in its criminal and civil aspects, to properly receive the evidence of children. Briefly, its objectives were to preserve the integrity of the evidence of a child witness and to limit the distress or trauma experienced by a child on the basis that research showed that the quality of a child's evidence is diminished if the child finds the experience of testifying a traumatic one. I would be amazed if any child did not find it that way. I have given evidence on a few occasions in my life as an adult and have found the experience very traumatic. The other objective of that inquiry was to ensure that an accused person against whom the child has given evidence receives a fair trial. That is the basis of our tradition—that we do have a fair trial. We cannot lose sight of that. That study was a major one and I am sure it had influence in terms of what we see here today. One of the things that then happened was the Queensland Crime Commission and the Queensland Police Service Project Axis report on child sexual abuse in Queensland. The government gave a response to that inquiry. I refer to recommendation 6, which was that the Children's Commission in Queensland be granted sufficient funding to expand its trial data tracking project to examine the progress of the individual cases of child sexual abuse through the criminal justice system with a view to gaining a comprehensive understanding of why child sex offence matters are withdrawn and discontinued at a higher rate than are other offence types. As a result of that it was clearly seen that, particularly in relation to indecent dealing type cases, that was what was happening—that they were being withdrawn or discontinued at a greater rate than others. The reasons for that were many and varied, but insufficient evidence, complainants who did not want to proceed to court for one reason or another and the inherent difficulties of prosecuting child sex offenders were amongst those reasons. At the core of these problems is the widely held belief that the criminal justice system fails children, and that was referred to in a report by Dr Christine Eastwood titled The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. The Attorney-General has responded with a package of reforms. The first, of course, was last year when we dealt with the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Bill which, in short, increased the penalties for indecent 3416 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 treatment of children under 16 from 10 years to 14 years and increased the maximum penalty for indecent treatment of children under the age of 12 from 14 years to 20 years. We also removed from the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 the presumption that a sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort and created a new offence in the Criminal Code making it a crime for an adult to use electronic communication with intent to procure a person under the age of 16 years to engage in a sexual act. As well, there were amendments to section 229B of the Criminal Code relating to maintaining a sexual relationship with a child to include a course of conduct and amendments to the Corrective Services Act whereby there could be monitoring of sexual offenders after release. That was the first range of reforms. The second, of course, is what we see in this bill today, particularly dealing with special measures for affected children. The special measures include presumption in favour of prerecording evidence, the mandatory use of closed-circuit TV, entitlement to a support person in court, excluding persons from court where a child gives evidence, limiting the circumstances under which an affected child witness is required to give evidence at committal, use of written or recorded statements, and the presumption that a child should not be required for cross-examination. These are the main elements of this bill insofar as they assist a child to give evidence in court. I want to touch briefly on a couple of other matters that are the subject of the bill. In terms of the recent complaint rule, this has been in existence for a very long period of time, if not centuries. It must be understood that what is being proposed in the bill will not take away the relevance of the absence of a recent complaint. It is a factor that the judge will direct a jury to take into account, but it will not have the same weight as it did previously. There is a strengthening of the blue card system, which is something to be commended. In terms of the removal of the marital communications privilege, I heard the honourable member for Tablelands speaking about this earlier. I understand the honourable member for Surfers Paradise made some remarks about the dire consequences of the removal of that privilege. The honourable member for Tablelands seems to think that society will collapse as a result of its removal. I must say from my experience in life and the practise of law that its removal will have remarkably little effect on the day-to-day conduct of life in Queensland, in my view. The bill gives greater rights to victims of crime to be present in court, provided the child's interests are not prejudiced. Of course, there are also changes so that applicants for admission as barristers, solicitors or judges' associates must disclose all contraventions of the law in Queensland. Earlier this week, I happened to be present during admissions to the Supreme Court. One applicant for admission as a barrister was knocked back on the basis that he had a conviction many years ago. For a person to go to the time, effort, trouble and expense of studying law and to get to that stage only to be knocked back on the day is rather significant. I turn now to the work done in Toowoomba by a group of people associated with the police and others who have consistently and efficiently helped young people give evidence. The Juvenile Aid Bureau operates very effectively in Toowoomba, just as it does in Cairns, I am informed by the honourable member. I refer also to the police prosecutors in Toowoomba—Sergeants Tony Costa, Mike Robertson, Constable Alison McKee and Senior Constable Greg Lewis—who do a sterling job in preparing young people to give evidence. There is also an organisation called The Base, a Toowoomba Christian organisation operated by Nathaniel and Tiffany Spary, who provide valuable court support, as does an organisation called PACT, Protect All Children Today. They provide support for young people giving evidence in Toowoomba. The main aim is to reduce the trauma of going to court for children. The team of dedicated Toowoomba volunteers does not give counselling or legal advice, but does help reduce the trauma of the experience through empty courtroom visits, familiarisation with the situation and maintaining contact if the case goes to trial beyond the committal stage. I again reiterate my support for the legislation and commend the Attorney and his officers for the work they have done. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (3.42 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003. The bill amends the Criminal Code, the Evidence Act 1997 and other statutes to improve the treatment of child witnesses by the criminal justice system. I would argue that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation put up for consideration and it is one which needed addressing. As I have never been in the witness box of a courtroom, I have to rely on others to describe it, and most adults have described it as a daunting experience. If that is so for an adult, then how much more difficult is it for a child, who cannot possibly understand the processes—a child 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3417 already traumatised by being the victim of sexual or physical abuse and then plucked from familiar surroundings and confronted with a barrage of questions? Although they have the protection of the judge from unreasonable badgering, it is still a harrowing experience. As has been noted previously, there is an incalculable cost to the community over the lifetime of many victims. Many people in this chamber relate negative experiences in society today, such as suicide, drug abuse, mental health issues, further acts of abuse on their own child with the perpetrator having been abused themselves. Although I do not by any stretch of the imagination say that that is not true in some cases, I am aware of cases where peer pressure alone has been the only contributory factor. There may also be a desire to experiment and a myriad other reasons. It is not always that the person was abused as a child themselves, but for some perpetrators it has become a very convenient excuse to latch on to. There are also many people who have been abused who can never forget the abuse suffered, and who never go on to abuse others because of the trauma they experienced from being the victim of abuse. It is something they would never subject another innocent children to suffering. In common with the member for Gregory, I would not be able to be held back if someone touched my children or my grandchildren in any way inappropriately. To have a child live their entire childhood in daily fear of the sound of a footstep coming closer, to destroy the wonderful closeness that should be experienced with our partner in the sanctity of marriage, to have to live in a relationship where we are forever wary of leaving our child with our own partner would have to be a living hell. This is the description given to me of the consequence of being a victim of child sexual abuse. Frankly, I think a blunt knife would be far too good for those who act in such an horrendous way. I found that in reading the explanatory notes and referring to the relevant sections of the bill there was very little that I could not support in it. Not being a lawyer and having no legal background, I am grateful to the member for Surfers Paradise for his knowledge and his ability to read deeply the legislation. It was noted that, as the Member for Surfers Paradise was outlining his reasons as to why he could not support this bill, the minister was nodding in agreement and confirming that the member's interpretation of the sections he was concerned about in the bill was in fact correct. The concerns regarding the abolition of spousal privilege in this section of the bill will be applicable to all avenues of law and will be retrospective. I can understand the point of view of the member for Surfers Paradise and also his concerns that this will in essence remove trust between a husband and wife. Unlike some other honourable members, I do not find it archaic to expect to be able to trust our partner, the person we love. However, in the case of child sexual or physical abuse it would be easy to say that the end justifies the means, and with respect to this legislation for the protection of minors I have no problem. However, I do question whether it is appropriate or necessary to have this section of the bill applicable to all other areas of law. It appears to me that this very sensitive issue of child sexual and physical abuse is being used to bring in a law which if brought in as a separate piece of legislation may have received greater scrutiny. In saying that, I recognise also that the effect of court appearances on minors is very serious, and the Parliamentary Library's brief was very helpful. Intimidation of a child giving evidence through their being able to be seen by the accused is a problem. The options for recording the child out of sight of the accused are appropriate. The fear associated with sexual or physical abuse lasts many victims all their life. One very large woman in a sexual and physical abuse meeting I attended not so long ago stated, 'Although I know I could blow this man down with a single breath,' as he is old and wizened, 'I still feel fear whenever I run into him.' In my book, there is no penalty high enough for instilling this kind of fear, and I would have been very happy to see increased penalties. Children do need to be treated with dignity, humanity and sensitivity, but there has to be an absolute proof that the child is not committing perjury and the accused must be given every right for proving innocence. It is not unheard of for an accused to be found innocent of the accusation against him when the child was merely getting back at the accused for some other reason. This is a very difficult issue upon which the legislation has had to be negotiated. Although I can recognise the arguments put forward by those who oppose the legislation, this is an area where I believe it is better to err on the side of the child in an effort to at least enable those children who have been subjected to sexual and/or physical abuse to feel empowered enough to bring abusers to justice without the fear of further mental abuse being added to their burdens. There are people who still as adults cannot bring themselves to reveal their experiences. It is essential 3418 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 that children today are as much as possible confident of protection when coming forward. I support the bill. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (3.48 p.m.): It is my pleasure to stand to speak in support of the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill. The criminal justice system is a vehicle by which the community sets the standards of what is lawful conduct. It also provides agencies for the detection, prosecution, punishment and rehabilitation of those who engage in unlawful conduct. The key social outcome of the criminal justice system is protecting the safety and wellbeing of the community as well as dispensing justice on behalf of the broader community according to the community's standards that they set. Of course, the police and the courts are key elements of the criminal justice system. So, too, are organisations like the Crime and Misconduct Commission along with other agencies such as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In recent years the community has, fortunately, become aware in an unprecedented way of the tragic extent of sexual and violent offences against children. Children are some of the most vulnerable members of our community for whom we have a special obligation of care. At the same time it has also become clear that the criminal justice system, at the one time charged with the responsibility of protecting children, to an alarming extent actually discourages children from reporting crimes committed against them and assisting in the prosecution of offenders. It is this problem which primarily the bill seeks to fix. With one in four people in my electorate below the age of 16 I am sure honourable members can appreciate how important this legislation is to my constituents. The details of the bill's reforms are well set out in the Attorney-General's second reading speech, and I want to take this opportunity to commend the Attorney-General for this legislation, which carries with it the excellent Labor reform characteristics that much of the other legislation that this Attorney-General has brought into this House also carries. In summary, through this bill children under the age of 16 who are witnesses in proceedings related to sexual or violent offences will now have the benefit of special measures to be instituted within the criminal justice system. These measures include a presumption in favour of prerecording of evidence from child witnesses; the mandatory use of closed-circuit television where available; an entitlement to a support person in the court while the child gives evidence; a provision excluding all but certain specified persons, such as the parties, their representatives, court staff and a support person for the witness, from the court while a child gives evidence; and certain restrictions on the cross-examination that may be permitted of child witnesses in committal proceedings. These are the key measures that have been introduced to try to restore the appropriate balance between the obligation of the criminal justice system to protect all members of the community, particularly children, and the obligation to ensure that fairness continues to be afforded to the position of every defendant in criminal proceedings and to balance that further with the need to ensure the maximum opportunity for child witnesses to disclose to the appropriate authorities and then to give evidence to the court of unlawful illegal activity, particularly sexual offences and violent offences, against children. Other members have spoken in great detail about different aspects of the bill that they see as important. I will not go through any further detail that is set out in the bill. I think it is clear from the sentiments expressed by many speakers so far in this debate that there is a host of very good reasons why this legislation is excellent legislation. It is absolutely timely and I commend the Attorney-General again for its introduction to the House. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (3.54 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank all members for their contribution to this debate. As many speakers have noted, the bill is an important bill that significantly addresses, as part of a package of reforms, the needs of children within the justice system, particularly the criminal justice system. The opposition members have indicated their support for the bill and I thank the opposition for that, although they are not present in the House at the moment. I note also, however, that there are some Independent members who have expressed concerns about some aspects of the bill, and I will address those in a moment. The member for Southern Downs asked that I confirm that this is the final stage of a two- stage reform process. This bill does mark the end of a legislative phase of the reform process. Non-legislative reform such as the development of a vulnerable witness policy and the upgrade of technology in the courts will, however, continue. 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3419

The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned delays in the court process. While this bill ensures that a child's part in the court process can be finalised at a much earlier stage, I have written also to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the District Court asking the courts to give priority listing to matters involving children. I have also written to the DPP asking that the preparation of these matters by her office be given priority. The honourable member also asked about the position of committals in Western Australia. Committals have been abolished altogether in Western Australia. Of course, that is applicable to all criminal cases, not just cases involving children. The member for Gregory and a number of other members raised concerns about the need to properly penalise child sex offenders. Members of the House would be aware that these issues were addressed by me when the House passed the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill. It increased penalties for the indecent treatment of children under the age of 16 years. That penalty was increased to 14 years imprisonment. Where the child is under 12 years of age the penalty was increased to 20 years. The act also made changes to the principles used for sentencing child sex offenders to equate those principles with those dealing with offences of violence, that is, that imprisonment is no longer a sentence of last resort. The effect of these changes is still at an early stage. However, I am confident that, combined with the procedural changes in this bill, the package of reforms that I have introduced, as pointed out by the member for Ipswich, will deliver justice to child sex offence victims and meet the expectations of the community while upholding the rule of law. The member for Surfers Paradise made an impassioned argument against the change in the rules relating to compellability of spouses. He described these changes as an attack on the sanctity of marriage. I must, with respect, say that I make no apology for this long overdue amendment. It might assist the honourable member if I explain the history of this privilege. Under the common law, generally if a witness is competent they are also compellable. An accused has never been a compellable witness, but in the early days an accused was also not even a competent witness—even to give evidence on his or her own behalf. At common law a spouse, usually a wife, is incompetent to give evidence against her husband, that is, the evidence was not even admissible let alone compellable. In the case of Hoskyn v. Commissioner for Police, a House of Lords case reported in 1978, the reasons behind this rule were stated as being based on the unity of husband and wife. It was some sort of privilege against self-incrimination as being the cause of 'implacable discord and dissension between them,' ' to call a wife against her husband is a thing that cannot be heard of' and 'the natural repugnance of the public at the prospect of a wife giving evidence against her husband'. Presumably these were sentiments that were held by the member for Surfers Paradise. The reason for the privilege was akin to the justification for not permitting married women to sue in their own name, not permitting married women to own property and not giving them a vote. Because of the manifestly unjust consequences of this rule, where a wife was the victim of a violent crime committed by her husband the common law had to develop exceptions to the rule. A wife then became a competent but not compellable witness in cases of rape and personal violence committed by the husband on the wife. Under common law, exceptions include treason, for no explained reason, and abduction; that is, where the man carries away the woman and marries her and thereby prevents her from being competent to give evidence against him. These rules applied to competency as a witness for the prosecution. The spouse is competent in all cases in the defence of the spouse. Under the existing provisions of section 8 of the Evidence Act, the spouse is competent in all cases for prosecution and defence. The spouse is compellable on behalf of an accused spouse. The spouse is compellable on behalf of the prosecution in certain offences involving violence or sex offence cases. Where the spouse is competent or compellable at common law they are compellable both for the prosecution and the defence. Under section 11 of the act a spouse is not compellable to disclose in court any communication made to them by their spouse during marriage in a criminal proceeding where the spouse has been charged. Under section 8 the spouse is compellable in a criminal proceeding for certain sexual or violent offences against children under 16, however. But section 8, which provides all those circumstances in which the spouse is competent or compellable, is subject to section 11, which states that the spouse is not compellable in respect of communications between them. 3420 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

It is significant to note that other relatives of an accused—such as parents, siblings and children—have always been compellable witnesses. Some might argue that the bond between parents and children is just as significant as that between spouses, whether married or de facto, and yet this relationship has never been the subject of privilege. As I confirmed to the member for Gladstone, the relationship between de facto partners is not such as to provide for the protection of a spouse from being compellable as a witness. The greatest concern in relation to the existing arrangements is that marriage can be used as a means of defeating the compellability of a person as a witness, as occurred in the Hoskyn case, when the accused married the witness shortly before a trial thereby preventing her from being a compellable witness. I would like to say that Queensland is leading the way in this long overdue reform, but the fact is that it has already occurred in Victoria, the Northern Territory and South Australia. In Western Australia the offences for which the spouse is competent and compellable, including compellable to disclose marital communications, extend to most of the significant offences in the Criminal Code. The end result in relation to this aspect of the issue raised by the member for Surfers Paradise is that I do not believe there is justification for a law which enables a spouse to conceal their criminality behind a veil of secrecy which, by their own actions, they can impose upon their partner. For that reason I believe that the reform of the law is entirely justified. It does nothing to undermine the sanctity of the partnership of a married relationship, but it brings it into line with the law generally such that family members, de facto partners and others in close relations with a person cannot be deprived of their competence or compellability as a witness solely by virtue of a legal relationship. There were a number of other issues raised by various members. The member for Tablelands raised some concerns about consultation in relation to the bill generally. The bill was on the web site for 10 months. It has received extensive media coverage. A number of people have written to me making suggestions in relation to the bill. Legal Aid Queensland was extensively consulted. I do believe that this consultation draft, having been on the table of the House for as long as it has, provided ample opportunity for the community to have input. In relation to matters raised by the member for Lockyer, I simply point out that I think the explanatory notes sufficiently respond to his concerns in relation to evidence given either in person or from behind a screen or by closed-circuit television. The Queensland Law Reform Commission reported on a 1991 English study which indicated that there was nothing to suggest that jurors watching a witness give evidence over closed-circuit television would produce decisions or judgments on the credibility of the witness radically different from those made under regular court conditions. There was no significant difference in communication between live interviews and interviews given over closed-circuit TV. While intuitively one might be inclined to the view that seeing the whites of a person's eyes gives one an indication as to the validity or veracity of their evidence, there are of course contrary suggestions that seeing a person give evidence by closed-circuit TV in fact gives a much closer up view of the person's face than one would get from the other side of the courtroom. The nuances of facial expression and so forth available through closed-circuit television often can be said to give one an insight into the credibility of evidence being given by a witness that one might not pick up simply by seeing the person in a witness box across the courtroom. It is understandable that people might have views both ways in relation to the availability of evidence. Suffice it to say, what this bill provides is not an absolute bar on a witness being able to give evidence in person in the courtroom. What it sets up is a presumption that, in the case of children giving evidence, the evidence should be given by closed-circuit TV where it is available or from behind a screen where closed-circuit TV is not available. There are exceptional circumstances set out in the bill that allow the court to waive that requirement and so enable, with the consent of prosecution and defence, the appearance of the witness in person in the courtroom. I trust that those comments adequately address the issues raised by various members in debate. Once again, I thank members for their contributions and I look forward to discussion during the committee stage. Motion agreed to. 10 Sep 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 3421

Committee Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) in charge of the bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr WELFORD (4.08 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2— At page 10, line 7, after ‘Act’— insert— ‘, other than parts 8 and 9A,’. Amendment agreed to. Mr WELFORD: I table the explanatory notes in relation to the amendments circulated in my name. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 44, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clauses— Mr WELFORD (4.10 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 2 After clause 44— At page 42, after line 20— insert— '44A Omission of ch 2, pt 3, div 2 hdg and s 30 ‘Chapter 2, part 3, division 2 heading and section 30— omit, insert— '30 Notice of application ‘(1) Subject to section 30A(2), the State must give notice of the application— (a) to each person whose property the authorised commission officer or police officer whose affidavit supports the application reasonably believes is the subject of the application; and (b) to anyone else the authorised commission officer or police officer whose affidavit supports the application considers has an interest in the property the subject of the application. ‘(2) Notice given under subsection (1)(a) must be accompanied by a copy of the affidavit supporting the application. ‘(3) Notice given under subsection (1)(b) must include a statement informing the person that if the person asks, the person will be given a copy of the affidavit supporting the application. 'Division 2—Making restraining orders '30A Hearing of application ‘(1) The Supreme Court must not hear an application for a restraining order unless satisfied the person whose property is the subject of the application has received reasonable notice of the application. ‘(2) Despite subsection (1), the court must consider the application without notice having been given if the DPP asks the court to do so. ‘(3) However, the Supreme Court may, at any time before finally deciding the application, direct the State to give notice of the application to a stated person or class of persons in the way, and within the time, the court considers appropriate. ‘(4) A person whose property is the subject of the application, and anyone else who claims to have an interest in the property, may appear at the hearing of the application.’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 45 and 46, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clauses— Mr WELFORD (4.10 p.m.): I move the following amendment — 3 After clause 46— At page 43, after line 10— insert— '46A Amendment of s 48 (When Supreme Court may exclude prescribed respondent’s property) ‘Section 48— insert— 3422 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

‘(3) The Supreme Court may require the prescribed respondent to give security satisfactory to the court to meet any liability that may be imposed on the prescribed respondent under this Act.’. '46B Amendment of s 50 (When Supreme Court may exclude applicant’s property) ‘Section 50— insert— ‘(4) The Supreme Court may require the applicant to give the undertakings about the applicant’s property the court considers appropriate.’. '46C Insertion of new ch 2, pt 3, div 7A ‘After section 50— insert— 'Division 7A—Revocation of restraining order '50A Application to revoke restraining order ‘(1) A person whose property is the subject of a restraining order and who was not given notice of the application for the restraining order may apply to the Supreme Court to revoke the order. ‘(2) The application must be made within 28 days or, with the approval of the court, the further period, of not more than 3 months, after the person is notified of the making of the restraining order. ‘(3) The applicant must give to the State written notice of the making of the application and the grounds for the application. ‘(4) The restraining order remains in force until the court revokes the order or the order otherwise stops having effect. ‘(5) The State may present additional material to the court relating to the application to revoke the restraining order. ‘(6) After considering the application, the court may revoke the restraining order if satisfied, on the facts before the court, there would be no basis for making a restraining order in relation to the property. '50B Notice of revocation of restraining order ‘(1) On the revocation of a restraining order under section 50A, the State must give notice of the revocation to— (a) each person whose property was restrained under the order, if known; and (b) anyone else who was affected by the order. ‘(2) Subsection (1) does not require the State to notify the applicant for the revocation of the restraining order of the revocation of the order.’. '46D Amendment of s 120 (Notice of application for restraining order) ‘(1) Section 120(1), ‘The’— omit, insert— ‘Subject to section 121(2), the’. ‘(2) Section 120(2) to (4) and note— omit. '46E Replacement of s 121 (Who may be present at hearing of application made without notice) ‘Section 121— omit, insert— '121 Hearing of application ‘(1) The Supreme Court must not hear an application for a restraining order unless satisfied the person whose property is the subject of the application has received reasonable notice of the application. ‘(2) Despite subsection (1), the court must consider the application without notice having been given if the DPP asks the court to do so. ‘(3) However, the Supreme Court may, at any time before finally deciding the application, direct the State to give notice of the application to a stated person or class of persons in the way and within the time the court considers appropriate. ‘(4) A person whose property is the subject of the application, and anyone else who claims to have an interest in the property, may appear at the hearing of the application.’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 47 and 48, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clauses— Mr WELFORD (4.11 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 4 After clause 48— At page 43, after line 23— insert— 10 Sep 2003 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 3423

'48A Amendment of s 139 (Supreme Court may exclude prescribed respondent’s property from restraining order) Section 139— insert— ‘(4) The Supreme Court may require the prescribed respondent to give security satisfactory to the court to meet any liability that may be imposed on the prescribed respondent under this Act. '48B Amendment of s 140 (Supreme Court may exclude other property from restraining order) ‘Section 140— insert— ‘(6) The Supreme Court may require the applicant to give the undertakings about the applicant’s property the court considers appropriate.’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 49 to 51, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new part and clauses— Mr WELFORD (4.11 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 5 After clause 51— At page 45, after line 14— insert— PART 9A—AMENDMENT OF DRUG REHABILITATION (COURT DIVERSION) ACT 2000 '51A Act amended in pt 9A This part amends the Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000. '51B Amendment of s 7A (What is a “disqualifying term of imprisonment”) Section 7A(1), ‘6 months’— omit, insert— ‘1 year’.’. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 52 to 84, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

MINERAL RESOURCES AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 19 August (see p. 2930). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.12 p.m.): I rise to make a short contribution to the consideration of the Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003. The opposition will be supporting this legislation because it is fairly straightforward. As the minister said in his second reading speech, it is an interim measure put in place until the consideration of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill, which the government is currently preparing. It addresses the issues of overlapping tenements in respect to mining tenements which are especially relevant in the developing coal seam gas industry. It puts in place an interim regime to control that issue of overlapping tenements until such time as the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill is considered by the House. In fact, it has a sunset clause, which means that it will expire once that other legislation is introduced. The coal seam gas industry is one that has developed very quickly in the last few years, especially in the part of Queensland that I represent. There has been a lot of activity in exploring and developing the potential of coal seams for gas production throughout the area that I represent—the bottom end of the Bowen Basin and down around Wandoan and Taroom. Companies have met with considerable success in developing what was before an undeveloped resource. That resource is now making a valuable contribution to the state's economy, especially in the case of the Wandoan and Taroom deposits. That gas is being piped to Swanbank to the gas-fired generator, and it is making a valuable contribution to the electricity generation industry in the state. 3424 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

The coal seam methane gas fields that are being developed further north will be the source of gas for the power generation facilities in Townsville, and they too will make a valuable contribution. It is an industry that had some problems in the beginning. I think the first coal seam gas enterprises were around Moura and Kianga seven or eight years ago now, and the initial companies that set out to develop that coal seam gas met with some problems in what was a fairly unknown industry. There were also some considerable issues in those early developments with the interaction between the companies involved in the exploration and development of the coal seam gas and land-holders who operated agricultural businesses on the surface. That was because, unlike a normal mining operation, coal seam methane wells can extend over a large area. The sites are established on a grid pattern, and each site can cause a major disruption if they are located in intensive farming areas. In my electorate in Theodore, just south of Moura, there was a great deal of conflict between the company that was involved at the time—a company called Conoco—and the local land-holders about the interaction between the rights that each of those parties held over those particular areas of ground. Regrettably, back in those days I think the situation was exacerbated by the attitude of the company involved at the time. It took a very aggressive attitude towards the local land-holders and a very aggressive attitude towards the establishment of its facilities without any respect for the impact that it had on land-holders in the area. The situation was made doubly worse by the fact that it was acting under an act that was 100 years old. I remember at the time looking at the act on behalf of those land-holders, even though I was not in parliament at the time. The act still referred to things like bullock wagons and to pasturing trek oxen. It was a very old act, and it is the one that will be replaced by the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill. I hope when that bill comes before the House the modern provisions of that act reflect a much more cooperative and consultative approach to the interaction between explorers for coal seam gas and petroleum products generally and land- holders. In recent years the companies involved in the developments around Wandoan and Taroom have taken a very different attitude. Most of the interaction between the companies that have been involved there in coal seam methane exploration and the local land-holders, who are my constituents, has been fairly friendly and cooperative. Hopefully, that can be continued into the future. There will always be a certain amount of friction when there are competing interest holders operating in the one area, and that has been the case. But, generally, the companies have taken a very different attitude to that which Conoco took in the early days. I think that has assisted in the development of the coal seam gas industry. This bill does not have any issues that I can see. It certainly allows for negotiation to take place for overlapping tenements, and it allows commercial agreements to be reached between parties who hold those overlapping tenements. Anyone who wants to negotiate in good faith and reach an agreement with other tenement holders should be able to proceed with their business under this piece of legislation during that interim period while we are waiting for the final preparation of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill. No doubt all of the issues that are top of mind issues for the mining industry and the petroleum and gas industry in particular, and land-holding interests in those areas where that industry operates, will be addressed as part of the debate in this House on that Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill. The opposition has no problems with this piece of legislation, which is an interim piece of legislation, and we are happy to lend our support to its passage through the House this afternoon. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (4.19 p.m.): In rising to support this bill I want to speak of the importance of the coal seam gas industry to Queensland and the way that this bill will make sure that the industry has a strong, sustainable future. Queensland coal and coal seam gas resources are abundant and promising. Coal has been a key commodity for decades. Last year's coal exports delivered $7.9 billion to the state. In my own electorate of Mackay we can see the enormous benefits that coalmining brings to our local economy in jobs and all the other social benefits that go with people earning an income from industry. The coal fields to the west of Mackay also have a huge abundance of coal seam methane. As the minister said in his second reading speech, the new Townsville gas-fired power station will rely on coal delivered by a company called CH4, which is the chemical name for methane for the people who do not know. Construction is under way with the pipeline. That is also to the west of 10 Sep 2003 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 3425

Mackay in the northern end of the Bowen Basin. That in itself will bring additional wealth to our local economy. As I said earlier, these resources exist side by side. The way one is produced has an inevitable effect on the other. It is important that Queensland has a legislative framework that provides certainty and security for operators in both sectors, and that addresses the difficult issue of safety. Queensland's new coal seam gas regime does just that. A key component of the regime is overlapping exploration tenures for alternative commodities—that is, coal and coal seam gas. The regime will provide some priority to the first applicant for a lease. The lease application will have to go through a rigorous assessment and consultation process to determine the best outcome for the two commodities. It is absolutely imperative to the integrity of the regime that parties do not try to cement an advantageous position before that regime is passed into law. The problem arises in section 40 of the Petroleum Act 1923, which does not allow the government any discretion in granting a petroleum lease. That works against the principles of the coal seam gas regime, which aims to avoid overlapping production leases that could lead to the sterilisation of the resources. In addition, neither the Petroleum Act nor the Mineral Resources Act 1989 allow the government to hold over applications until the new regime commences. The result of this problem is the bill before the House which will enable the government to hold over a number of overlapping petroleum and coal leases until the new regime comes into effect or, at the latest, 1 July next year. The mining and petroleum leases that have a significant overlap will be identified and held over until the coal seam gas regime is in place to deal with the conflict caused by the overlap. The limitations to the current legislation mean that to date we have been pretty lucky that that sort of situation has been avoided. The few cases that have occurred have shown why this regime is important, because all parties have found it hard to deal with the difficulties and the uncertainties caused by the overlap. It is important that tenure overlaps are avoided in the future. If we do not act now to enact interim arrangements more of those situations might arise and some people might be allowed to gain an unfair advantage, damaging the principles of equity that are central to the coal seam gas regime. The changes to the Mineral Resources Act and the Petroleum Act mirror each other. The coalminer and the petroleum producer will be treated in exactly the same way. Neither will have the chance to get a leg up over another. The changes provide protection for those who already have exploration or retention tenure and who have identified significant resources but who have not yet applied for a lease. Even 10 years ago we could not have predicted the importance of coal seam gas to Queensland. We are up to about 27 per cent of gas in Queensland being produced from coal seam methane. When the Petroleum Act was passed in 1923, even Nostradamus would not have picked it. If one is trying to predict what the future is in 40 years time—and this shows the importance of this act—we might not mine coal. We might be burning it underground and using drilling technology to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen from those coal reserves to overcome some of the issues that are associated with greenhouse emission. The future of the coal industry would still be great but it would be burnt underground. We would avoid those emissions and we would be exporting carbon dioxide or hydrogen. I read in the Bulletin a couple of weeks ago that we will be quickly approaching a hydrogen economy in the next 40 years. In the interim, the legislation that we are dealing with today will certainly shape the energy industry for many decades to come. As I said earlier, the new regime deals with a new commodity that is increasingly important to Queensland which, inconveniently for us, lies alongside one of our most important exports—the coal. The coal seam gas regime will make sure both commodities are produced effectively and safely. This bill provides a fair and equitable interim solution until that regime is introduced. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (4.26 p.m.): I rise to support this bill, which is vital to a growing industry in Queensland. Late last year the Beattie government approved the development of Australia's first comprehensive regulatory framework for the coal seam gas industry. We are all looking forward to seeing the legislation that will implement that regime. I believe that we will be seeing it in the near future. The member for Mackay talked about how 27 per cent of Queensland's gas is supplied by coal seam gas. It is easy to have these figures but the importance of the figures is that they demonstrate it is up from four per cent only five years ago. I think that will continue to grow into 3426 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 the future. The current legislation, and in particular the Petroleum Act 1923, could not have been expected to foresee the current situation and thus contains no ability for the discretion and the development control that we can anticipate in the new legislation. Under the current laws the holder of an authority to prospect is entitled to have a petroleum lease automatically granted provided that person complies with the conditions of the legislation. Those conditions are declaring a payable deposit of petroleum within the tenure and providing the minister with a program to develop and produce that petroleum. What we are talking about here today is the problem that, where there is an overlapping coal resource, the coal seam gas operation might sterilise the coal resource or significantly delay mining. That is not good for the coal industry. If it is not good for the coal industry, it is obviously not good for the state of Queensland. The coal seam gas regime deals with this difficult problem and in the intervening period this legislation is necessary to deal with mining lease and petroleum lease applications which have been made or are made under existing laws. It places an interim deferment on the grant of lease applications that overlap certain petroleum, coal and oil shale tenures. The bill has been very careful, I think, in its construction to ensure that only relevant lease applications will be affected—that is, of course, that only overlapping lease applications will be deferred. If a petroleum lease application overlies an existing mining lease or mineral development licence for coal or oil shale, then it will be considered an overlapping lease. Those existing leases are very significant tenures that authorise production. Mineral development leases must also meet strict criteria to be granted. To determine the application of the bill, it gives exploration tenure holders the ability to provide information to the minister on any identified resource within their tenure which will protect their interests. The minister will be able to use that information to determine whether or not the resources meet the legislation's criteria and whether to impose the whole provision on an overlapping lease application. I do not intend to speak for a long time on this particular bill. This bill is a simple interim measure to protect the integrity of a pioneering step in Queensland's mining history. The member for Mackay spoke about that and whether many years ago people could even envisage that this industry would even exist today. It will protect those mining tenures today and ensure that our resources are effectively developed in the future. I commend the bill to the House. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (4.31 p.m.): I rise in support of the Mineral Resources and Another Amendment Bill 2003. Coal seam gas production is constantly reaching new heights in Queensland, moving from an emerging sector to an integral player in our petroleum industry and an important energy source in its own right. In the past year we have seen increased investment and growth with over 77 wells drilled, nearly triple the number of wells that were drilled just three years ago. We are seeing similar increases in production. Coal seam gas production now represents a quarter of Queensland's gas demand, more than double the production for 2001. We have seen the largest ever coal seam gas deal ever signed in Australia with Origin Energy signing a contract with AGL to provide 340 petajoules of gas over 15 years from 2005. Gas will come from the Surat and Bowen basins, which will see Fairview and Durham Ranch develop into Queensland's premier coal seam gas producing area. We have seen other major deals signed that will see coal seam methane production double again in the next two or three years, and Townsville's new power station runs on coal seam gas. To get a little closer to home, fruit and vegetable growers in my electorate are beginning to look at the proposition of value adding to their product with this new gas running through the Origin pipeline in the area. This industry is a difficult industry as it is, and this facility means that producers in the area can expand into other areas of business. This rate of industry development delivers major benefits for every Queenslander. It will boost regional economies for years to come, increasing employment in a variety of sectors, as I have mentioned, promoting technological innovation and supporting Queensland's regional infrastructure. The government's coal seam gas regime that will underpin that industry safeguards our hold on our position as innovators in this industry and ensures that Queensland companies continue to lead the way. Most coal seam gas production in the past has taken place where coalmining and coal seam gas production are not in conflict and existing legislation did not foresee the situation where petroleum operators and coalminers might have an interest in the same deposit for different reasons. Because of that, current regulations do not deal with issues like considering the impact of gas exploration activities on future coal operations—issues with the potential to sterilise some 10 Sep 2003 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 3427 of our coal resources, increase the safety risks involved in future mining operations and decelerate the coal seam gas boom. Ensuring coal seam gas production without compromising the operational safety of existing and future coalmines is not an easy task, but this government has done it. We have reached a point where industry and government can move forward with certainty and security. Clearly defined rules, rights and obligations for the coal and gas industries to work in cooperation, not in competition, will make both industries more attractive to future investment and more secure for existing players. The new regime will bring all commercial production of coal seam gas under a single piece of legislation to provide clear, unequivocal rights to coal seam gas, providing the certainty investors need to bring new gas projects to fruition. It will also remove the different legislative standards for mining tenure holders and gas tenure holders, ensuring a level playing field for everybody in the industry. This regime is the most comprehensive, consistent and well balanced solution to the challenges we face in developing our coal seam gas resources, and to ensure that it is implemented fairly and equitably this legislation is necessary. The legislation is a central cog in the coal seam gas regime, a symbol of the Queensland government's commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for every Queenslander, whether they be a Queensland mining company or gas producer or underground mining worker or, as I say, a value-adding industry. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (4.35 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003. As everyone in this House knows, the coal industry is dear to my heart and coalminers have a great heritage in my city of Ipswich. Government members interjected. Mrs MILLER: I am a coalminer's daughter; that is quite correct. Only a few weeks ago the last coalmine in my electorate closed—that is, the New Hill colliery operated by New Hope Mines. I can tell members that it was a very sad day for the city of Ipswich. In fact, I represented the Minister for Mines at the function that evening and all the miners were reminiscing about their wonderful days underground and also those in the open-cuts. I am sure that everyone in this House would wish all the coalminers well in their retirement. The coal industry has changed dramatically since the first coal was mined in the West Moreton coalfields. Years ago companies simply wanted to mine coal, to wash it, to crush it and then sell it. These days companies are now interested in the gas which is trapped in the coal seams. Some 27 per cent of Queensland's gas is supplied by gas coming from coal seams, and I am sure that the coal seam gas will be crucial to Queensland's future energy resources. The bill will provide rules, rights and obligations for coal and petroleum industries to work together to develop coal seam gas resources. There will be greater certainty for geological companies and mining and petroleum companies who expend great amounts of money in exploration for coal seam gas. I am pleased that a new and integrated safety management regime will be provided for, as the operational safety of existing coalmines is paramount. Last week I attended the 15th anniversary celebrations of SIMTARS, which is in my electorate of Bundamba, on behalf of the minister. The Safety in Mines Training and Research Station is a world-class facility dedicated to safety in mines, and I congratulate it on its work in safety in mines. I have taken retired Ipswich coalminers through this facility and they are always impressed with the technological advances in mine safety. I also caught up with an old friend of mine, Mr Ieuan Roberts, whom I worked with when he was managing director of Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd. Last week it was the 20th anniversary of the Curragh mine, which I was involved with. I understand that Tom Kuzman hosted a 20th anniversary celebration last Saturday night for everyone who was involved in the Curragh mine. Ieuan Roberts was also a chief inspector of mines in Queensland, and in his retirement he takes an active interest in mine safety. As they say, once a miner always a miner. We had a great morning at SIMTARS— Mr Briskey interjected. Mrs MILLER: I am a coalminer's daughter, and proud of it! I am confident that the contribution of SIMTARS to the coal industry will continue for many decades to come. This bill is obviously very important to the coal industry. I thank the minister and all of the departmental officers, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.39 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003. I note that the object of this bill is to preserve the integrity of the approved government policy in relation to the coal seam gas regime by 3428 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 ensuring that no inappropriate grants for mining or petroleum lease applications are made in areas of particular tenure overlap, pending the introduction of legislation to give effect to the policy by 1 July 2004. In substance, this bill is about resolving possible conflict involving relevant leases. I note that the explanatory notes indicate that the bill will affect only a selective small number of applications and proposed applications. In speaking to this bill, I will use this opportunity to share with members a real issue of conflict on the Sunshine Coast. I refer to an area that is in both my electorate of Nicklin and the neighbouring electorate of Noosa. The issue concerns a mining application. During my contribution, I will table for the benefit of the minister and other honourable members a copy of a submission prepared by the North Arm Watch Group on matters concerning the application, which has been in the pipeline for some time. The submission highlights the concerns and sentiments of many of the locals. This is about resolving conflict. I understand that some 23 properties are affected by application No. 50184 lodged by Papillon Mining Pty Ltd. I will read into Hansard the names of a number of residents who have taken the trouble to make written submissions. I urge members to find the time to read these very personal submissions from the following people: Tami Mills, 125 Hidden Valley Road, North Arm; Keith and Desley Johnson, Hidden Valley Road, North Arm; Mark and Shelley Brough, Lot 18, Pathara Road, North Arm; Lindsay Waddell, Lot 13, Pathara Road, North Arm; Isla and John Cole, Pathara Road, North Arm; Lance and Lesley Cividin, 100 Pathara Road, North Arm; Meek Blumson, 113-143 Pathara Road, North Arm; Michael Glanford, 74-76 Pathara Road, North Arm; Terry and Janice Byrne, 35-37 Pathara Road, North Arm; Alistair and Sally Heron, 40 Pathara Road, North Arm; Jenny Doff, Seib Road, North Arm; Bob and Narelle Polzin, Seib Road, North Arm; Jeff and Lorraine Scrivener, Seib Road, North Arm; Sylvia Ponyokai, Lot 2, Wegner Road, North Arm; and Min Hutton, 413 Seib Road, North Arm. I realise that the matters I am referring to now do not directly touch on the matters we are debating in the bill. This bill is about trying to resolve conflict. But this is an opportunity for me to put this on the parliamentary record for the benefit of not just the minister but also the Minister for Environment and all other members who are interested in trying to resolve conflict involving mining leases and competing uses. We need to be aware that we have a responsibility to all people in Queensland, not just the miners, to do the right thing and to be seen to be doing the right thing. I commend the minister for this bill. I seek leave to table the submission for the benefit of all honourable members, if they are interested. Leave granted. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (4.43 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members, and in particular opposition members, for their support of the Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003. As a number of speakers have mentioned, coal seam methane is becoming an important clean source of energy for this state. This bill provides an interim framework that tries to resolve issues that a number of members have highlighted where there are overlapping tenures, which can lead to commercial conflict. We are trying to seek a way forward prior to the introduction and passing of the petroleum and gas bill hopefully next year. This enables certainty to be provided to the industry in those areas of conflict as a result of overlapping tenures. Again, I thank all honourable members for their support for this legislation. I acknowledge that both the member for Nicklin and the member for Noosa, Cate Molloy, have been very strong advocates for the people of North Arm. The issues are complex, but I hope with goodwill on all sides we will be able to find a way forward and address the concerns of the constituents of both the member for Nicklin and the member for Noosa. In conclusion, I thank all honourable members for their support. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Robertson, by leave, read a third time. 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3429

HOUSING BILL Second Reading Resumed from 27 May (see p. 2082). Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (4.48 p.m.): I am pleased to address the Housing Bill 2003. However, prior to doing so, I wish to put on record a correction concerning a misunderstanding the Housing Minister seems to have in relation to the housing policy of the National and Liberal parties. Earlier today in this House the Housing Minister expressed the belief that the coalition parties were devoid of a housing policy. How he was so ill informed is a mystery, particularly when he prides himself on being a man of knowledge and wisdom. Nevertheless, the minister knows that I am a fair dinkum bloke and, in the interests of fair play and to assist him to be better informed about the coalition's housing policy, I am happy to provide him with a personal briefing at some point in the future. There is another misunderstanding by the minister that needs to be corrected. I refer to the debate on the appropriation bills on 21 August, in which I stated that we have a Public Works policy and that the minister will see it when I say the timing is right. I stated further— We have a very good policy and we do have the answers and subbies that do government jobs will get paid under a Springborg government. I tell the government that right now. We have the answers. We have the policies, contrary to what the minister says. It is the subbies who will get paid when we are in government. Subcontractors in good faith tender for projects because they are government projects. Government projects are supposed to provide some degree of security and surety to contractors. The government is not expected to go broke nor into bankruptcy. Subcontractors expect to be paid for the work that they have undertaken to specification and requirements. What is so difficult for the minister to understand about that? A fair day's pay for a fair day's work is a good old Australian ethos. We in the National Party, who are the true representatives of small business and enterprise in this state, recognise the Australian ethos and we want to deliver on it. The members opposite will not see a Springborg government walking away from a government project saying that it is someone else's project. I now turn to the bill in question. According to the explanatory notes— Mr Schwarten: How are you going to do it? Mr HOPPER: I will talk to the minister. I will give him that briefing. According to the explanatory notes accompanying the bill, the main objectives of the Housing Bill 2003 are to improve the access of residents to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and to help build sustainable communities. That will be achieved by establishing flexibility for the department to provide housing services to those in need throughout the state; modernising the legislative framework under which the department conducts its current and future business; creating a regulatory scheme for funded organisations to ensure that a high standard of service delivery is provided and the proper protection of tenants is afforded; giving the department the capacity to monitor and enforce specific obligations owed by direct clients and funded organisations; abolishing the Queensland Housing Commission and transferring all rights and obligations of the state of Queensland to the Department of Housing; and continuing the Queensland Housing Commission fund with the newly proposed Queensland Housing Fund. The State Housing Act 1945 and, subsequently, the Queensland Housing Commission were established to meet the demand for housing following the return of many service personnel from World War II in conjunction with an increasing number of immigrant families—all falling on the top of a severe housing shortage caused by the Depression years. As all members are fully aware, the Depression years saw building activity slow dramatically or stall completely in some areas. At that time the Queensland Housing Commission began building Queensland's first rental homes. It also started converting former wartime barracks into temporary accommodation for families in need. By the end of the fifties the commission had constructed nearly 23,000 houses across the state of which over half were sold while the others were rented. Since the 1990s the provision of public housing has changed dramatically. Public housing is no longer provided in enclaves but is constructed with full aesthetic consideration of the surrounding environment and residents' needs. Consequently, the reviews in the 1990s of the Queensland State Housing Act 1945 conducted by the then Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning concluded that the act was mostly irrelevant to how housing assistance was delivered in practice. 3430 Housing Bill 10 Sep 2003

Today, affordable housing is an issue that affects the entire community, which is why the federal government has asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a public inquiry to evaluate the affordability and availability of housing for first home buyers and to report by 31 March next year. The commission will issue an exposure draft in mid-December 2003, which will set out the main findings and policy options identified. I look forward to the outcome of the inquiry and I wish the Productivity Commission well in the job ahead. I recall the introduction of the GST when the federal government temporarily doubled the first home owners grant for new dwellings from $7,000 to $14,000. What a boost that was to first home owners' accessibility to housing as well as a tremendous boost to the housing industry. I also recall the federal government asking the state government to provide stamp duty relief for first home buyers as the state's contribution to helping the housing industry. However, that federal call fell on deaf ears. Affordable home ownership is separate from affordable rental accommodation, even though it is most frequently related to the indicators of housing affordability. The objective of the coalition's housing policy—which we do have—is to ensure that all Queenslanders have access to safe, secure, affordable housing in both private— Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: When members opposite call an election we will give them the policy. How is that? If they tell us when the election is I will give them the policy. It is a good policy, too. They cannot wait. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr HOPPER: I have not seen the minister's policy yet, either. The objective of the coalition housing policy is to ensure that all Queenslanders have access to safe, secure and affordable housing in both the private and public systems whether under ownership or through the rental market. The coalition is committed under a Springborg-led government to representing the community in limiting the negative impact of interest rates, costs relating to land supply and, of course, government taxes and charges on housing affordability, which the members opposite have failed to address. Public housing has been provided by the state Housing Department, the Queensland Housing Commission or through the various not-for-profit housing bodies established to provide public housing. However, the coalition believes that there is a greater need to generate and stimulate effective opportunities for the private sector to provide affordable rental accommodation. While some developers are already in the market providing affordable— Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: The members opposite cannot wait. While some developers are already in the market providing affordable rental accommodation, the government can do more to investigate options and engage more developers and providers to become involved in the affordable rental market. As mentioned previously, affordable housing throughout Queensland is a problem for our entire community. There is a need to explore a number of options to improve the level of public housing. There are in existence overseas numerous examples to show that this approach works. The Department of Housing's strategic action plan clearly states that the improved operation of the housing system depends on limiting increases in the cost factors of housing production including land, labour, materials, transport, infrastructure, planning and approvals process costs, and finance costs. Recently—and rightly so—a great deal of attention has been given by various entities regarding the availability of land in south-east Queensland. As that area expects substantial growth in the next 10 years, the issue of land supply and the provision of associated infrastructure are paramount to avoid any harmful effects on the affordability of housing. Current trends suggest that in excess of 250,000 new units and homes will be required in the next 10 years to meet the housing demand. The current ad hoc approach to public housing does not provide any long-term solution to what is a long-term community-wide issue. A strategic public housing infrastructure plan, which identifies what kind, where and when public housing is required, is needed, and rather urgently. The new housing bill should provide the Department of Housing with a better opportunity to effect a sound strategic public housing infrastructure plan. The State Housing Act 1945 did not provide for the new principles required in the strategic public housing infrastructure plan. However, 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3431 according to the minister's second reading speech, this bill should allow a more contemporary and flexible system for the administration of Queensland housing programs and services. While the opposition will be supporting this bill, we have concerns about some aspects, which I will now express. There is a lack of provision of external review of decisions relating to the registration and/or cancellation of the registration of registered providers and, consequently, there is not sufficient regard to the rights of individuals. The explanatory notes state that the department will continue to consider the issue of external review throughout the implementation of the new legislation and when the legislation is reviewed. However, the legislation will not be reviewed for three years. The bill does not include a general duty of confidentiality, preventing the chief executive and Public Service employees of the department who gain information in the course of administering the act from recording, using or disclosing the information to anyone without consent. Whilst the provisions of the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 and the Public Service Act 1996 apply to employees of the Department of Housing, the enhanced authority of the chief executive provided for under the bill requires specific mention of confidentiality arrangements. Additional confidentiality provisions are provided for commercial enterprises through the commercial-in- confidence principles even though chief executives and public servants are engaging in dealing with the commercial enterprises. Accordingly, recognition needs to be provided to the enhanced authority to delegate authority of the chief executive. Clause 11(1) provides that the chief executive is responsible for using the Queensland Housing Fund and portfolio property in ways that best achieve the objectives of the act. Subclause (2) specifies the way the chief executive can use the fund or property, including the provision of public housing, grants, loans, land or other assistance to individuals who need housing services and to entities that provide housing for their employees or contractors. The fund or property can also be used to conduct housing related research and to develop, undertake or support other housing programs for a number of purposes, which include the promotion of a responsive and sustainable housing sector. The chief executive may also provide housing related infrastructure. Of particular concern is clause 13(1), which gives the chief executive the power to make loans and investments to achieve the objectives of the act. We have concerns with this. Subclause (2) provides the chief executive with this power, despite the application of section 40C of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1997, which means that the chief executive can exercise this power without requiring prior approval of the Treasurer. Section 40C of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1997 states that no-one other than the Treasurer may invest or otherwise lend an amount. Subclause (3) enables the chief executive to set interest rates for the loans in the way the chief executive considers appropriate. Clause 14(2) allows the chief executive to waive payment of the amount, either entirely or partly, if the chief executive is satisfied the waiver is appropriate in the circumstances. In the interests of public accountability, the opposition would like to see an appropriate check and balance on the powers of the chief executive. The check and balance could be achieved by a requirement on the chief executive to receive prior approval from the Treasurer in accordance with section 40C of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1997 to make loans and investments, set interest rates and waive payments. The opposition will not be moving an amendment to legislatively provide for the check and balance at this time. Consequently, we expect the responsible minister and the Treasurer to be administratively vigilant. As mentioned previously, the opposition is supporting this bill to ensure that residents have improved access to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and that sustainable communities will be developed to meet future demands. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (5.02 p.m.): The provision of adequate, safe, affordable housing was an interest of mine long before I became involved in the political scene in 1984. I was working in a voluntary capacity in an organisation that provided emergency housing. I cared for families in a number of houses, and also did office duties. It was very evident to me that a family without a stable home was a family in crisis. Children were sometimes malnourished, resulting in poor health. Some had emotional or behavioural issues. Family relationships were often strained and their financial state was quite precarious. I still recall one young family with four children—two with severe medical conditions—and their inability to function at even the most basic level. 3432 Housing Bill 10 Sep 2003

The services available back then were certainly very inadequate. When I began work in the Woodridge electorate office in 1984 the area was heavily populated with residents in department or, as it was known then, commission homes. These were the days before area offices were established, and the electorate office was the first port of call for anyone on the waiting list or indeed for anyone with a housing inquiry. Names in central office that come to mind are Tony Moss, Peter Videroni, the late Bob Kasaulke, Tony Waters, Jim Murphy and so on. They were dedicated officers, and many remain within the department to this day. Indeed, Jim Murphy came to Woodridge before the area office was established, has been a stalwart of the department and is still there today. Peter Videroni served our community as our first area office manager and is fondly remembered in our community. The department has had a fine, stable, caring work force. I must pay tribute to them for the huge assistance they have always given to members and their staff. Throughout the past eight years Katherine Saffiotti has served as area manager and has enjoyed the greater contact with community that our community renewal has offered. Katherine, sadly, is leaving us. You will be greatly missed, Katherine. Our community thanks you. However, times have moved on. The State Housing Act, which has been in existence since 1945, has more than served its time. Today we have a department which is flexible and innovative and needs to be far less restrictive. To be able to respond to the varied needs, broad principles have been put in place to allow for support of other agencies—giving financial assistance to organisations which are registered with the department and providing workable guidelines. Of course, the department's core business of providing public housing, loans, grants, research and future planning all remain. The electorate of Woodridge proudly boasts many organisations which are partners in our task of housing our residents and offering related services. Interlink is a lead agency in the provision of emergency and community rental scheme housing. Jenny Schultz and her team administer their organisation well. However, they and other groups, such as the Kingston East Neighbourhood Centre, are under great pressure due to the high needs in our community. The influx of migrants from the south as well as overseas, the closure of boarding housing and caravan parks and, of course, the demise of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement all contribute to the great pressure on housing. I recall when the wait time for a three-bedroom house in Woodridge was four weeks or even less. It is now between 15 and 18 months, and the fact that there is no area which has taken the place of Logan as an area with a short wait time leaves many people out in the cold, literally. Just over a week ago, at my mobile office at the local Sunday market, I was approached by a lady who has been living in her car for months. She is helping her son with his education expenses and so maintains that she simply cannot afford rent. She was an intelligent, neatly dressed woman. It was quite disarming. My tenant support committee LANARTA, the Logan and Neighbouring Area Regional Tenant Association, has been a wonderful support both to the department and to tenants. Jean Succi, Ann Langley, Ros Morris and others have not only fostered good relationships in the area and dealt with any problems presenting; they have organised the local department's gardening competition, sought a gambling fund grant and sponsored computer classes for seniors and many other community initiatives, including involvement in our community renewal. Other funding goes to our tenant support services and Home Secure to assist our seniors with their home maintenance. In Woodridge and Kingston many millions of dollars have been spent upgrading department homes, thus instilling an increasing sense of pride in the area. The impact made by the department in my electorate of Woodridge has been remarkable. This bill reflects a department responsive to the changing needs within our communities, gives flexibility and ensures a consultative, accountable entity, with discretionary powers resting with the chief executive officer to ensure that the department remains people focused. With others in this House, I share concerns for the future—how we deal with the growing number of families and individuals seeking public housing with ever-diminishing funds from our federal government, how we meet the needs of people with disabilities or where displaced people are housed as low-rental facilities close. On a recent visit I was pleased to see the advances being made on a number of our Aboriginal communities in the cape. I hope that this good work will continue. I commend the minister for his commitment to affordable, safe and appropriate housing for Queenslanders. I thank his staff and those who have prepared this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3433

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (5.08 p.m.): I rise to support the Housing Bill, which aims to improve the access of Queenslanders to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and to help build sustainable communities. The legislation will also establish a more flexible basis for the department to provide housing services to those in need throughout the state, to modernise the legislative framework under which the department will conduct its current and future business, to create a regulatory scheme for funded organisations to ensure a high standard of service delivery and the proper protection of tenants, and to give the department the capacity to monitor and enforce specific obligations owed by direct clients and funded organisations. The general purpose and structure of the 1945 act, which has been amended many times, remains essentially unchanged. However, it is very restrictive in terms of approval structures for the administration of current departmental programs. It is important that the current activities of the Department of Housing are reflected in effective and relevant legislation. The Housing Bill 2003 will provide a framework for the department's current activities and future role. It repeals the State Housing Act 1945 and abolishes the Queensland Housing Commission, vesting the commission's assets and liabilities in the state of Queensland. The government faces significant challenges in meeting the housing needs of Queenslanders. There are long waiting lists in all areas for affordable housing. Corinda—a suburb in my electorate in Mount Ommaney—is much in demand and a number of seniors units and affordable accommodation units have been constructed there over the last few years. A number of months ago I officially opened a modern unit complex in Hassall Street. All of the tenants are delighted with their brand-new accommodation. The main objects of this legislation are to improve the access of Queenslanders to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and to help build sustainable communities. The government's vision for housing promotes secure, affordable and appropriate housing in diverse, cohesive and sustainable communities as fundamental to a good quality of life for families and individuals. This vision for good housing outcomes recognises that housing enables people to participate in the social and economic life of the community. Good housing outcomes in sustainable communities provide a healthy environment in which to bring up children, improve health and are the basis for taking up education, training and job opportunities. This vision also recognises that housing assistance helps to reduce the incidence of after- housing poverty for households. It is so important that the people of Queensland are provided with all these opportunities. The legislation will provide a more contemporary and flexible system for the administration of Queensland Housing programs and services. It will also support the state government's vision and broader role to influence the wider housing system to ensure that it works more effectively in responding to the housing needs of Queenslanders. The minister should be congratulated for enabling the state government to continue to provide public housing grants and loans to those in need of those services. As a result of this bill, there will be a greater accountability in the public housing system, which provides approximately 52,000 dwellings. In the community housing system, that assists around 6,000 households at any one time. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (5.11 p.m.): At the outset, can I say that I am pleased to rise to support the Housing Bill 2003. This is a bill that repeals the State Housing Act 1985 and replaces it with a modernised and more flexible legislative framework under which the Department of Housing can conduct its current and future business. The main objects of the legislation, as we have heard from other speakers, are to improve the access of Queenslanders to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and to help build sustainable communities. The minister in his second reading speech highlighted that, while the 1945 legislation, as amended, reflected the policy and the administrative environment of its time, it has become redundant and has ceased to be a useful legislative tool for the government. If we go back to the second reading debate in 1945, it is quite a telling debate about the introduction of the State Housing Bill, which subsequently became the State Housing Act. The debate reflected that the bill was a government response to the acute housing position directly resulting from the Second World War. It also revealed that the bill was brought about through an agreement from the Commonwealth to have the states for the first time provide rental public housing. Prior to that, the concept of government assistance in housing was that of providing loans to people to purchase their own home. For the first time, states introduced the concept of the government purchasing properties and then renting them. 3434 Housing Bill 10 Sep 2003

It seemed to me there were some parallels between what was happening in 1945 and what is happening now—taking the war out of the similarities. After the Second World War, the Commonwealth government saw that it had a role and a duty to provide housing in a climate where there was not sufficient housing. There was an acute housing crisis as our servicemen and women came back from the war. The Commonwealth made the very positive move of taking up the responsibility for funding housing and providing accommodation in a time of crisis. The second point was that there was a housing crisis at that time. Here we are almost 70 years later and instead of the Commonwealth accepting its duty and supporting the provision of accommodation for those most disadvantaged in our community it is being derelict in its duty. It is walking away from that duty. We now have an acute housing crisis and a Commonwealth that could not care less whether people are living in Woodridge in a car or living in Pine Rivers in a park. The Commonwealth says that it is the state's responsibility: 'Don't blame us; blame the states.' The Commonwealth once again has announced another inquiry. When it comes to domestic issues in this country, John Howard's response time and time again to a problem is, 'Let's set up an inquiry, and in that inquiry let's see how we can blame the states.' That is what is happening again with the housing issue. The shadow spokesman for public works and housing made much of the federal government policies and sang the praises of those policies in providing home ownership for Australians. Perhaps the member for Darling Downs should speak to Queensland Shelter—an organisation that advocates for those at risk of homelessness. A recent paper from Adrian Pisarki of Queensland Shelter has looked at the policies of the federal government, and this is what that organisation has to say— Policies around housing are designed either to increase supply (negative gearing encourages investment in rental housing) or reduce cost (First Home Owners Grant allows people into the market by providing an incentive and provides a potential deposit, Commonwealth Rent Assistance provides some assistance to people on fixed incomes to meet rental costs) or provide an incentive (capital gains tax exemptions on homes encourages both ownership and investment). However at the moment all these policies seem to be colluding to work against their intended purpose. Their purpose is to provide a balance in the markets and improve affordability and yet they are working together to pour fuel onto an inflated housing market. Adrian from Queensland Shelter makes the comment in this paper that the big issue of public housing affordability has remained constant and that the media is almost in a frenzy over housing affordability stories. However, the one aspect they seem to miss in all of this is the real story—that is, the crisis in rental affordability. He brings home to the federal government the fact that its current policies are fuelling the fire of increasing the affordability of housing not only in owner occupied houses but also in rentals. The RTA puts out quarterly figures on the cost of rental properties in areas throughout Queensland. Its figures show that in Strathpine the cost of renting privately a three-bedroom home from June 2001 to June 2003 has increased up to $40 a week, yet incomes have not increased by that amount. For more and more people the costs of housing are soaking up most of their income, and the supply of private rental houses is shrinking as well. It is these issues to which the Department of Housing has been turning its mind for some time. The framework in this bill will allow some innovative thinking. There has been some very creative thinking, and some companies such as the Brisbane Housing Company are emerging as a result of it. I congratulate the department and I certainly congratulate the minister. He will not shirk from his duty to those most at risk of homelessness and will look at whatever programs or policies can be put in place to assist those people. What the Commonwealth needs to do is accept its duty and its role, and as the market keeps heating up and the cost of housing increases then we need to have the Commonwealth come back in with sufficient funding to assist us in providing affordable or social housing programs. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.20 p.m.): In rising to speak to this Housing Bill, I would have to say that I have had a number of conversations, both heated and not heated, with the Minister for Housing, but I have to commend him for the quality of housing that is provided in the electorate of Gladstone and I am sure in the broader area of Queensland. The homes that are built by the Housing Commission and by the apprenticeship schemes and other schemes that build houses for Queensland Housing are second to none. The programs to convert housing to cater for people with disabilities are well thought out and adaptable to most people's disabilities. I know that the homes that I have looked at in the Gladstone area—and I know that they are not unique—are a credit to everybody in Queensland Housing, to the workers who are employed by Queensland Housing. For those people who actually occupy them, they are 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3435 a real delight. I also pay tribute to the local departmental staff and those in Rockhampton who handle most of the issues in relation to housing matters in the electorate. They are very easy to deal with. We find that all of the responses that we get from them are quite easy to justify. Mr Schwarten: We will pass that on. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: They are. They are a really good group of people, both in Gladstone and Rockhampton. They are very efficient and are a credit to the minister. As has been said, the objectives of the bill are to improve the access of Queenslanders to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and to build sustainable communities. The objectives are achieved by providing public housing and other housing services; by developing, undertaking or supporting other housing programs and initiatives; and by giving them financial assistance, making land available to them or giving them other types of assistance. No family survives well without a reliable place to stay, whether that is a unit, whether that is a three- or four-bedroom house or whether that is an accommodation block in terms of a men's shelter, a women's shelter or a youth shelter. No person in the community and no family in the community will survive without somewhere from which they can operate and in which they can feel safe and secure. It would have to be said that, since the war—and the previous speaker said this—Queensland Housing has provided accommodation for an unlimited number of families who have been able to survive other constraints because they have somewhere safe, warm and dry from which they can operate and in which they can make their family operate. The guiding principles of this legislation are the availability of safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing, to enhance the quality of life of people living in the community, and to contribute to the wellbeing of the community by enabling people to participate in its social and economic life. I would have to say that more recently in my electorate—and this is probably the area that I have come to taws with with the minister—there has been real pressure on housing because of industrial development and with a lot of families coming in. Those particular families who were receiving construction wages could pay quite inflated rentals prices. That meant that those families in the community who were on fixed incomes—who were on relatively low, stable incomes—found that they were outside the affordability of the market. Unfortunately, too many of those people in my community had to leave. The ability for Queensland Housing's housing stocks to keep pace with the demand was not there. It was not achievable. If people flew over Gladstone now they would see that significant housing development is occurring—both in the public and private sectors. One would hope that, when the next wave of population increase occurs, we might have some ability to be able to cater for that housing demand. When I spoke with the minister about the issue, he would relay the fact that the Commonwealth parliament was not doing its share. Because my work is in the state area, I would relay my concerns to the state minister. If, in fact, the Commonwealth government is not carrying its load, then my message to the Commonwealth government is that there are people in Queensland who are hurting because of its unwillingness to be involved in the fundamentals of the ability of a family to cope. Those fundamentals are housing, welfare support and those intrinsic necessities that make life sustainable. To respond to the immediate demand for housing in our community, the minister organised for some houses from Amberley to be transported to Gladstone and refurbished. When they first arrived I would have to say that they were frighteningly poor in their condition. Mr Schwarten: They look good now, though. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: They suffered through their transportation, but I had the opportunity of attending the handover of the first three refurbished houses. The minister officiated at that ceremony. The transformation of those three houses was beyond belief. They are homes that I think anybody would be proud to live in. Mr Schwarten: Done by apprentices. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: They were. Mr Schwarten: Trainees. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Yes, by one of the groups down here in south-east Queensland. Those homes certainly came up well by any comparison but, compared to their condition at arrival, the transformation was stunning. 3436 Housing Bill 10 Sep 2003

As I said, the buildings that are being constructed in my electorate by Queensland Housing, often done by the group apprenticeship schemes or by apprentices under Queensland Housing, are second to none in their quality, in the thought that has been put into their design and in their suitability for the tenants who will occupy them. I would be hypocritical not to commend the minister for the quality of work that has been done in the electorate. This is particularly so for those houses that are designed to allow for transformation into disability access, because they really are second to none. In terms of Queensland Housing, this bill transfers a number of the existing powers to the new entity and then empowers the new entity with some more modern management tools. I just put on the record that for many of us it is a sad day to see the title 'Queensland Housing' disappear. It has been part of our heritage for many years. I am sorry to have to advise the minister of this, but I think that for about the next 20 years it will still be called the Housing Commission because the new entity will struggle to be able to subjugate that name. I also wanted to put on the record the issue of the appropriateness of the reviewable decisions that are contained in clause 63 of the bill. The reviewable decisions that have been set out include— (a) a decision by the chief executive officer about— (i) a person's eligibility to be provided with public housing; or (ii) the type of public housing to be provided to a person; or (iii) the place where public housing is to be provided to a person; Then there are a number of other categories. In most of our electorates the greatest amount of grief would come from those first few categories—whether a person was eligible to receive public housing because of their income and those types of criteria and then, if they do qualify, the type of housing for which they qualify. There is disquiet about this. People feel that they are eligible for this sort of housing, but under the Queensland Housing criteria they are only eligible for an alternate type of housing. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I have found the minister's staff very easy to deal with in coming to a clear result in those reviews. It is not that the person who is making the appeal succeeds—in many cases they do not—but in the manner in which that review is carried out. I would commend the minister's staff. Another area that we have a problem with is that the bulk of our public housing is in the city area of Gladstone, yet we have a growing community down at Boyne/Tannum. A limited amount of public housing or Queensland Housing buildings are available there. There are a growing number of units and a lesser number of homes, and virtually no houses available at Calliope. For those people who may have family or a support network in either Boyne/Tannum or Calliope, it is very difficult to accept that they have to put those three areas as their options because the shorter waiting list is in Gladstone. I have to say, though, that like many of the electorates in Queensland our waitlist is less than acceptable in terms of the perception of those who apply for the housing. Again, for those waiting to be accommodated, a week is a year so if they have to wait 18 months or two years it is a very long time. Mr Reeves: Where's the Commonwealth government in this? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I do not disagree with that. If it has been negligent or recalcitrant in funding what should be its area of responsibility, I do not have any problems with calling it to account. The only other area I want to raise is the area of public housing for employees of the Public Service. There has been a policy—and it is not just this government; it was the prior coalition government and then Labor before that—of selling off public housing on the eastern seaboard. Gladstone is one of the areas where, fortunately and thankfully, there has been a level of public housing retained. Because of the type of cyclical development we have at Gladstone, people who are reliant on the rental market are very much subject to incredibly high increases in rental costs. In the most recent cycle, it went from $120 to something like $300 a week for a standard home. Executive type homes are more expensive again. There is a need for the retention in the electorate of public housing or government sponsored housing for teachers, railway workers, courthouse workers and other government departments that are required in a developing community. If such people have access to government accommodation, it means that their ability to sustain a 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3437 lifestyle in the Gladstone area is continued. I continue to put before the minister the need to keep government housing available to government employees in the Gladstone electorate because of those huge cycles of increases that occur in development. We have one major project still to really impact on the community, which is the Aldoga aluminium project. They are doing the earthworks at the moment, but certainly the impact will be felt in the first and second quarter of next year. It would be a tragedy to see the same numbers of families leave the area as a result of a lack of affordable housing. I commend the minister for the work that he does in the area of affordable housing. Even though we have a lot of disagreements, I know that Minister Schwarten has a real heart for people and their needs for affordable accommodation. That has been a hallmark of his. The only other area I wish to raise involves some submissions that will be brought to the minister's attention. I have already spoken to his office in relation to a men's shelter in the electorate. We have a women's shelter that is often stretched beyond its limits. We have a youth shelter, Roseberry House, that was built by apprentices. It is a real credit to Queensland Housing and provides a wonderful service for our youth. However, we have one area of need that has not been addressed yet. I know that the minister supports it because I have— Mr Schwarten interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is right. I have talked to him about boarding houses in relation to this. I raise the issue of a men's shelter. There is a group formed at the moment and some funds are already coming in to establish a men's shelter. There are so many men in need, particularly those in their more mature years. Either their marriages break down or they lose their social supports and peer supports, and they are really left with nowhere to go. The men's shelter is essential to provide medium- and short-term care to allow them to re-establish the skills that they need to re-enter the community with independent lives. I commend the bill. I look forward to the continuation of a good housing commission process. I take on board the comments that have been made about the need for the Commonwealth to come on board. I look forward to working with the minister positively to provide accommodation for people in the electorate. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (5.34 p.m.): I rise to add my strong support to the Housing Bill brought to the House by the Housing Minister, Robert Schwarten. Before I speak in detail about the bill, I want to indicate my support for the minister in the successes that he has had year after year in increasing the state budget for public housing. Mr Mickel: It went up by $200 million under the minister. Ms NOLAN: That is quite right. Robert Schwarten has very much— Mr Mickel: In the face of a $300 million federal cutback. Ms NOLAN: In the face of a $300 million federal cutback, he has consistently increased the state government's contribution to public housing. In a tight fiscal environment, that is a real achievement and a sign of a minister who is doing a good job. The minister has often fought a lonely battle to put housing issues on the national political agenda. We hear him in here, sitting week after sitting week, raising these issues. We see the press releases that he puts out and we know about the pressure that he puts on the federal government. However, sadly and for reasons which defy me, there is a complete ignorance of these issues in the federal political arena. These issues will come and bite this community in a very big way. This minister will be able to say that he told us so. It is hardly the kind of victory that we in politics seek to achieve. At the end of the day, being able to say 'I told you so' is not what we are after, but that is what is going to happen. Before I go on, I also very much want to commend the Director-General of Housing, Linda Apelt. She is a fantastic achiever and a very good female director-general. I might even suggest that there could be a few more female D-Gs to contribute in such a positive way. Members are well aware that housing, particularly public housing, is an issue that is very close to my heart. I have informed the House before that my mother grew up in public housing in Warwick. After her father left, her mother, my grandmother, was left to bring up three kids on her own with a measly state pension and the bit of money that she could get together through sewing and cleaning for the more well-to-do folk of Warwick. I have told the House before that my mother and her two brothers have all gone on to be big achievers in society. One of my mother's brothers is the CEO of one of Australia's top 100 companies. There is no doubt that those three children, 3438 Housing Bill 10 Sep 2003 as they were, would not have had the opportunity to live in a stable environment, to get a good education and to stick together as a family if it was not for the security that public housing provided them with. Public housing continues to provide people all over Queensland and, indeed, all over Australia with that security in life every day of every year. I firmly believe that affordable housing is a sleeper issue of the future. Within a year or two, it will become very prominent all over Queensland and most certainly in the community of Ipswich. Right now in Ipswich emergency housing is in an absolute crisis. The few emergency housing providers that we have—the Ipswich community rent scheme, the Booval community service and others—find themselves turning away people who are desperately in need of a place to stay on an almost daily basis. Most people end up crashing on the floor at a friend's place, sleeping in the car or traipsing around from local member to local member, housing agency to housing agency, day after day, week after week trying to find themselves a secure place to sleep. The reason that emergency housing is in absolute crisis is that there is not enough federal funding for it. When people get into an emergency house, they have to stay there. There is not enough public housing to move into and, in particular, the tenancy databases—which I am very proud to have been a part of addressing—have kept a huge number of people out of private rentals. People struggle and struggle to get out of desperate situations, often domestic violence situations, and into emergency housing. When they get in, there is nowhere for them to go. Those people keep out other people in situations just like them. The situation is desperate in Ipswich, as I am sure it is in other communities around the state. Mr Mickel: It certainly is in Logan. Ms NOLAN: I note the interjection of the member for Logan. There is a need for more funding for emergency housing. Perhaps more importantly, there is a need to address the structural issues that keep people out of the private and public rental markets and that give people who need emergency housing a decent, secure, long-term place to go. Sadly, over a long period in Australia the federal government has turned its back on public housing. Instead, for purely ideological reasons, it has chosen to put its money into rent assistance. But rent assistance is not any good to people in a market where rents are extremely high and increasing. It is no good to those kept out of the market by the tenancy database. It is no use to Aboriginals, single mothers with three kids, people who have a dog, people who look a bit scruffy or others who, for whatever reason, every time they walk into a real estate agent are told, 'Sorry. We haven't got a thing available.' The private rental market, even with rent assistance, will not begin to house everybody, and that is very much an issue that the government needs to address. Recently in the federal press we have seen some hoo-ha about the increased costs of housing, particularly in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. I have been very saddened to see the Howard government acting as though this whole issue can be attributed to state stamp duty. Sadly, this economic illiteracy was perpetuated by Mr Hopper today. Mr Mickel: He thinks hundreds and thousands are things you put on cakes. Ms NOLAN: Stamp duty is not the issue when it comes to affordable housing. What we are seeing in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane is that market forces are driving up the cost of housing. Stamp duty is the icing on the hundreds and thousands cake. Stamp duty is a small contributor; fundamental market forces are driving the price up. If we removed stamp duty, all we would do is fuel the growth in the housing market; prices would rise in proportion to the amount of stamp duty removed. That is how markets work. The idea that we could remove stamp duty in order to stimulate a housing market and that that would somehow fix the problem of a stimulated housing market does not make a huge amount of economic sense. However, that is the sort of rubbish we are seeing perpetuated by Mr Hopper and by the federal government today. It is economic craziness. It is blaming the states for a much broader market issue. What we are seeing in the housing market is a fundamental market failure. The market does not provide housing for people on low incomes. The market does not look after people such as my mother's family, who did not have a lot of money and who needed a place to live. This is not an issue about stamp duty. This is about a fundamental failure of the market to take care of these people. That is where government needs to kick in. That is where this minister has been arguing for years that we need to kick in. This issue is occurring in Ipswich and in other places. Mr Mickel: Logan. Ms NOLAN: It is occurring in Logan and elsewhere. 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3439

Ms Keech: And in Albert. Ms NOLAN: In recent years in Ipswich we have seen a housing boom, and it is driving poor people out of the city to places such as Lowood and Esk where there are no services and no public transport and people struggle to be connected to the community. That will continue to happen. I commend this minister for his ongoing fight to put these issues of affordable housing on our national agenda. It is very much a fight in which I support him. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (5.44 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in support of the Housing Bill 2003. The Housing Bill provides a great opportunity for the Queensland government to enshrine its commitment to advance the availability of safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing for Queenslanders. The role of the Queensland government in housing has changed greatly from 1945, when the current state Housing Act commenced. At that time, the focus was on providing housing for families post World War II. Today the role of the Queensland government is much broader and ranges from providing public housing to people most in need to working with the private sector to expand the provision of affordable housing. The Housing Bill contains two objects that capture the breadth of the government's role in housing today. These objects, firstly, are to improve the access of Queenslanders to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing and, secondly, to help build sustainable communities. Both objects are adopted from the Queensland government's housing policy statement endorsed in May 2001. These objects have also been the subject of extensive community consultation, as has the bill. I have seen that particularly in the Cairns area, where I have attended a number of consultations in regard to the Housing Bill over recent years. I have seen the steady and sensible way in which the department has conducted the consultation. I remember well the early consultations and some of the people who attended, particularly those representing small community organisations that provide housing with assistance from the state government. They experienced nervousness over what might be the government's agenda, how it might affect them, whether the Housing Bill would make the standards too high or money too hard to access—all of the fears that understandably can be in the hearts of those who see the government might be changing the game plan or the arrangements. Through proceeding in such a steady fashion with the consultations—and I extend my compliments to those who facilitated the consultations—by taking on board all of the issues, by allowing those anxieties and concerns to be clearly expressed and then by addressing them we have arrived at a point now where almost all of the housing organisations, if not all, across Queensland are supporting the action that the House is taking today. I note the opposition's support for the bill. The first object, to improve the access of Queenslanders to safe, secure, appropriate and affordable housing, acknowledges the important role of the state government in helping Queenslanders to access housing that meets their needs. The second object, to help build sustainable communities, acknowledges the importance of housing in creating sustainable communities. This has been most recently illustrated, as Madam Deputy Speaker would herself be aware, by the Department of Housing's administration of the Community Renewal Program. The Community Renewal Program has been a tremendous success in the electorate of the acting Deputy Speaker, as it has been in mine and others around Queensland. The Community Renewal Program has demonstrated the importance of enhancing community capacity as a way to assist communities to thrive. In particular, I mention the tremendous benefits in what was regarded as the poorest and least attractive suburb to live in Cairns, the suburb of Manoora. Some five years ago it was at the bottom of the real estate attractiveness scale in Cairns. In truth, a lot of people there were dislocated and there was a low level of employment and education relative to some of the other suburbs of Cairns. Unfortunately, there was a relatively high crime rate, particularly in terms of youth crime, vandalism, graffiti and break and enters. All of this has changed thanks to the urban and the community renewal programs led by the Department of Housing. They recognised early not only the importance of providing modern, up-to-date housing for the families who will live in it but also the importance of the connection to other state government departments—the connection between housing and safety, housing and health, housing and training, education and employment, the importance of the connection between housing, stability in the family and community pride. All of these things have been accomplished over the last five years, thanks largely to the leadership of the Department of Housing and the Community Renewal Program. 3440 Housing Bill 10 Sep 2003

I am pleased to say that, for example, crime rates in the Manoora area have gone down. I am pleased to inform members that now it is very hard to get a house in the public housing areas of Manoora because the turnover in tenants has dramatically reduced. I am pleased, too, to say that when we do sell some of the older public houses in that area they are snapped up by private sector buyers very quickly. I predict that it will be only several years before Manoora will become the trendy inner-city suburb of Cairns. The minister is aware that that has been wonderful work, but that there are those of us in Cairns who hope there will be a further community renewal program for the suburb of Mooroobool. Mooroobool was one of the last small lot public housing estates established in the state of Queensland and we are left with the problems of that design—ill considered as it was—with some effects that we had not predicted and that are not of benefit to the community. I am hopeful that the minister and his department, with the support of cabinet colleagues and the Treasurer, will decide to continue community renewal programs and designate Mooroobool as a priority as soon as possible. Unfortunately, in Mooroobool we have some of the same conditions that we encountered in Manoora before we started the urban and community renewal projects. The two objects on which this bill is founded will be primarily achieved through the state's provision, first and foremost, of public housing and other housing services. They will be achieved through the state developing, undertaking and supporting other housing programs and initiatives and through the establishment of a system for supporting and regulating funded organisations that are providing housing services. In the early consultations on the bill this was a matter of some real concern for housing organisations, at least in the Cairns area and the far-northern region. There were those who were concerned that the new standards we might be setting would be beyond them. There were those who were concerned that they may be, as it were, put out of business. Understandably they were concerned that the standards may be beyond their understanding or their capacity or knowledge to provide. I am pleased to reassure any who have not yet been reassured that we will include with the bill proper education for the registered housing providers of the new standards and assistance to those organisations to make sure that they do meet the new standards under the bill. Unfortunately, at the same time it is necessary for us to have these new registration provisions in place for those housing organisations that do not deliberately, consistently and, despite assistance from the government, provide a good enough service for their clients and do not manage the money, which really is public money provided through the government, in a proper fashion, with integrity. Unlike the State Housing Act 1945, the Housing Bill makes specific reference to public housing in acknowledgment of the important role the public housing program plays in providing housing to Queenslanders in housing need. Feedback from community consultations on the Housing Bill conducted by the Department of Housing in 2002 included a strong view by tenants and peak community housing groups that the state government's continuing commitment to the provision of public housing should be reflected in the new legislation. I suppose that fear came about as a consequence of moves by conservative governments, such as the federal government, towards contracting out arrangements—a move in many areas of government service provision—moving away from direct service provision to contract management. I am pleased to join the minister in reassuring any such groups that this government—as long as it is a Labor government proudly led by Peter Beattie and the Minister for Housing, Robert Schwarten—will continue to fight for more public housing. The bill enshrines eight principles that will guide the administration of the new legislation. I commend these principles to all of those in the housing business. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips): Order! The level of conversation is making it very hard to hear the speaker. Ms BOYLE: Despite the riveting information that I am presenting to the House that is not capturing the attention of honourable members, I would like to inform them of some valiant people in Cairns who not only are supporting this Housing Bill but who work away year in, year out towards providing housing options for those in need and sometimes in crisis and others who have fallen into difficult times and are in need of community housing or public housing assistance. In particular, I would like to recognise all of the workers at Access Community Housing. Access Community Housing manages the boarding house in Cairns that has been such a great project. Additionally, it is developing other innovative projects which I hope will contribute to the supply of affordable housing in Cairns and be established over the next several years. I would 10 Sep 2003 Housing Bill 3441 also like to recognise Wyn Hopkins and others at Shelter Housing, known in Cairns as SHAC. Wyn Hopkins has done a magnificent job at a statewide level as well as in far-north Queensland in fighting for and providing in the best way possible housing for those in crisis. She is retiring this year and her great expertise will be sadly missed. There are other organisations that are particularly providing housing to Aboriginal and Islander people whose contributions also need recognising. Unfortunately, the rate of homelessness and the rate of poverty for ATSI organisations in far-north Queensland is still too high. I would like to recognise the tremendous efforts of the Department of Housing in the development of this bill and not least amongst those the leaders in the Department of Housing in Cairns, in particular the regional manager, Brian Sheehan, and the leaders of the community and urban renewal projects in Cairns, Gary Roberts and Felix Klose. I pass on my compliments to all of those involved in the minister's office. I am pleased to support this bill. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (5.56 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Housing Bill 2003. The issue of housing affordability and availability in the Gympie electorate has become, to quote a member of the Housing Minister's staff, a hot issue. I am pleased to support any initiative aimed at meeting the housing requirements of Queenslanders. As the minister mentioned in his second reading speech, this government does face many significant challenges in meeting these needs. The way society is headed the requirement for housing, particularly by people who make up the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, will continue to rise. I agree that this is going to be a huge issue for all governments at every level in the future. Yesterday someone asked me if the issue of housing in my electorate was due to the sea change concept, that is, were the people looking for housing from the coast? Had they moved to Gympie in order to experience a different lifestyle? I would like to say that this was the case because usually in this scenario it is city dwellers who opt out of the hustle and bustle of city life in favour of a more relaxed, less frenetic lifestyle. More often than not, these people have the money to justify the move to places such as Tin Can Bay or Rainbow Beach and, like the television series, have made a conscious decision to make the change to their lifestyle. Unfortunately, the people with whom I come in contact are generally locals with little or no job prospects and who have subsequently been priced out of the rental market. Another reason for my belief that a sea change mentality is not the underlying contributing factor to the housing crisis in my electorate is the fact that if someone, say, from Maroochydore chooses to move to a place like Gympie, the ability of that person to continue to receive New Start payments can be affected if that person moves to an area which has a higher unemployment rate, such as Gympie. In an ideal world everyone would not only have employment; they would have well-paid employment, which would enable them to afford to rent. But, sadly, this is not the reality. From a personal perspective, I have been unemployed and been in receipt of a New Start allowance, which included rental assistance of $20 a week. The cheapest rental in the area where I was living was $140 a week. My entire allowance was $320 per fortnight. So I do understand the difficulties faced by people on low incomes. I was fortunate that I had generous parents who were in a position to assist me financially. Regrettably, not everyone is that fortunate. The extent of limited housing that we are seeing here in Queensland seems to be only relatively recent. A similar but probably more severe crisis has been occurring in places like Sydney for years. Renting a property within an hour of the Sydney CBD is virtually impossible if a person is on either a pension or a wage lower than $30,000 per year. The answer to this problem in the short term is to share premises with other people. Those types of living arrangements, whilst not ideal, are in many instances the only way people can afford to live. For the last few years I was in Sydney it was a given that one had to have a flatmate. I think this may be an interim and realistic short-term answer for those in my electorate who are facing homelessness. The types of people I see looking for housing are typically single mothers and, surprisingly enough, many single men. Women's refuges can take only so many women and the ability for a man to find accommodation is even more restricted. I must commend the ADRACARE men's support services for the tireless work that they are doing in order to rectify this situation. In terms of trying to solve the housing crisis, I know that it is not possible to build a new house for every person who requires one. Obviously, this is not viable. One of the shorter-term alternatives is for the federal government to make a greater contribution to the rental assistance scheme so that people can afford to rent private properties. 3442 Transport 10 Sep 2003

Last week I had a pregnant woman in my office. At a time which should have been one of the happiest in her life, she was in tears because she had nowhere to live. It got to the stage—she was so desperate—that I was ringing my family and friends to see if they would take her in. I considered taking her in to rent at my place until one of my staff members said, 'Lise, you can't do that.' Whilst the Minister for Housing is always ranting and raving at me about what a terrible person I am, I have to say that his staff are always marvellous and nearly always manage to solve the numerous housing issues I present them with. They did that with this girl by waiving some moneys owed and allowing for a much appreciated additional sum to be made available to her for a bond. The minister's office has also advised me of plans to build hostel type accommodation in Gympie. This is greatly appreciated as it will go a long way to addressing the current housing situation. At this juncture I must also commend a organisation within my electorate, the Cooloola Community Housing Association, which is always incredibly helpful and works tirelessly to assist and offer advice to people who are in need of accommodation. I hope that organisations such as this will benefit from the new range of powers the government will achieve as a result of this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Miss Roberts, adjourned.

TRANSPORT Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.01 p.m.): I move— That this House notes the Beattie government's neglect of transport issues throughout the state, particularly in deliberative policy of causing traffic congestion, its reduced capital spending on roads and transport infrastructure, its mismanagement of public transport and its failure to adequately plan transport infrastructure to cope with Queensland's population growth. It has become quite noticeable to me over the past few years that I have had to travel into south- east Queensland to attend parliament that the road congestion problem has grown demonstrably worse. What has this government done in that time? This government has done practically nothing to address that issue. It has talked about things that it may have done with public transport. It has talked about planning. It has talked about lots of things. That is the hallmark of this government: it talks about a lot of things, but when it actually comes to doing something it does not necessarily deliver. In the case I have just mentioned, the people of south-east Queensland have been the big losers as a consequence of the inaction of this state government and its inappropriateness in not committing the necessary amount of funding and resources to ensure that the growth in population and the growth in demand are being catered for not only in south-east Queensland but also in other places. I note that this government has circulated another self-congratulatory amendment to this motion which, quite frankly—the member for Robina will discuss this—is so far from factual that it is fanciful. What about the government praising itself for a record roads budget when the dollar figures do not back up that statement in any way whatsoever, no matter how the Labor government reads the budget papers? Mr Bredhauer: You are arguing an amendment that has not even been moved yet. Mr SPRINGBORG: I just could not believe it. The government has given us an absolute sitter. I had a brilliant speech ready to go, but when I looked at this proposed amendment I was absolutely flummoxed by the brazen distortion of facts from this Transport Minister. This government has not planned. It has lacked foresight. It has lacked the capacity to invest in new roads in Queensland, whether they be in south-east Queensland or other areas in the region. This government has carried on from where the Goss government left off. It significantly scaled back investment in new roads in this state. Investment was doubled by the Borbidge- Sheldon government and it was again scaled back by this minister and this government. Members should contrast this minister's inaction with the action of the former government in Queensland in relation to the construction of the Gold Coast Motorway. That was designed, constructed and completed in a relatively short time. It is also interesting to note that the minister stood up here this morning and said that it went over budget, it did this and it did something else. When Mr Beattie became Premier after the 1998 election he stood up in this place and took credit for it. He stood up in this place and said, 'You can come to the opening of the wonderful, 10 Sep 2003 Transport 3443 marvellous new road we built in such a short period of time.' He actually stood there and said it. It had nothing to do with him. If we had relied on this Premier and the Labor Party, it would not have happened. What were those opposite going to do? They were going to put a road through a pristine koala habitat. What is this government doing to plan for the needs of south-east Queensland in particular? It is doing very little. It is expected that by 2017 Brisbane will actually be greater in population size than Melbourne. That is something we all welcome, but those people will not necessarily be walking or cycling around Brisbane. While more people may cycle, the reality is that there needs to be a combination of public transport and new roads investment to actually address that issue—not only in Brisbane but also in south-east Queensland. It is expected that from Coolangatta to Noosa and just west of Ipswich there will be one million additional Queenslanders. That is the number of people expected. When practical proposals are put forward to address that congestion problem, what does this government do? Nothing! What did it do when Jim Soorley came up with the idea of doing something with a tunnel? The minister went on the radio the very next day and said, 'We do not particularly like that. We are not going to do it.' The current city council administration is saying that it supports a similar proposal. Quite frankly, it is well costed and well planned so it deserves to be supported. The minister has been completely inactive when it comes to addressing the problems of congestion in Brisbane. It will not be addressed only by public transport. It also needs investment in new roads infrastructure, which includes roads, bridges and tunnels. The minister and the government were so quick to dismiss it, but what is their alternative? They do not have an alternative. There is no alternative. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I note that the No. 1 bus ticket holder in Queensland says that we can all go and jump on a bus. That may be an alternative in some cases, but it will not necessarily address all of the congestion problems in Brisbane—for the people who do not want to or are not able to commute, but just want to be able to get through the place. I acknowledge the commitment of the member for Mansfield to buses. That is really great—we are committed to buses—but it does not necessarily address the congestion problem. What about the Gateway Bridge and the arterial connections to it? The government keeps pushing out the time frame. It is just about congested now. The time frame of 2008 becomes 2010 which becomes something else, because the government does not have the capacity to do it. It does not have the resources to do it. It does not have the commitment to do it. Quite frankly, it does not have the money to do it because it is broke. The government is broke. The government does not have the money to do it and it is not innovative enough. The Minister for State Development talks about PPPs. Where is this government's real commitment to PPPs? It talks about them, but it does not have any commitment to them. The state president of the Labor Party is saying, 'If we get the South Bank PPP up, it may, in fact, be the last one.' Those opposite know full well that the only way— Mr Bredhauer: What is he the minister for again? Mr SPRINGBORG: What I am saying is that it is quite clear that that ideological dogma is driving the Labor Party's inaction on PPPs. The reality is that the government will need to advance in that area in order to have the financial capital to do these things. There is no doubt about it. Why has the government dragged its feet on the PPPs? We need some real commitment. We need action. We do not necessarily need just a plan in this area. As I said, it involves not just one tunnel but a commitment to more tunnelling in Brisbane. It means doing something about the Gateway Bridge. There are significant congestion problems on the Gold Coast. There is the issue of the Tugun bypass. It is good to see something finally happening there, but it was not without a great degree of political pressure being put on this government. There are problems regarding the Sunshine Coast which are significant and growing. What has the government done beyond talking about the issue of planning in those areas? Importantly—and the honourable member for Gregory will talk about this in his contribution—where is the government's commitment to regional and country roads? We know that an investment in roads is vitally important not only for transporting people but also for goods and services, which create economic opportunities. Economic opportunity and investment in roads and infrastructure mean long-term, sustainable jobs. 3444 Transport 10 Sep 2003

It is very predictable what will happen tonight. I bet it will all be the federal government's fault. We have already had diversions today from the Premier. The CMC has already ruled out the little stunt. It has been the quickest turnaround that we have ever seen from the CMC. That is all we get: stunts, games and blame shifting from this government. It is not interested in the things that really matter to Queensland—that is, addressing the issue of congestion for Queenslanders, including people in Brisbane and people on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. It has no plans. We have a minister who, when launching the integrated ticketing system, was not even able to work out how to use the machine. He fell off his bike and he could not even work out how to use the machine. That is the reality: this government does not even have a plan. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Robina, I welcome to the public gallery students and lecturers of the Brisbane North Institute of TAFE in the electorate of Sandgate. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (6.11 p.m.): I rise to second the motion. It comes as no surprise to those of us on this side of the House that the minister has decided to depart politics. Of course, we wish him well in his retirement. Obviously, after five years of neglecting transport issues in this state, the government and the minister have decided the job of addressing the consequences of their neglect is just too difficult. The minister obviously wants to get out of the House and drive to the airport before it gets gridlocked. His legacy of failing to recognise reality has led to traffic gridlock, higher costs for communities and increased pollution. Let us consider for a minute why people on the Gold Coast, in Brisbane and on the Sunshine Coast are suffering traffic gridlock and longer travel times. The reason is simply that the Beattie government has cut the capital allocation to roads. Under the last coalition government, spending on roads was 22 per cent of the overall state capital works budget. In stark contrast, in 2003-04 the Beattie government is spending less than 15 per cent of the overall state capital works budget on roads. In 1997-98 the total capital budget was $4.23 billion, and the allocation for roads was over $922 million or nearly 22 per cent of the annual capital works budget. Compare this to the funding announced in 2003-04. The total capital works budget is $5.273 billion and the allocation to roads is just $778 million—all less than 15 per cent of the annual capital works budget. That is why we had a good laugh when we saw the amendment to the motion. No wonder our roads are choked full of traffic. The government's own figures produced by the Department of Transport confirmed what motorists know only too well: peak hour travel times have increased by more than 25 per cent in just two years. The minister in April 2001 produced the action plan titled Transport 2007—An Action Plan for South East Queensland. In that plan it states— In addition, the transport strategy over recent years of improving public transport and not widening radial routes to the CBD has successfully increased public transport usage and restrained growth in car travel. Between 2000 and 2007, peak hour traffic demands are not expected to increase significantly in the inner Brisbane area, with major traffic growth occurring mainly in the outskirts of Brisbane and in parts of the Gold and Sunshine Coast. Now we have the department's own figures confirming that peak hour traffic to and from the city is fast approaching gridlock—a 25 per cent increase in travel time in just two years. So, beyond admitting that this was a deliberate policy of not providing additional road infrastructure to the CBD, the government is operating under the assumption that by not providing these additional radial routes when peak hour traffic is increasing, there will be no increase in demand or travel time. Only a government with no vision, wrong priorities and a track record of poor financial management would believe in such a strategy. Instead of grappling with the gridlock by providing adequate funding for CBD bypasses and tunnels that commonsense consideration would show Brisbane desperately needs, the Beattie government has run with a deliberate strategy of doing nothing in the hope of forcing frustrated motorists off the roads and on to buses and trains. But the reality is that the South East Busway does not have enough buses at peak hour. It is a similar story for carriages on the Gold Coast rail service. Is it any wonder that that rail service is regularly overcrowded and is quickly becoming known by the locals as the 'Bombay Express' with commuters forced to stand for the trip to Brisbane? Over the past seven years, patronage on that service has doubled annually—now reaching a total number of two million passengers per year. I have written to QR about this situation as recently as July last year, and in the most recent response the minister admits that passengers are forced to stand for the trip. If patronage has been doubling over the past seven years, I would have thought the government would have been developing a plan so that it can meet the growing demand. But what has it done? Absolutely nothing. The last government that purchased additional rolling stock for the Citytrain network was the Borbidge-Sheldon government in 1998. The last rolling stock purchase occurred five years 10 Sep 2003 Transport 3445 ago. Is it any wonder passengers are standing from the Gold Coast to Brisbane? As I said, in the very same response from the minister he also states that the government is considering what additional rolling stock infrastructure would be needed to provide additional services. After doubling the patronage over the last seven years, the government has waited until the service is at bursting point before starting to plan for the future. I would like to indicate that tomorrow over 14,000 letters will be delivered to the Premier from the people of Redcliffe calling for the Premier to reconsider his government's decision to axe the Redcliffe rail— Time expired. Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, I ask honourable members to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Jiangsu Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Committee led by Chairman Xu Zhonglin. Welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

TRANSPORT Resumed. Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (6.16 p.m.): I move— That all words after "That this House" be removed and in their place insert the words— ... applauds the Beattie government for the development of Integrated Regional Transport Plans for South-East Queensland, Southern Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Gladstone, Rockhampton, Border Rivers, Eastern Downs, and Wide Bay, Transport 2007, the joint State/Local Government Integrated Transport Planning Framework, the establishment of TransLink, the planned smart-card integration of public transport in South-East Queensland, the construction of the $599 million South-East Busway and transit project, the $135 million Inner Northern Busway, increases in public transport patronage, and a record roads budget that has seen almost 57 percent of the roads budget spent outside the State's south-east corner. The delivery of a world-class public transport infrastructure has been a major focus of the Beattie government. Construction of the $599 million state-of-the-art South East Busway and transit project was completed in April 2001. Construction of the $135 million Inner Northern Busway commenced soon after. It will be completed by the end of this year. Two Saturdays ago I opened the $23 million Springwood bus station and announced an extra 248 services a week in the Logan area. We are spending $15 million on the Cultural Centre busway to provide extra lanes and covered and disabled access to allow efficient and fast movement from the Cultural Centre precinct and on to the South East Busway. No government has had a greater commitment to the delivery of public transport infrastructure than the Beattie Labor government, and these are just a few examples of the infrastructure and services we have provided that will be followed up by other members in this debate. However, we are matching that focus with a strong commitment to the integration of services across south-east Queensland. TransLink, which was established just two months ago, will see bus, train and Brisbane City Council ferry services coordinated across what is the biggest integrated transit area in the world—something those opposite could not deliver and left in the too-hard basket. The majority of ticket prices will go down on day one. We will be amongst the first in the world to use smart card technology to enhance the benefits gained through integration so that south-east Queenslanders can move rapidly and easily between transport modes and services that are efficiently connected. Around the world where services are integrated patronage climbs. In south-east Queensland we can expect a patronage increase in the first years of between five per cent and eight per cent, or more than 20,000 trips per day. We are delivering infrastructure and we are delivering historic changes to the way in which public transport services are delivered in south-east Queensland. We are also delivering the planning framework to deal with south-east Queensland and Queensland's population growth. As the amended motion says, we have developed the 25-year integrated regional transport plans for Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Gladstone, Rockhampton, Border Rivers, 3446 Transport 10 Sep 2003 in the Leader of the Opposition's own area, the eastern downs, Wide Bay and, of course, here in south-east Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition asked where are our plans for the future. I can send him a stack of the plans, but I can also send him the information on what we are doing presently to implement the plans. These local plans allow us to integrate our efforts across the different levels of government to ensure that public transport needs are taken into account when making planning decisions at both a local and a state level. Integrated regional transport plans are guiding land use decisions to ensure that new developments are optimally located to take into account the infrastructure costs of basic services like transport. IRTPs are the driver behind our moves to preserve transport corridors across Queensland to ensure that we can meet the future population growth which the Opposition Leader talked about when it occurs. While the IRTP is about long-term planning, Transport 2007 is the action plan that guides our efforts in the mid-term and we report on it each year. We are not secretive about these things. Each year we report on the progress of over $3 billion worth of transport projects for south- east Queensland. We report on travel times, the movement of freight, cycling and the environmental issues. We report on how public transport patronage is growing. There were 4.3 million more trips on Queensland Rail's Citytrain network between 1999 and 2002. Last week in Cairns at the Local Government Association Conference I launched the Integrated Transport Planning Framework. The framework was developed by Main Roads and the Department of Local Government and Planning in conjunction with the Local Government Association of Queensland. This framework will guide our efforts at both levels of government so that we can make sure that the activities of local government are a good fit with the activities of the state government. Queensland is growing at a rapid rate and the Beattie government is meeting that challenge head-on. The planning tools the Beattie government has developed while delivering world-class infrastructure are setting the standard in Australia today. None of them existed when the Beattie government came to power. The honourable member talked about the fact that the roads budget doubled under the Borbidge government. The only reason the roads budget doubled under the Borbidge government was the blow-out in the costs on the M1 from $450 million to $630 million to $750 million to $950 million. And yes, Leader of the Opposition, I stood in this House and I proudly claimed the credit for building the road, because I built it. The legacy that the members opposite left us was a $950 million price tag because they were so incompetent— Mr SPEAKER: The honourable minister's time has expired. Mr BREDHAUER:—at transport planning and infrastructure design. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (6.24 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I second the amendment moved by the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr STRONG: As members would realise, extensive major road improvements have been undertaken right throughout Queensland over the six years of the Labor government. In fact, on average, over the past six years the Beattie government has spent $116 million per annum more on roads than the coalition did in 1997-98. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, somebody is speaking. Mr STRONG: Consistent with its commitment to govern for the benefit of all Queenslanders, successive Roads Implementation Programs reflect a continuing commitment by the Beattie government to regional development and for a greater share of the roads dollar to be spent outside south-east Queensland. In 2003-04, 57 per cent of the regional roads budget share will be spent outside the south-east corner. Importantly, the roads programs provide sustainable employment for 17,000 people in roads and supporting industries in places such as the Isis shire, the Miriam Vale shire, the Kolan shire and the Banana shire. People rely on this funding for their employment and for the benefit of their communities. Recent examples of state-funded works in the south-east include: the completion of stage 1 of the port of Brisbane motorway, $176 million; the Nundah bypass, which opened in March 2002, $53 million; completion of the first section of the Caboolture northern bypass, $33 million; work is well under way for the Kawana Arterial northern connection to the Sunshine 10 Sep 2003 Transport 3447

Motorway, $22 million; completion of the works on Tin Can Bay Road at Deep Creek and the Goomboorian Range in 2003, $18 million; works are nearing completion on the interchange at the Mount Lindesay Highway at Stoney Camp Road, $9 million; and duplication of the Brisbane- Beenleigh Road between Schneider Road and Fletcher Street completed in August, $21 million. Outside the south-east corner the Beattie government's record over the past six years is just as good. Examples are as follows: the Bramston Beach Road upgrade in January, $4.6 million; $55 million spent on upgrading the Cooktown Development Road; $15 million on the Byerstown Range between Mareeba and Lakeland; $20 million spent on upgrading of the Peak Downs Highway; two new passing lanes provided on the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Road since 1998, with a further two passing lanes to be completed by December 2003. I imagine the member for Hervey Bay will play a role in the opening of those passing lanes. Extra funds have been provided to deliver on the Beattie Maryborough by-election commitment—again down near my region—to upgrade the Lamington Bridge in Maryborough and an extra $12 million to allow for the completion of the bitumen seal on the Herveys Range Development Road, $42 million. A government member: Tell us more. Mr STRONG: There is more. There is an extra $9.7 million provided to complete the construction of the South Johnstone River Bridge. Mr Lucas: Are you excited? Mr STRONG: I am excited! I can see the member for Lytton's excitement as well. He is just oozing excitement at what Queensland Transport is doing for Queenslanders. Despite significant funding reductions on the federally funded highway system since the federal coalition assumed power in 1996-97, through strong representations by the state Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads, National Highway funding has been secured for major upgrades of sections of the Bruce Highway. Examples include: eight and six-laning between the Gateway Motorway and Boundary Road; four-laning between Yandina and Cooroy; Gunalda Range, $19 million; and Wallaville Bridge. That will finally bring the Bruce Highway near the electorate of Burnett above flood level after all these years. That is another case of a lack of federal funding. The Apple Tree Creek intersection is another example. Maybe we should ask the members on the other side of the House whether they believe the federal government is funding Queensland roads to a level that is adequate? Is there an answer from that side of the House? Government members: No. Mr STRONG: In addition, $37 million in federal funding was obtained for the construction of the Douglas Arterial—another long-awaited development of Queensland Transport. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (6.27 p.m.): When we talk about transport infrastructure we are talking about road infrastructure, airports, rail and numerous other modes of transport that govern the carriage of passengers and goods around the state. We talk about a developing state, and we certainly are a developing state—or we were until June 1998. The real issue here—the shadow Treasurer made reference to it in his contribution this evening—is that the coalition is government allocated 28 per cent of the capital budget to transport, while the Labor administration has committed only 14 per cent. This is an absolute insult to the growth and potential growth of this state. The minister got up here again this evening and went on about the M1 motorway. Yes, we designed the M1 motorway. Yes, we started the construction of the M1 motorway and, yes, we costed the M1 motorway. What the minister has not told members this evening is the blow-out in the cost of the South East Transit Project. The cost of the South East Transit Project has been run into the cost of the M1 motorway to make it look as though they have done a good job. It is about fudging the figures, and that is exactly and precisely what this minister has done. Everybody knows he has done that. He has left the House now. On the other side of the equation, it was the coalition government that started the South East Transit Project. Members opposite can sing about the south-east transit all they like, but we started that program. We have talked about integrated ticketing. The minister is still talking about integrated ticketing and I will certainly welcome it when we get it. 3448 Transport 10 Sep 2003

Let us talk about the Transport 2007 program. The minister made reference to that again this evening. He can talk about that program all he likes, but that is no good unless he is delivering within the program. Back in 1998, the Hon. Minister for Tourism said that on assuming government they would start the Tugun bypass straightaway. Five years later, there is still no Tugun bypass. Mr Reeves: What are we waiting for? Your mates! Mr JOHNSON: We are waiting. It will take a coalition government to build the flaming thing. However, that is another matter. Here we are again on the eve of an election in this state and the Premier, the government and the Minister for Transport make mention of the Robina to Coolangatta railway link. Today the member for Robina and the shadow Treasurer made reference to the failure to purchase rolling stock. I have to say that this government has purchased no rolling stock since we were in government. The real issue is that they talk about it and they prophesy about public transport, but how can they deliver public transport infrastructure when they have no rolling stock? They have no interfacing between buses and trains. They have been arguing with the Brisbane City Council for the last five years. All of those things are impediments in trying to deliver a good outcome to public transport. The Labor Party also talks about traffic in south-east Queensland now being in gridlock. That is no accident. It is a result of the deliberate policy stated in the Transport 2007 plan, which admits that if radial routes to the city are not widened, they will choke the city and that people will catch public transport. The Transport 2007 plan also states, in addition, 'the transport strategy over recent years of improving public transport and not widening radial routes to the CBD has successfully increased public transport usage and restrained growth in car travel.' What a load of hogwash. It states further that between 2000 and 2007, peak hour traffic demands are not expected to increase significantly in the inner Brisbane area. I do not know who wrote that, but Steven Bredhauer's name is in the foreword. It is no wonder that he has left the chamber. It is no wonder that he is walking off camp and will retire from this place, because he has left a legacy that the next government will have to pick up and do something with. If the plan states that peak hour demand will not increase by 2007, I suggest that the minister gets back on his bike and rides somewhere else. The real issue here is thank God for the federal government, because it raised the recovery money that sustains local government and roads in regional Queensland. Otherwise, those places would have been on their knees. Time expired. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (6.32 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the amendment moved by the Minister for Transport. When I heard the motion this morning, I thought that the opposition had been working through the night hoping that their important research paper would finally arrive. Of course, we all know what their one and only research tool is: it is the Courier-Mail . The opposition is so out of touch that the only thing that it follows is the lead of the Courier-Mail. Unfortunately for opposition members, I have news for them: one cannot always believe what one reads in the newspaper. This motion is a prime example of how out of touch this opposition has been. It simply does not know what is happening in the real world. I have noticed lately that a trend among opposition members has started, which is knocking Brisbane and the great things that are happening in this city of opportunity, whether it be Suncorp Stadium, the Roma Street Parklands or the South East Busway. They are forever knocking. I have news for opposition members. The people of Brisbane, particularly those on the southside, have voted with their feet in the hundreds of thousands. They have voted by getting on the bus and using the most modern, up-to-date, innovative and efficient public transport infrastructure in the world, that is, the South East Busway. One only needs to look to its success. Opposition members should not just read the Courier-Mail and think that they are experts at what is happening in public transport. I challenge them to catch the bus with me on any day of their choosing and experience the efficiency of the busway system. They should talk to the patrons and see how happy they are with the efficient busway system. Guess what? They can even read the Courier-Mail on the bus, although, unfortunately, it is such an efficient system that they probably would have time to read only the first page before they have to get off the bus as they would already be in the city. Just this morning I caught the bus from Garden City. It took 11 minutes to get from Garden City to town. I was walking into Parliament House 14 minutes after 10 Sep 2003 Transport 3449 leaving Garden City. A few years ago, the same journey would have taken 45 to 50 minutes. That is what efficiency is and that is what we have delivered. This government has not rested on the fine achievement of the South East Busway. We will continue the work. We have just opened the Springwood bus station and we are on track with the Inner Northern Busway, improvements at the busway station at the Cultural Centre and the introduction of integrated ticketing. Construction of stage 2 of the Inner Northern Busway is well advanced and is expected to be completed early in the new year. Works began in September 2002 and, when completed, the busway will run from Roma Street, under the Normanby Fiveways, along the western boundary of the Victoria Park golf course to the Royal Children's Hospital. People will be able to catch a bus from Garden City to the Royal Children's Hospital and it will take only about half an hour to 40 minutes to get there. This part of the busway is a $135 million investment in transport infrastructure and is expected to improve travel times for commuters from the north by up to 10 minutes. At this stage, it is planned to have the busway operational by early 2004. I am sure that the Inner Northern Busway will add to the outstanding success of the South East Busway in establishing busways as a major component of Brisbane public transport. We have also allocated $15.7 million to redevelop the Cultural Centre station on the South East Busway near Victoria Bridge. The station redevelopment aims to provide more reliable travel times for buses using the Cultural Centre Busway Station and an improved pedestrian environment for bus patrons. Mr Lucas: It's just getting better. Mr REEVES: As the Minister for Innovation and Technology said, it is just getting better. Early works to dismantle the existing stations have been completed in preparation for the new construction. The existing structures have been relocated to Capalaba to be reused at the new bus interchange. The Cultural Centre busway station will remain fully operational during the upgrading work, which will be very important during the Rugby World Cup. Hopefully, it will be completed in early 2004. The provision of superior public transport infrastructure and services such as the South East Busway and the Inner Northern Busway will go a long way to encourage people to shift from single occupant car travel to modern, safe, flexible public transport. I must comment on the statements by the member for Gregory about the federal government. It is the federal government's Auslink project that will take all the funding out of the National Highways. What will they do with roads like the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road which is part of the National Highway? They will put the burden back on the state, yet it is a federal government road. They will not do anything. Like the federal member for Moreton, they will shed crocodile tears about tolls on the southern Brisbane bypass, but they will not put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the roads that they are responsible for, that is, the Brisbane urban corridor. If members opposite want to talk about congestion, they should come and have a look. I notice that federal Minister for Transport Anderson has announced that he is staying. Members opposite should get on the phone and talk to him. I support the minister's amendment. Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (6.38 p.m.): I rise to support the National/Liberal coalition's motion in regard to what is a critical issue in Queensland. To date, I have heard no excuses from the Labor government that can justify the 25 per cent falling off in road funding in Queensland, that is, a 25 per cent reduction in capital funds for main roads in Queensland. In a growth state that is seeing about 1,000 new people moving here each week, there is about $260 million less going into main road spending. That has been the pattern—not just the talk and the rhetoric, but the hard-core pattern—that we see in the official figures for main roads spending in this state. The result is high growth in a state with no real growth in infrastructure spending in this critical area of main roads. That is resulting in gridlock. A reduction of road funding across Queensland particularly impacts upon those high-growth areas of the south-east and my area of the Sunshine Coast. We hear about increased travel times in Brisbane. However, we have only to look a little further north to the Sunshine Coast, where peak travel times have also significantly increased. Twice daily on the Sunshine Motorway there are now gridlocks not dissimilar from those on Coronation Drive. There is no funding on the books to reduce the gridlock that we are seeing on 3450 Transport 10 Sep 2003 the Sunshine Motorway bridge at the Maroochy River. There is no funding on the books to reduce the gridlock west of Pike Street off the Maroochydore Road. There is no funding on the books to reduce the gridlock that we see from the Bruce Highway back into Maroochydore, where the duplication of the Sunshine Motorway is yet to be funded. This is a disgrace. To date all we have seen is the bare minimum. In fact, it is below the minimum. A number of smaller road projects are about to take shape. Another road project, the Kawana arterial, was subject to a commercial agreement with a legal obligation on the state government to bring it on. With the exception of cases where the state government has had a legal obligation to bring forward road funding and undertake an agreement which predates this parliament, it has done the bare minimum. So how in a growth state can this Labor government say that it has delivered on main roads funding? It cannot! That is reflected in the gridlock around the south-east and on the Sunshine Coast. This situation threatens real regional development and job development. When in government the coalition put in place the Pacific Highway upgrade—infrastructure work that needed to be undertaken. The Sunshine Coast was to be the next cab off the rank to receive major road funding. Five years later, with Labor members of parliament representing areas of the Sunshine Coast, we have seen no real increase or plan to bring forward the duplication of critical highways and main roads. Gridlocks present a threat to people's jobs and even their lives. A Smart State does not spend more on the Premier's PR machine than is even spent on the Prime Minister's personal staff. A Smart State does not spend a million bucks ripping up and relaying the turf at Suncorp Stadium. A Smart State does not find $700,000 for Big Brother but nothing for a real infrastructure plan and implementation framework. All we have are planning documents that string out the process. Planning has to happen, but it should not go on forever. The Pacific Paradise road network was agreed when Vaughan Johnson was the Main Roads Minister, yet it has not even come to the desk of this Transport and Main Roads Minister. They have strung out this process for nearly five years. That is a disgrace. That is resulting in an impact upon people's livelihoods and their lives. That is not how we should be running a state that has such a high growth rate. It is time that we saw some honesty from the 66 arrogant Labor members who are happy to thump out the releases from their media machine, which is fat and oozing with money. However, they cannot defend the 25 per cent fall in funding to main roads in the past five years under this Labor government. Time expired. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (6.43 p.m.): Tonight it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate. If there is one area in this state that has known all about poor transport planning in the past it is the Logan-Gold Coast corridor. I am extremely happy to inform the House that this is a thing of the past thanks to the Beattie Labor government. Tonight I will tell members a bit about the first-class public transport system Logan now has. Saturday, 30 August was a huge day for Springwood and an enormous leap forward for public transport in Logan. The Springwood bus station was opened by Steve Bredhauer and, along with my Logan parliamentary colleagues and members of the community, we got to see this $23.1 million piece of infrastructure up close. The new bus station has three platforms, lift and stair access and a pedestrian overpass spanning the eastern service road to provide access to the Springwood shopping and business precinct. It has state-of-the-art features, including 24-hour security monitoring, driver facilities and public toilets. A new underpass provides access to the station for cyclists and pedestrians. Bike racks, a dedicated parking facility, and a kiss'n'ride facility mean that bus patrons can walk, ride, drive or be dropped off. This $21.3 million investment in public transport in Logan destroys the opposition's argument that the government is not committing money to transport infrastructure. Let us take a stroll down memory lane to Logan just a little over 20 years ago. If we wanted to catch a bus to Brisbane, we would stand on the Pacific Highway and flag down a Greyhound bus. Pregnant women who had to go to the Mater Hospital—because in those days we did not have the Logan Hospital—would stand in the sun on the Pacific Highway and flag down a Greyhound bus. Who was in government then? Who was advocating for the people of Logan to have public transport then? Certainly not the National Party government of the day! What did the coalition do for transport in the Logan-Gold Coast corridor? Its answer to public transport and road congestion was to sell off the rail corridor land. That is right; it did not want travellers south of Brisbane to hop on a train and leave their cars at home. It was a Labor government that bought 10 Sep 2003 Transport 3451 back that land, and today the Gold Coast rail line is one of the busiest in the state. If it were not for the Labor government, where would the people of the Gold Coast and Logan areas be now? Probably still flagging down a long-distance coach on the Pacific Highway. When Logan finally did have a bus roll into the city, the destination on it was Taronga Park Zoo. Back then, no-one would help establish a bus service in Logan, so the buses were purchased from New South Wales. Who was in government then? The National Party! The Labor Party has planned and is planning for public transport that gives choices. Buses, trains, bikes, pedestrian walkways and integrated ticketing is what our future is about. Choice is what a good transport system is all about. The people in my electorate of Springwood have a choice—a choice between a government that is planning for the future or the opposition's alternative, which is nothing. I find it incredible that the biggest critics of the Springwood bus station, the Logan-Gold Coast rail corridor and other forms of public transport in Logan are the National and Liberal party councillors of Logan East. These are the people who are assisting public transport the least. When it comes to public transport planning, what have they done? Have they put any money into bus services? No! Have they designed streets that buses can even drive in? No! When they do identify a spot for a bus stop and the bus can fit in the street, they ask the government to pay for the bus shelter. I will tell members what the National Party has been doing for transport in Logan. I have it from a reliable source that the National Party candidate for Springwood has been digging for dirt on the Springwood bus station. I am here to give her the dirt: 248 more bus services per week for the people of Logan! That is the dirt. Nine routes will stop at the Springwood bus station, with two local feeder services and seven Springwood to Brisbane services. The combined Springwood- Brisbane routes will provide a bus frequency of 10 minutes in morning peaks. Six services an hour will operate from the station in midweek daytime off-peak periods, doubling the current service levels between Springwood and Brisbane. There is more. From the Logan Hyperdome a five- minute frequency bus service during the midweek morning peaks now exists. New express services from the hyperdome now take 35 minutes to travel to Brisbane, saving a travel time of 20 minutes compared with the all-stops service that existed. Greater interchange opportunities exist for the introduction of feeder buses into Springwood and the Loganholme Hyperdome stations. Now people wait only five minutes for connecting services. Never before has Logan had such a high-frequency bus service. The people of Springwood used to dream about services like this. When I was elected I told the people of Springwood that I would put Springwood first. When it comes to improved bus services I have delivered and I will keep fighting to deliver on my promises to those people. The government has made a huge difference to the way people in Logan view public transport. The Springwood Bus Station, improved services and integrated ticketing are the ingredients that make up good planning for future public transport. Time expired. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.48 p.m.): This evening I wish to put a bit of perspective on the debate in relation to local government. I am disappointed that from the government side we have heard about nothing more than what is happening in Brisbane and on the coast. The minister's amendment refers to plans for south-east Queensland, southern Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Gladstone, Rockhampton, the Border Rivers, the eastern downs; and Wide Bay. It mentions public transport in south-east Queensland, including the South East Busway and the Inner Northern Busway. Government members are like a flock of seagulls; they are all perched on the coast and never want to think about anywhere else. There is more to Queensland than the south-east corner. It is about time they thought about that. A lot of rural issues are particularly important to people in those areas, who also support the government. Importantly, the member for Gregory mentioned Roads to Recovery—a magnificent program. Government members have been cutting back state government funding and using some of the Roads to Recovery money, and telling the councils that they are already getting their allocation. That has not been in the spirit of the way that funding was meant to be provided. I want to talk also about TIDS—Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme—funding. It has provided significant support for local roads upgrading, focusing on improved access to communities, national parks and recreational areas; support for economic development; improved safety and traffic operations; and bike networks and set-down facilities at schools. This program has been well supported in many areas. However, the following changes have sought to make the program more attractive and relevant to a wider range of local governments. 3452 Transport 10 Sep 2003

We need increased flexibility in the eligibility criteria to increase the application of the program to more councils. We need increased flexibility on the subsidy level from the current 50 per cent, having regard to council circumstances. We need an increase in the annual funding allocation, including an extra $5 million for works on local roads of regional significance identified under the recently introduced main roads and local government roads management and investment alliance. That is where the government can put some thought and make some vast improvements. We know and understand that the government has to do a lot of work down here in the south-east corner in relation to planning. I will give honourable members another example of where transport costs are totally ridiculous. There is a shire in my electorate called the Bungil shire which has a lot of forestry in that region. The council wants to amend section 52 of the Forestry Act 1959 to the effect that councils are not required to pay royalties on quarry materials irrespective of their source where the material is used to maintain or upgrade roads that provide access to commercial forestry areas. This particular case relates to the Womblebank Gap Road and the Westgrove Road which have been traditionally used by timber harvesters. In 2002-03 the council received a subsidy of $5,070 towards the maintenance of those roads. It cost the council $1 million to seal the remaining 11 kilometres and it spends an average $130,000 a year on this road. Some assistance is necessary. It is illogical that the council should be required to pay royalties, for instance, for gravel extracted from the forestry area which is to be used on the adjacent shire road that has been damaged by the harvesting of timber from the same forestry area. The Queensland government receives royalties from the sale of timber, but the council receives nothing except to pick up the bill to fix the road that has been damaged in the forestry operations, one of which is for royalties. The same can be said for oils, minerals and gas, except councils do have a small opportunity there to charge in those particular areas. I turn now to the issue of school bus transport, which is very important to all of us. We are having dreadful trouble in my electorate with school bus transport because the government bureaucrats are being so picky in relation to the rules and regulations. People have to use one particular road in my electorate to travel to school even though it is not an all-weather road. When it rains they cannot get to the school on that road and, therefore, they are not eligible for any particular assistance. We have to change that. There is also a very serious situation in relation to the inspection of vehicles. People just cannot get an inspection of a truck in under three months. Time expired. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (6.53 p.m.): It is my pleasure to support the amendment to this motion. I confess that when I heard this motion moved this morning by the Leader of the Opposition I was seriously concerned. I was seriously concerned because this motion makes a series of very serious claims that the Beattie government has neglected transport issues not just here in south-east Queensland but throughout the state; we have deliberately fostered traffic congestion; we have reduced capital spending on roads and transport infrastructure; we have mismanaged public transport; and we have failed to adequately plan. I was seriously concerned. So I did some research. This motion is, in effect, rejecting the Beattie government's $21 billion budget announced for this financial year, including $4 billion for Transport and Main Roads for future developments. I was so seriously concerned that I went to the Estimates Committee D report because we know that the budget was brought down on 3 June and that the Estimates Committee D had a public hearing on 18 July. The shadow minister for transport was the leading National Party member of that committee. In this report all of the issues raised in this very serious motion are, in fact, identified as subjects over which the three-hour scrutiny by the opposition of our Transport and Main Roads budget took place. All of those issues are in there—Queensland Rail contracts, capital works in Queensland, improvements to the CityTrans passenger network, coordinated and integrated public transport, the Inner Northern Busway—and they go on. Then I looked further and I found a recommendation by the committee that the parliament adopt the report. I did find a dissenting report. In fact, I was surprised to find that the shadow minister for transport lodged a dissenting report. I looked carefully and I found nothing about public transport or transport infrastructure. I found that not one of the claims in the motion put forward this morning is mentioned in the dissenting report. How seriously does this opposition want to be taken when they put forward a motion based on the most scant of research? I discovered that when they were provided with the opportunity of 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3453 three hours to make the case that they now seek to make they did not raise even one issue that they have reported in the dissenting report to Estimates Committee D. Then what did they do? They voted in support of passing this budget amounting to $21 billion, including $4 billion on Transport and Main Roads. I say to the opposition that if they want to be on the Treasury benches they have to show the Queensland public that they treat them and these issues far more seriously than the scant regard that they have paid so far. The member for Gregory also said that the Commonwealth funding for roads in Queensland had expanded. In the 2002-03 budget the Commonwealth cut $78 million from Queensland's roads budget. It is now walking away from a decade-long responsibility to fund the National Highway Scheme. The member for Gregory said that it was the state government's fault for the delay in the construction of the Tugun bypass. Fifty per cent of the funding was promised by the Commonwealth government—their mates in Canberra—in 1998. We waited more than two years for that funding to be forthcoming and so delayed our provision of the other 50 per cent of the state funds to enable that vital project to proceed. Then we come to new trains. The member for Gregory said that there were no new trains. However, the Beattie government has delivered 30 new three-car trains at the cost of $287 million. Time expired. Question—That Mr Bredhauer's amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Barry, Beattie, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 16—Copeland, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: For any future divisions on this motion the bells will ring for two minutes. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Barry, Beattie, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 16—Copeland, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.08 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

SUGAR INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 20 August (see p. 3119). Mr RODGERS (Burdekin—ALP) (8.30 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 2003. I want it to be known from the outset that I oppose this bill. Clause 9 of this bill proposes that the single desk marketer, Queensland Sugar Limited, should be able to grant exemptions to growers or millers who want to use sugar juice for non- crystal sugar purposes such as ethanol. This is a minimalistic approach to domestic market deregulation. The Queensland government has proposed an exemption regime to the Commonwealth. The solution offered in this bill is inferior to the Queensland government proposal because it would be discretionary and anticompetitive and create a conflict of interest for Queensland Sugar Limited. It would not provide a transparent and accountable regime for exemptions. It would undermine investor certainty and also provide a power of veto to the majority of growers. The bill gives Queensland Sugar Limited the power to decide who can have exemptions and would be of concern to the milling sector, downstream processors and the National Competition Council on competitive neutrality grounds. As Queensland Sugar Limited itself would continue to be a marketer in the domestic raw sugar market, it would be a potential competitor to anyone 3454 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 applying to it for an exemption. This creates a clear conflict of interest for QSL. It would also undermine the confidence of companies seeking exemptions, who would prefer an independent body to grant vesting exemptions. The clause is discretionary in that Queensland Sugar Limited could refuse to grant an exemption 'if it considers the application or the proposed use of the sugar would interfere with any of its existing sugar marketing arrangements'. This creates significant uncertainty for potential investors and gives Queensland Sugar Limited too much power. Even though an appeal mechanism is available, this is not a process that would be welcomed by investors outside the industry, particularly those from overseas. Clearly, exemptions should be as of right if the applicant meets the objective criteria. The proposed new section 107B gives a power of veto to the majority of growers in a local collective agreement. That is, an exemption can be granted only if more than half of the growers have agreed to the application. Clearly, not many exemptions would be granted as a consequence of this veto power to growers. Furthermore, this clause does not include a significant deterrent to those who would seek to avoid the export single desk. If a person uses sugar for another purpose outside the exemption, the only recourse available to QSL is to cancel or suspend the exemption. While this does not appear likely now, it may be an issue in the future. In either case, it would undermine and reduce industry and QSL customer confidence in the security of the export single desk. Strong penalties are required instead to deter those who may seek to abuse the system. Under the act, the Minister for Primary Industries has the power to issue directions to QSL as to its conduct of the single desk. The only direction that has been issued requires QSL to sell sugar on the domestic market at export parity prices. The direction was first given under the National Party Borbidge government and was renewed by the current minister, the member for Inala. The opposition would be aware that the policy for this ministerial direction was a condition for the retention of the single desk on the domestic market following the 1996 Sugar Industry Review Working Party report. The current direction simulates domestic deregulation, albeit imperfectly. Removing it without allowing domestic deregulation of raw sugar sales, as this private member's bill proposes, would invite the National Competition Council to reopen the whole issue of the public interest of monopoly control of raw sugar through the vesting powers of QSL. A financial penalty imposed on Queensland's competition payments may be threatened as a result. Some growers have been agitating for some time for the removal of the direction and have made this a contentious issue throughout most of the grower sector in the mistaken belief that cane prices would increase substantially as a result. Their objective is to allow QSL to artificially increase the price of sugar on the domestic market. This could lead to imports and the loss of market share by Queensland in this country. At present Australia imports almost no sugar. Given that no tariff will be imposed, Queensland Sugar Limited would need to be careful about the price set for sugar if the domestic price was increased above the cost of importing it. The ministerial direction would not be required if the domestic market was deregulated. Domestic deregulation is the government's preferred position. However, simply removing the ministerial direction will not create a deregulated domestic market, as some growers and this bill would suggest. It appears that the opposition has not considered the need to link the removal of the direction with competition for QSL on the domestic market. In addition, proposed new section 344 purports to provide transitional arrangements in relation to the cessation of existing domestic sugar price directions. However, it does not deal with the impact that the cessation will have on multi-year QSL contracts that have already been entered into. The Queensland government has proposed an exemption regime to the Commonwealth. The solution offered in this bill is inferior to the Queensland government proposal because it does not provide a transparent and accountable regime for exemptions and would undermine investor certainty. This bill has not considered the range of issues in relation to exemptions from vesting. The bill gives QSL the power to decide who can have exemptions and would be of concern to the milling sector, downstream processors and the National Competition Council on competitive neutrality grounds. As QSL itself would continue to be a marketer in the domestic raw sugar market, it would be a potential competitor to anyone applying to it for an exemption. This creates a clear conflict of interest for QSL. 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3455

This bill creates a lot of uncertainty for investors and gives QSL too much power. Even though an appeal mechanism is available, this is not a process that would be welcomed by investors. Clearly exemptions should be, as I have stated, as of right if the applicant meets the objective criteria. This bill does not include a significant deterrent to those who would seek to avoid the export single desk. If a person uses sugar for another purpose outside the exemption, the only recourse available to QSL is to cancel or suspend the exemption. Issues surrounding the ministerial direction are being examined currently as there are some anticompetitive effects that place some restrictions on the domestic market. The current re-examination of the legislation by the Commonwealth and state governments will include the operation of the single desk on the domestic market. This includes the ministerial direction. The ministerial direction would be required if the domestic market were deregulated. Domestic deregulation is the preferred position. However, simply removing the ministerial direction will not mean a deregulated domestic market, as some growers and this bill would suggest. The direction was only necessary so long as the domestic market remained regulated. The model currently being discussed with the Commonwealth would enable QSL to secure price premiums for particular kinds of sugar or other characteristics of delivery that are not presently possible under the direction, but it will not be able to extract rents from domestic consumers of raw sugar, as hoped by some growers. It appears that no consideration has been given— Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (8.40 p.m.): I rise to support the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill, which my colleague the member for Hinchinbrook has so ably brought before the parliament. My family has been involved with the sugar industry for nearly 30 years, but tragically the sugar industry on the Sunshine Coast, which has been going for more than 100 years, is about to cease to exist. This has been a way of life for hundreds of people—not only for those directly involved on farm but for more people off farm who have relied on the sugar industry on the Sunshine Coast for their livelihoods. With the multiplier effect, it has been worth about $80 million a year to the Sunshine Coast, and I think many people do not realise just what a significant impact it will have, seeing as it looks as though this is the first of the sugar growing areas that is going to fail. As I said, this bill was brought into the parliament by my colleague the member for Hinchinbrook, who was well aware of the sorts of difficulties that the Moreton cane growing area on the Sunshine Coast was facing and similar issues that were reflected in other cane growing areas of Queensland. This bill is about equity. It is about fairness. It is about a future for the sugar industry. There are some very important principles which the shadow minister has put into this bill and about which he has consulted quite thoroughly and widely. One such issue has been about addressing some of the power imbalances that currently exist in the industry. For example, in the Moreton cane growing area, a mill could essentially be owned by a company that closes down and that mill would have nowhere else to take its crop—unless it wanted to pay a price to go to another region, which would not be profitable. The Moreton cane growing area is a single mill area. I will explain to the House what that means. It means that we do not have the advantages of competition or alternative mills to which we can take our crops. We are very reliant, very dependent upon that mill continuing to exist. Only a small portion of the total crop from the Sunshine Coast—or the Moreton cane growing area, as it is known—is able to be profitably taken to other areas. That is one of the options currently being looked at by canegrowers on the Sunshine Coast but, as I understand it, there are only potentially about 200,000 tonnes out of the 500,000- to 600,000-tonne crop that are able to go to alternative mills. We are essentially a single mill area. That is why in previous years I have argued about the impact of decisions—particularly government decisions—to put roads through the middle of cane fields. I have listened to people who have said that it will have no impact. As one of the areas most affected by government resumptions, we have now reached a critical stage in that we are below what the mill believed was a viable amount of land needed to continue cropping cane in the current world market. It is on the public record now that canegrowers tried to seek out alternative products from sugar cane, and I believe they tried their best in that regard. That is an essential part of the bill that we see before the House. It seeks to address the imbalance where a mill can just close down. It seeks to address the fact that there needs to be some time period in which they have to keep operating in order to enable appropriate and viable alternatives to be put in place for that crop. 3456 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

As the law currently stands, there could be hundreds of tonnes of cane in the ground which people have spent thousands of dollars fertilising, and it may reach the point where they have nowhere to have that processed. That is not equitable and it is not fair. That situation needs to be addressed. Sugar cane is an extremely expensive crop to cart over long distances. It is different in that regard from a number of other crops. This bill is also about addressing the future need for the sugar industry to have products other than sugar. It is about having the mechanisms to encourage products other than just sugar. As we see with the world price of sugar, our competitors are able to produce sugar in incredible quantities—and they are able to produce it for a market which has been corrupted. To ensure the future of this industry we need alternative products. There are some very interesting products. Ethanol is one product, but there are a number of other products such as those in the bioplastics industry. There are also environmental concerns. There is talk about the Moreton cane growing area in particular. I think a lot of people on the Sunshine Coast are only now realising how valuable open green space is. We already have a biofactory through the sugar industry—or the cane industry, as I should call it—that has been able to provide a relatively low impact crop upon the river plains of the Sunshine Coast. It is low impact when we consider that it is a crop that can have four returns. It is effective in that it is a yearly harvest, and compared to some other alternatives it has far less of an impact. Yet the real beauty of the Sunshine Coast—aside from the money that has come from that crop historically—has been those green cane fields. That is our concern. Not only do we want the industry to have some time in order to restructure and be able to produce alternative products; we also want to maintain an effective and environmentally appropriate agricultural industry upon our beautiful river flats on the Sunshine Coast. To do nothing and to see it carved up and sold off, as is currently happening, is a tragedy. This bill was introduced in April with the intention of addressing some of the imbalances. Tragically, it has taken a long time for this bill to come before the parliament, but it is important for the future of the cane industry in Queensland that the principles of this bill are adopted and that they are understood by the members of this House. This is an industry that affects hundreds of people not only on farm but also off farm. It is about the rural and regional towns throughout Queensland. It is about the infrastructure of many of our towns throughout Queensland. To do nothing is not an option. There are people who are desperate to put in place the necessary changes to ensure that this industry is effective in the future, but it requires appropriate and supporting legislation in this case to enable them to do that. It also requires a government to have its eyes on an industry which has not just traditionally been understood to be a Queensland industry but one which needs to see that it does have a future in Queensland. It is not smart to see regions close down. It is not smart to see a lack of focus in providing support for alternatives. It is not smart to have green space that is weeds and not a viable alternative industry. I know that on the Sunshine Coast and in many other parts of Queensland we want to see viable industries that have the focus of government, that have its understanding about the diversity of the stakeholder groups within this industry and that have the ability to address some imbalances that exist in the current legislation. Those imbalances can mean that a mill can be closed down and there is no power in the hands of people who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars putting a crop in the ground. That is wrong, that needs to be changed, and that is what this legislation deals with—as well as future issues enabling alternative products to be produced by this industry. I commend this bill to the House and I commend my colleague the member for Hinchinbrook, the shadow primary industries minister, for his diligence in taking this forward and for listening to the views of the many stakeholder groups in Queensland. He understands that this is a vital industry which needs the assistance and focus of government in order to have an effective future. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (8.50 p.m.): The Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 2003 clearly exposes the desperation of the National Party regarding their position on sugar industry reform. It offers nothing new to the debate. The National Party seeks to maintain the status quo, even though responsible leaders throughout the industry acknowledge that there is no place for such a head-in-the sand approach. 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3457

Three reports have all come to the conclusion that change is vital if the industry is to survive. The federal government, sponsored by the Hildebrand report, the CIE report commissioned by the state government and the industry's own report brought down by Boston Consulting on behalf of canegrowers all agree on one fundamental point: to do nothing is not an option. To do nothing is to commit the industry to put at jeopardy its very viability and to severely limit any prospect of once again becoming competitive on the world stage. Each report identified three impediments to reform. They agree that domestic single desk arrangements, the current statutory bargaining system and the existing cane production areas all work together to establish roadblocks to reform. I have no doubt that the opposition is under great political pressure to protect the status quo, but I am equally as sure that they understand the need for reform. This bill is not about meeting the industry challenge; it is about reducing political fallout. What is required is political leadership, yet the opposition seems content to sit on its collective hands and allow a great industry to go under because it lacks the political will to grasp the initiative and to take the reform path. Only through reform can the industry reinvent itself. The time has come to move away from the almost exclusive concentration on the production of raw sugar and begin to focus on the other possible products that can be derived from sugar cane such as fibre products, bioplastics, ethanol and the like. The malaise in which the industry finds itself is not terminal but could be destined to become so if this bill were to be passed into law. Before I address some of the specifics of the bill I would like to say something about an issue on which this bill is silent—the issue of ethanol production. Neither the federal government nor the Labor opposition have covered themselves in glory regarding the ethanol option. The Commonwealth has been tortuously slow in mandating the mix level of ethanol in fuel and has not had the courage to mandate its use in all petrol. Federal Labor has concentrated on winning a few dubious political points instead of becoming a positive contributor to the debate. The Prime Minister's connection with Manildra may make for interesting partisan comment, but its constant pursuit does little to deliver an environmentally friendly outcome that has the capacity to go some way towards underpinning the economic fortunes of the industry. The petroleum companies have been mixed in their willingness to pursue the ethanol option and one cannot help but feel that they are not overly enthusiastic to see current trials succeed. Today's front page of the Courier Mail exposes the lengths to which the automotive industry is prepared to distort the truth to denigrate the performance of ethanol blends and to overstate the so-called dangers it poses to automobile engines. It is quite amazing that many vehicles currently available in Australia are suddenly at great risk, whereas identical models in the United States or Brazil appear not to be affected at all. Only a few months ago the industry was demanding a 10 per cent blend limit and was quite properly expounding reservations about pre-1986 models. Now we are being told that pre-1998 models may be at risk. Surely such statements are at odds with overseas experience. It is about time the federal government put this nonsense to bed and issued clear, scientific evidence available in other countries that use E10 or even higher rates of ethanol. Their silence underscores the lack of genuine support for our embattled sugar industry. The amendments relate to specific changes to the act rather than major reforms to it. The bill targets four controversial issues that have been the subject of debate in the sugar industry over the last three years. It does not address most of the key regulatory issues identified in the range of recent reports on the industry, focusing instead on counterproductive, populist measures. If passed the bill would operate unfairly and be indefensible because of retrospectivity. Clause 2 of the bill provides for provision for the bill to be taken to have respectively commenced on 15 April 2003. This retrospectivity results in some significant breaches of the fundamental legislative principle of whether legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. If commenced retrospectively, two sections of the bill in particular would impose obligations. The first is section 82, mill closure. This section requires that a mill cannot close until after a crushing season and only then if it has given notice of closure to each affected grower before 1 May in any year. The retrospective commencement of this provision would mean that a mill which decides later this year to close may not be aware, prior to 1 May, of its new legal obligations regarding closure. Hence such a mill would either be forced to stay in operation for another year or pay damages for failure to give notice. This is an open-ended liability. Generally the law of negligence limits the liability of a wrongdoer to losses that are reasonably foreseeable. It could be that this amendment is aimed at Bundaberg Sugar's decision to close Moreton Mill at Nambour. That mill owner advised the industry, the community and the government before this year's crushing season that it intends to close at the end of it. If a mill was insolvent, this bill 3458 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 would require the mill owner to either pay growers damages for closing without appropriate notice or to continue trading whilst insolvent. The former option seems illogical because if the mill is insolvent it could not pay damages. The latter would be a breach of the federal Corporations Law, thus exposing directors to personal liability for the debts of the company. The reality is that no mill has been closed through the crushing season and in the case of Moreton Mill growers have been given ample notice of closure. Furthermore, the proposal seems to be an artifice to extract grower compensation for any future mill closure. It is a perfect example of what CIE call the adverse affects principle in action. That is, through the opposition the representatives of the bulk of the growers are attempting to block mill closure because they perceive this could have an adverse outcome for them. This could also lead to other problems such as making it difficult to find persons to serve on mill boards. It is unclear if this obligation in the bill—to continue trading whilst insolvent—extends to a receiver in possession and a liquidator. They have statutory obligations to sell the company or the assets for their best value, which seems to conflict with this provision in the bill. This proposal seems to have been developed with little thought of commercial reality. I now turn to proposed new section 102(a), cane payments charge. The retrospective commencement of this provision would have an adverse affect on any party, including a bank, that has entered into contracts assuming that it will have priority in the ranking of creditors. They could suffer adverse financial consequences should growers be retrospectively ranked ahead of them in the list of creditors. It has been claimed in some quarters that this proposed legislation seeks to protect growers against predatory behaviour of mill owners and proprietary mills in particular. The Mulgrave Central Mill in my electorate and its board of directors has shown strong support for reform legislation introduced by this government. The Mulgrave Central Mill is a farmer owned mill. Its directors and shareholders are of the view that restructure is the only course for the industry to follow. They see it as an opportunity rather than a threat. The National Party is merely pandering to an ever more isolated constituency. Members opposite would do much better for the sugar industry by requesting their Canberra colleagues to honour their obligations and conclude negotiations under the memorandum of understanding to enable meaningful legislative reform to occur. This government's proposals are sensible, based on review, inquiry and consultation and are designed to create a long-term, viable future for the industry. They are not the unbalanced, populist, knee-jerk reactions evident in this bill. This bill is not about the future; it is about the past. I urge all honourable members to oppose it. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (8.58 p.m.): I rise to speak against the bill for a couple of reasons that I will put forward. One of the things that the member for Maroochydore raised—I agree with a couple of points of hers but not the whole of her argument—was the fact that without doubt the decision made by Bundaberg Sugar has had an impact on the farmers and the growers of the Moreton region. I have a fairly professional working relationship with the management of Bundaberg Sugar. As members would be aware, the management of Bundaberg Sugar is based in Fairymead, which is in my electorate, and as members know they manage mills up and down the length and breadth of Queensland and are owners of Moreton. I would hate to stand here and say that the story is one-sided—it is not. This is not a situation where I think government can play a hand. This is a situation where we have had a train of events over the last number of years. It has not happened in the last six months or in the last drought. It has happened over a period of about six or seven years through negotiating and through the relationship that has developed between the growers and the mill during that time. Moreton has been losing a substantial amount of money over the past five years. From my knowledge, the mill was not looking to relieve itself of Moreton. It was a section of its business that was not doing all that well at that particular time. As members could imagine, it is a large international company, and certain elements of the business make more profit than others and are more economically viable than other sections. This mill was always considered to have the potential of gaining levels of sustainability. They have been trying to negotiate some deals to get better efficiencies and economies in transport and cane delivery to the mill. We would all agree that it is not an easy situation. Of course, there is the growers' perspective to look at. This is no different from other mill-grower relationships, but this situation has been ongoing for some time. The situation that we have currently at Moreton is that, from a business perspective, the growers' major partner is the mill. We should not argue about whether or not we can have one 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3459 without the other or who is more important than the other. That is not the point. The main point is that the situation needs partnership. The growers went into negotiations with a prospective construction company about an ethanol plant in the Moreton area. The growers did not take into consideration the fact that there was no negotiation with the mill. The mill knew nothing. The growers were in the throes of gaining finance and developing a strategic plan to develop the ethanol, but with no consultation or partnership with the mill. Where is the trading in good faith? Where is the attempt to achieve a productive result by having the major players at the table? The bill before the House tonight forces two commercial entities to deal in such a way that would put one of those entities in breach of a lot of corporate law. I know that the Bundaberg mill is not willing to go down that line and expose itself to the possibility of prosecution from a number of angles. I do not see how this bill will do anything to help the situation between millers and growers. From my perspective, this is getting into Big Brother stuff and we cannot go down that line if we want to sustain the industry. The Sugar Bill that was presented by Minister Palaszczuk is the future. In the sugar industry we need more deregulation than regulation. For the life of me I cannot understand how we could pass legislation that would not help the situation. Indeed, this legislation is predominantly designed to help one area of a major industry that casts for thousands of miles up the coast. In this industry there are relationships with cooperatives and big businesses such CSR and Bundaberg Sugar that run economically viable ongoing concerns. For the life of me, I cannot see how this will improve the situation. I do not commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (9.04 p.m.): This is a very important bill for the House to consider. A number of issues associated with the sugar industry have come up in the past couple of years, because the industry is struggling desperately with the worldwide price for sugar. Brazil produces about 10 times as much sugar as we produce in Queensland and it has an arrangement whereby it can vary its sugar usage. Maybe it will use 50 per cent of production for sugar and 50 per cent for ethanol. If the price for ethanol goes up, that percentage may go up to 60 per cent or down to 40 per cent if need be. This bill has been put together by the shadow minister who has a lifetime of experience in the sugar industry, not only in growing it but also in harvesting it. He understands the ramification of the various regulations and systems that operate in the sugar industry. It is a very complicated system, but over the years much of the regulations have been put together to enable a fairness to occur in the industry when it comes to the c.c.s., the crop varying during the harvesting period, the allocation of areas and so forth. I commend our shadow minister who has an in-depth knowledge, and speaks with great authority and experience on this particular industry. I commend the member for Mirani who has similar lifetime experience and who is an ex- president of the Australian Canefarmers Association. I also commend the member for Maroochydore, whose family has been heavily involved in the industry. We have a depth of understanding that forms a background to this particular bill. The bill does a number of things through its amendments. It tries to put a fairer arrangement in place in the event of a mill closure. Growing sugar is not like growing a crop of wheat. With wheat, the one crop is grown and harvested, and that is it. Sugar cane is a highly expensive crop to grow, there is the system of ratooning and so forth. Sugar can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars per acre to plant and it is there for a period. If a mill suddenly closes down, all that money is lost. In many cases, depending on the particular district, there is no other option. A couple of districts have two or three mills, but other areas are only single mill areas. Therefore, it would seem to make sense that there is a degree of formality and fairness in the event of a closure of a mill so that there is not absolute financial distress. The second amendment in the private member's bill relates to the issue of the ministerial direction to Queensland Sugar Limited. That ministerial direction says that there has to be a parity with the export price. If one takes that away, it gives flexibility to Queensland Sugar to get a little more for the price of sugar and to be a bit more competitive in the way that it sells domestic sugar. In this industry, probably about 15 per cent of what is produced goes into domestic production. If one can pick up one-third of a cent or a half a cent for the sugar, it can make all the difference in the world to an industry that is operating on very fine margins. The member for Mulgrave talked about trying to stick to the status quo. This bill is about providing the options so that we can move into other products like ethanol. For example, the amendments provide the opportunity for QSL, the body that sugar is vested in, to come to an arrangement to enable sugar to be diverted into other uses. That diversion may happen at 3460 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 particular stages of the crush. For example, it might be that the first squeeze goes into sugar and the balance of the squeezes go into ethanol. It provides the opportunity to enable QSL to remain the marketeer of the sugar and allows flexibility so that a portion of the crop could be used for bioplastics or ethanol. Members on this side of the House are in agreement that the single desk both at domestic and export levels has been one of the strengths of the industry. It is important to having a strong negotiating position at the table. It is important not to be split in different directions, in effect, with everybody competing against and cannibalising each other. The single desk seller provides strength. I turn now to the security of payments for growers. Growers are unsecured creditors. If a mill were to close down, for example, the growers need to be in a position to get a reasonable payment. A couple of previous speakers mentioned ethanol. I believe the five-year exemption from excise needs to be longer. Constructing an ethanol plant is a huge project. I have had the privilege of examining the ethanol industry in Nebraska and Minnesota in America. That industry has been of incredible benefit to the corn growing areas of America. The important point is that it is an import replacement. Our reliance on petrol imported from overseas would decline by about 10 per cent. Ethanol is better for the environment. It makes cars run better, because it increases their octane rating. Importantly, it also means that our families are producing a product for us that we would otherwise be buying from overseas. It is providing variety, flexibility and opportunity to the sugar or grain industries involved in ethanol production. When I introduced a private member's bill for the mandating of ethanol in this state, we saw an opportunity for this parliament to show some leadership. Whilst our bill set a 10 per cent mandate, it enabled that to be achieved incrementally through the exemptions that were in place. If it were only possible to have one per cent or two per cent, that would have been the way to go. This is a highly successful industry with a proven track record in the United States of America and Brazil. My opposite number, the Minister for State Development, recently visited Brazil and saw how successful its ethanol industry is. Up to 80 per cent or 90 per cent ethanol is used in cars in Brazil. In America, where I visited, there is 10 per cent ethanol use right across the nation. Brochures are published by fuel companies explaining how safe it is and listing compatible makes of cars. America went through the same thing that we are going through in Australia. There was tremendous opposition—sometimes quite subtly, below the surface—from vested interests that do not want to see ethanol used here because it will take away a part of their market. Now in America it is 10 per cent virtually right across the nation. I wish to read into the Hansard record a couple of facts from a brochure produced in America by Mobil. The brochure was tabled in the parliament in June. It notes that last year 10 per cent of all gasoline in the United States contained ethanol. Fuel with 10 per cent ethanol has been certified by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30 per cent. The brochure goes on to answer a number of questions. For example, what does research say about ethanol blended fuels? It states that the American Institute of Chemical Engineers compared ethanol fuel with straight gasoline. In a published report the institute said that ethanol was very similar in driving characteristics to straight gasoline except that pre-ignition and dieseling, or run-on, are noticeably reduced and acceleration can be improved with ethanol. The report stated also that ethanol should be looked at as an octane enhancer. Mixing it with gasoline in a nine to one ratio improves the octane rating by about three octane numbers. There are a number of other points in the leaflet, which, as I said, was tabled in June. It states that ethanol is safe to use in any type of engine. It asks, 'Will ethanol plug my fuel filter?' 'Generally, no.' 'How will ethanol affect my fuel injection system?' 'It keeps fuel injection systems clean, so they perform better.' It states that using ethanol blended fuel 'is one of the easiest ways you can help reduce air pollution and our dependence on imported oil'. I could go on and on about how effective ethanol use has proven to be. We have to keep in mind that this presents a great opportunity for Queensland in particular, which has the bulk of the cane industry and a large grain industry. It was dreadfully disappointing to see the Labor members in this place vote down our private member's bill. We have to grasp the nettle. We have to have the courage to get this industry started. It will not start unless states such as Queensland that have the greatest opportunity have the courage to do it. I think the four 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3461 points that I have mentioned in this bill make it well worth supporting. It will help the sugar industry. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.14 p.m.): While the survival of the sugar industry is of utmost importance to the economy of the state and to the stability and financial security of the electorate of Whitsunday, I cannot in good conscience support the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 2003 brought into this House by the opposition. During the last sitting of parliament, the Leader of the National Party released a media statement offering to 'mediate between the Beattie Government and cane farmers, in an effort to break the deadlock over proposed sugar industry reforms'. Curiously, not once in that media statement did the Leader of the National Party refer to the federal government. He appeared to be quite content that it had not made a decision, which as we know really flies in the face of reality, and ignores the role of the Commonwealth and the fact that it signed up to the memorandum of understanding with the state government. However, the most damning omission from the media statement was that the Leader of the National Party did not refer to his own party's legislation. Why did the Leader of the National Party not refer to his party's own bill? I do not know, but I suspect he was ashamed of it. The fact is that this piece of legislation is faulty. It is a recipe for disaster. If this bill were to be passed in this House tonight it would surely lead to unprecedented uncertainty in the sugar industry. The fact is that this piece of legislation provides no answers to the dilemma facing the sugar industry in Queensland. Indeed, it raises some very serious questions to which I, on behalf of the industry in my electorate, demand answers. I wish to list some of my questions. In terms of mill closure provisions I have some questions. Does this mean that no mill will be allowed to close at the end of 2003? What are the legal implications of retrospectivity for any mill that wants to close at the end of 2003? Could a mill be left trading whilst insolvent because of retrospectivity? How do the provisions interrelate with the Corporations Law rules about trading whilst insolvent? What effect would Bundaberg Sugar's notice at Moreton have under this bill? Is it a valid notice? What is the cost to mill owners for insurance to cover this potential liability? What happens if there is a severe change in circumstances after 1 May—for example, a collapse in world prices? Is the mill still to be held liable if it cannot stay open in the new circumstances? What happens if the decision to close is imposed on the mill by a third party such as a creditor? Is the mill still bound to pay damages to growers? Would mill directors be personally liable for the damages to growers? Could this discourage growers from serving on cooperative mill boards? Can the member provide an example of a mill that has closed during a crush? Why has he chosen 1 May as the date of notice? Surely the key date is before the growers start to plant again, which is later in the year. In terms of the provisions regarding cane pays, I have some questions. What effect would this have on the existing financial arrangements of mills? What about the impact on other creditors of mills, for example, transport operators and other small businesses, who will suddenly have a different ranking as creditors? Given that 75 per cent of cane pays are actually made during the crushing season, I ask: has the member balanced the risk of losing cane pays outside the crush versus the impact on the financial stability of mills? Has he considered the Commonwealth-state agreements in relation to changes to the Corporations Law? This bill has not followed that process. Has he considered a contractual solution to the issue of cane pay security? If not, why not? Has he consulted the Australian Bankers Association on this issue? Where is the proof that this radical solution is necessary? Given that this section is retrospective and existing contracts will be affected, how can he justify this intrusion into property rights, an issue dear to his heart? In terms of the provision of this bill relating to ministerial price direction and the single desk, I have some questions. Is the member concerned about the conflict of interest this creates for QSL? Why is the scope of the exemptions so wide even to potentially include bulk exports? Who owns the sugar? How can either a miller or a grower apply? Will this impact on the small group of growers who may want to do something different, for example, grow organic sugar, but cannot get the majority of growers to go along? What protections are there in this legislation for the export single desk? How can we encourage new investments in value-added projects with the uncertainty of this exemption process, given that QSL has such a wide discretion? Does the member support domestic deregulation of the single desk? In dollars per tonne of cane what is the difference between export parity and import parity pricing? Why did the member for Hinchinbrook not remove the ministerial direction when he was minister? Will this affect existing contracts? 3462 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

Members opposite would have done much better for the sugar industry by requesting their Canberra colleagues to honour their obligations and conclude negotiations under the memorandum of understanding to enable meaningful legislative reform to occur. Our government's proposals are sensibly based on review, inquiry and consultation and are designed to create a long-term viable future for the industry. They are not the unbalanced, populist, knee- jerk reactions evident in this bill. This bill is not about the future; it is about the past. The Leader of the National Party is loath to say that this bill is part of the solution. I urge honourable members to oppose it. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.21 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak on the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 2003. The intent of this bill—to provide cane farmers with some security of payment for their sugar cane—is a laudable one. As has been highlighted by the fragile state of a number of northern mills in recent years, farmers are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to financial entitlements but at the top of the heap when it comes to being asked to dig mills out of financial trouble. Ironically—if irony is the appropriate description—when farmers do step in to assist mills they place themselves in even more precarious personal financial circumstances to assist a body that views paying for their cane as the weakest of all financial obligations. Clearly the need for change is well established. However, I have a number of questions about how the shadow minister believes this bill will achieve that objective. The requirement for a mill owner to provide reasonable notice of a mill closure is, I believe, a requirement that would be enormously difficult, if not impossible, for a mill owner to satisfy. For example, such an announcement would, I believe, trigger an immediate financial crisis for the mill as every one of its creditors launched their own recovery actions. That by itself could easily be enough to bring about the immediate closure of the mill and, of course, leave that year's crop unharvested—one of the things that the shadow minister is specifically trying to avoid. In addition, as much as growers are entitled to more secure financial arrangements, so, too, are mill owners. The requirement in clause 4 that notice of closure be given no later than 1 May removes a large degree of flexibility from mill owners in regards to managing their finances and trading out of difficult situations. For example, it could be that the mill is in difficulty and under this legislation it would be required to announce closure by 1 May. But the crop that season could be a bumper and c.c.s. could be sound, international oversupply could disappear due to natural disasters or any number of other events could take place that could boost the mill's finances and allow it to continue trading. It is not as simple as saying that, of course. The mill would be allowed to continue to trade because, as I have outlined, the announced closure would most likely have triggered a feeding frenzy amongst its creditors, ensuring the mill's collapse regardless of the strength of the season's results. I do not want to be hypothetical about this, but I am trying to point out that there are severe problems with this approach to the issue. I ask the shadow minister how he envisages circumstances such as I have described being addressed. I also ask what other methods of securing farmer payments were investigated, for example, the possibility of QSL making 'direct to farmer' payments, which has been raised with me. The core of the existing problem is that QSL pays the mills which then pay the farmers. If QSL made the farmer payments directly, the status of the mill becomes of much less importance so far as cane pays go. Such an approach would avoid many of the problems I see with the bill as proposed. I ask: was such an approach considered and, if so, why was it not adopted? I also have doubts about the physical capacity of surrounding mills if they exist to pick up the entire of a collapsed neighbour. To suggest that this bill would at least allow growers a chance at finding a new mill—as this bill would provide—is correct. However, I wonder how much additional infrastructure both at the new mill and, importantly, its transport network would be needed and how long that would take to put in place. In relation to clause 7 and the issue of sugar, I ask: subject to a vesting exemption not automatically returning to QSL reliance of disposal, if the reason for the exemption fails what does the shadow minister anticipate would be the fate of that sugar or, more correctly, that sugar growing capacity in the longer term? As it stands, I think it is possible to see farmers gain an exemption for a new product, say plastics, to see that market fail for some reason and the farmer then finds the area he has devoted to the new product unable to be used to produce sugar for the crystal raw sugar market. I am in agreement with part 10 of this bill which amends section 124 of the act. I believe it is appropriate to price Australian sugar produced in Australia and placed on the domestic market at a price comparable to overseas alternatives, in other words, import parity pricing. It is in my view a 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3463 fair and reasonable provision and places the consumer in a position where they would be paying no more than they would if the local industry collapsed and only imported sugar was available. In the interests of Queensland's proud sugar heritage and the battling sugar industry, I support the intent of this bill. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (9.26 p.m.): I rise to oppose the private member's bill regarding the sugar industry that we are debating this evening. I have family in the sugar industry. While this is not exactly the most pressing issue facing my constituents, I have a strong interest in agricultural economics and in the impact of regulation in this and other industries. Sugar is a classic old-style regulated industry. In an era when industries have to stand on their own two feet the sugar industry is a dinosaur. The regulation of sugar goes back to earlier this century. The original industry in Queensland was characterised by big plantations with single mills worked by South Sea Island labour. It was very much like the American south. The principles of the current Sugar Act were developed by the Ryan Labor government. It followed the break-up of the plantations and the expulsion of South Sea Islanders and its aim was to encourage and protect small white-owned farms in the north. The main purpose of the regime was not to create an efficient sugar industry; it was to populate the north to achieve a white Australia. A royal commission into the sugar industry in 1912 found— If the ideal of a White Australia is to become an enduring reality, some means must be discovered of establishing industries in the tropical regions. So long as these regions are unoccupied they are open to invasion. When the Regulation of Sugarcane Prices Act was passed in 1915 all sugar was produced for the domestic market. There was not international trade in sugar and the act was based on principles of equity within the industry. Under the current regime mills have to buy cane produced in their designated geographic areas, growers within that area cannot sell to other mills, cane is sold at a fixed price determined by mill suppliers committees in conjunction with the mills and sugar is sold both domestically and overseas through a single desk. While the concept of equity in the industry is indeed a beautiful thing, the nature of the regulatory environment has created an industry where innovation is positively discouraged, where cross-subsidies from efficient to inefficient producers are structured in, where conflict between growers and millers is seen as inevitable and where the ability of small growers on mill supply committees to veto change has led to a lowest common denominator approach. Three separate reports into the cane industry—one from the Commonwealth, one from the state and one of the industry's own—have found that a variety of efficiency methods which are available right now are not being enacted. These reports have found that as a whole the industry has poor irrigation efficiency, uses too much fertiliser, does not use the best possible weed control and uses inefficient harvesting techniques. The crux of the problem is that if innovative farmers want to change by producing, say, an early crop or a crop of better quality, the veto power of mill supply committees and the fixed price at the mill mean that other less efficient growers can stop them. The situation that that has produced right now is that 70 per cent of the growers produce 30 per cent of the crop while 30 per cent of the growers produce 70 per cent of the crop. There is nothing in the current structure that will change that fundamental inequity. Seriously, what kind of industry runs like that? In Queensland, 83 per cent of cane produced is sold as raw sugar—the least value-added product available. There has been little movement into value adding or diversification. Eighty- five per cent of the crop is exported, but for 200 years there has been a steady decline in the international price of sugar. In recent years the price has fallen drastically, mainly as a result of cheap sugar from Brazil. An inefficient industry simply cannot compete in a low-price international environment, but the necessary change cannot happen under the current act. There needs to be real reform. Decision making must take place at a local level. Growers and millers must be free to operate in an environment that focuses on commercial outcomes, not on what is in the act, and the industry must focus on business, not on politics. The bill that the government proposed earlier in the year would have addressed these fundamental structural issues. The bill we are debating tonight does not go anywhere near that. While I do not want to go into the bill in a great deal of detail—other people have done that—I do want to state that, in typical National Party style, this bill seeks to pander to some of the sectional interests of the industry without addressing the fundamentals. It confirms the National 3464 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

Party's view that the sugar industry should not be subject to normal competitive influences and it would have a whole range of unintended consequences. First, a mill not being allowed to close without giving a set period of notice to growers would make sugarmills different from operatives in every single other industry. It would force mills to trade possibly while insolvent and certainly while non-viable. Hence, it would put growers' interests well in front of those of other workers, subcontractors and any other perfectly deserving creditors who have a right to be paid from a closing business. What is it that makes canegrowers such a special, protected species? Sadly, the only rationale I can see is that there are three canegrowers sitting on the other side of the House. Talk about a conflict of interest! The second bizarre element of this bill is final arbitration. That is, in price negotiations between growers and mills, growers can name their price and have mills over a barrel. Again, this is just classic National Party stuff: 'We will have the market for everybody else and we will have a protected, subsidised, regulated industry for ourselves and our mates.' It is classic agrarian socialism. Once again, free enterprise stops at the end of the bitumen road. This is typical of the National Party. It has its head in the sand, it has no alternatives and it treats even its own constituents like fools. Over hours of this debate the National Party has done nothing but represent the worst influences in the sugar industry. It is the worst influence in the sugar industry. It is standing up for the lowest common denominator in an industry where the lowest common denominator is holding everyone back and where ultimately the lowest common denominator is going to send everyone broke. Three National Party members have stood up in this debate and failed to declare their conflicts of interest. The three of them—the members for Maroochydore, Mirani and Hinchinbrook—have family cane farms. But National Party members think of themselves, once again, as a protected species. It is not a real political party— Miss SIMPSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member has misled the parliament. I made reference— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! What is your point of order? Miss SIMPSON: The member has misled the parliament and her comments are offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. I also refer her to Hansard. Ms NOLAN: I am happy to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. The National Party is not a real political party; it is an insular rural lobby group. Somehow it thinks that makes it immune from the standards that apply to everybody else. Without significant reform we will stay on the path we are on right now; that is, having an inefficient industry trying to sell overpriced sugar in a market where the price is continuing to fall. Not even the National Party is suggesting that anything in this industry is going to change. Once again we are seeing the absolute economic illiteracy of these people. Let us take today as an absolutely random example of the National Party's approach to economics. What have we seen? We have seen a suggestion that there should be compensation for people who have their God-given right to pollute the earth and destroy the environment taken away. We have seen that there should be compensation for the weather. We have seen a suggestion that we should stimulate an industry—that is, the housing industry—in order to deal with its current state of hyperstimulation. And in recent months we have seen calls for more money for country racing and more money for the opposition office. How on earth are we going to pay for these things? In the whole time I have been a member of parliament these people have not supported one single revenue bill. I have taken today as an entirely random example. How many hundreds of millions of dollars will it cost to compensate people for taking away their right to destroy the environment? How much will it cost to compensate them for the weather? How much revenue will we lose when we no longer take stamp duty on housing? I think it would have to be into the billions of dollars—and we have not even finished the week! We have not even heard the whole string of election promises yet! But these people want the electorate to take them seriously. They want the electorate to take them seriously on sugar and on economic policy. Dear me! I cannot begin to, and I do not think the people of Queensland are quite that silly, either. Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (9.36 p.m.): August marked 19 years of me being either an adviser to or a member of this House, and there have been consistent themes over that 19 years. The first is that the sugar industry is in trouble and the second is that the Labor government has 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3465 to do something to bail it out. The National Party has opposed every one of those initiatives. Tonight is no exception. With this bill the National Party is opposing what we are about. Mr Wilson: At least they are consistent. Mr MICKEL: Consistently wrong. We have had three studies that point to turmoil in the industry. The National Party cannot deny that. That is what is going on. We have had three studies, and they all point to a fundamental problem in the Queensland sugar industry. In defiance of that, the Queensland National Party is here again tonight with this proposal. I will take issue with my colleague the member for Ipswich. She said that there are three people opposite with a conflict of interest. Yes, they may have interests in sugar farming. I acknowledge that. By the National Party's own definition, set out in question time today, presumably it does not want those three people to occupy a job in the sugar industry when they leave this place. That is the logic of what it says. Where my colleague is wrong about a conflict of interest is that a conflict of interest implies there is something to protect. With this bill there will be nothing to protect, because it weakens fundamentally an already weakened Queensland sugar industry. Why does it do that? It does that because it does not face up to the reality. One of the finest speeches I have heard was a speech made during the last sittings by the Minister for State Development. I enjoin every member who has ever wondered why this bill has to be opposed tonight to read that speech. It was a great speech because it outlined the precarious nature of the Australian sugar industry. It also said that, no matter what we say in this House and no matter how much the National Party tries to pretend otherwise, Brazil's current expansion is equivalent to the entire size of the Australian sugar industry. Nothing we say tonight, no amount of rhetoric, no amount of woolly-headedness— Mr Rowell: You are wrong. It is one and a half times. Mr MICKEL: One and a half times; I apologise to the honourable gentleman. I know where the member for Ipswich is coming from when she mentions a conflict of interest. When you have a conflict of interest like the member for Hinchinbrook has, you have to get out there and defend it every chance you get. The point is that this legislation has fundamental flaws, and the fundamental flaws affect people in my electorate and industries throughout Australia. Every one of the member's constituents is paying a sugar levy—every one of them. They are paying more for the price of sugar than they have to, whether they live in Gladstone, Maroochydore or any electorate. The poorest families in my electorate are paying for a reform that the National Party is holding up. My question, therefore, is this: what mechanism does the member have to pay back the consumers in my electorate, in Gladstone and in all the other electorates for the reforms that he will not enact? How are the individual householders in my electorate going to line up and get their dough back? On their behalf, I want to know. There is enormous sympathy for the plight of the farmer, and my constituency probably would pay that. But they are paying it on the basis of reform and the member is holding up the reform. So the shadow minister should give them back the money and give industry back the money which he or his federal government has mandated to take from them. That is the burning issue. I will be looking forward to seeing how the shadow minister answers that in his reply, if he is intellectually capable of it. We also heard from the member for Toowoomba South, who said that we knocked over his bill to mandate ethanol. Weren't we dreadful! The mandating of ethanol was opposed, as I remember it, by sugar farmers who said that it would not work. If ethanol were financially viable now, does the member not think some business would be doing it? The fact that we have to mandate it means that business does not think there is a buck in it. That is why it is not doing it. The honourable gentleman from Toowoomba South said, 'I went over to the United States and saw what a wonderful thing it is.' What he did not tell us is that they have 200 million people who pay taxes to subsidise the ethanol industry. We do not have 200 million taxpayers who can do that. We have three million people in Queensland, some of whom are taxpayers, and many of them do not want to have to pay twice for fuel. I ask the member to come to my electorate and tell them that the price of petrol should be put up just to mandate ethanol. That is what is going to happen. It has to happen because, if business saw a buck in it, it would be doing it now. Mr Mulherin: And Manildra gets it from corn. Mr MICKEL: Let us leave Manildra out of this because I understand there is a bit of a relationship with the Prime Minister, and that has been exposed already in the federal parliament. 3466 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

The point is this—and it is missing from the chamber tonight—where does the Liberal Party stand on this piece of legislation? When it was not in coalition, the Liberal Party was showing some promise. It was showing for the first time in decades that it had what had been lacking—that is, a backbone; a spine to stand up to the National Party. Ever since it wandered back into the coalition, it has sent a shiver running up the backbone of the National Party. We have seen it cave in on the seats that it would contest in the state election. Every seat in the federal division of Fadden held by the Liberal Party has been ceded to the National Party. We will see whether that cave-in on seats is reflected in a cave-in on sugar tonight. That is the acid test. Does the Liberal Party support what is populist, ruinous politics? The other point I want to make is that this is a great industry. It is an industry that we can still save. We have three reports that are the beacon for how it can be saved, but it can be saved only if the industry works together. What we have tonight is the National Party playing to the most base level. It is pretending that the millers, the harvesters and the employees within those industries do not exist. What we heard from the member for Maroochydore was this: 'It is a terrible shame Moreton is closing down. Bundaberg Sugar should have had a bit more sense.' Why is it closing down? It is not closing down to punish the people in Nambour; it is closing down because it cannot make any money out of it. Why is that? Because there is not enough sugar cane grown in that area. It has been enjoining the farmers for years to grow more sugar cane—a perfectly natural thing for farmers to want to do; grow a bit of cane. All they needed was a million tonnes. They average out at 500. That is all. They do not get anywhere near it. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr MICKEL: My old friend wants to punish Bundaberg Sugar for it. That is his arrangement—to punish Bundaberg Sugar. For what reason? Because it gave notice to the growers that they had to grow— Mr Rowell interjected. Mr MICKEL: Sorry, 500,000 is what I meant. Mr Rowell: I wanted to help you. Mr MICKEL: The member could help me by withdrawing the bill, and he could help my consumers by explaining how they are going to get their money back because of his bill and because of the intransigence of the federal government. That is how he can help me. I know it will wreck his conflict of interest, but he could help me a little bit further by doing that. The point is that this industry will grow only when all sectors are working together. The divisiveness that the National Party gets into by pitting grower against mills has been the ruination of the Queensland sugar industry. I heard the speech of the member for Tablelands, which basically poured holes straight through this bill. Even she tumbled to the stupidity of what those opposite are about. Having tumbled to it, she thought she would have to line up with them in one of those blessed things that One Nation does with the conservatives. The point is that this Bill should be opposed and thrown out. Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (9.47 p.m.), in reply: In summing up on this debate, there are a few very pertinent questions that have been asked of me, and as I progress through my reply I certainly will respond to them. The sugar industry in Queensland has been worth some $2 billion in previous years. It is having a major struggle at the present time. It has been a major export earner. It has been able to pay for all these Japanese cars and all these other imports that affect our balance of payments. If there is too much of an outflow, it affects our balance of payments. We will find ourselves struggling with debt and interest rates will be affected. The sugar industry has hit a hard patch. There is no doubt about that. I want to talk about seasonal conditions. A lot of people say that farmers whinge about seasons. I have to tell the House: I am a sugarcane farmer. Hallelujah! I know that the member for Logan has been waiting to hear the news, so I thought I would oblige him. I could not believe some of the rot that he was going on about regarding the industry. In particular, he did not know whether it was 500 tonnes or 500,000 tonnes or how much the mill at Moreton had to grow to ensure its viability. His ignorance was stunning. He is the type of chap who goes on with that sort of nonsense. Miss Simpson: We have lost more to government resumptions than any— Mr ROWELL: Yes. That is beside the point. He goes about his business that way and it is not particularly constructive. He is a good headkicker, I have to give him that. 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3467

Mr Mickel: I could not even give you that. Mr ROWELL: That is fair enough, because I do not trade in headkicking. I am not that sort of person. I do not think you have ever achieved very much in your life, if I am not mistaken. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Would you address your comments through the chair? Mr ROWELL: Anyway, I am getting personal and I do not want to do that. But the member did provoke me and I suppose I had to respond in some way. Recently, the industry has had some major problems. There is no question about the fact that we have had bad seasons. Of course, now we are running into an era of low prices and, yes, the Brazilian industry, which is going to grow something like 50 million tonnes over the next couple of years, is going to be a major competitor with our industry. Their labour costs are very, very cheap. They are only a small amount of ours. That is one of the competitive edges that they have. We compete against them on world markets and we do that because in the past we have been a very progressive industry. Whether it was going from hand cutting—I do not know if the member opposite has cut any cane by hand, but I have done a bit of that too. Mr Mickel: I have, too. Mr ROWELL: I understand what that business is all about. I was in cane cutting at the time when the first harvesters came in. It was quite interesting to see the change every 10 years in harvesters. We went from a harvester— Mr Wilson: What are we going to do to compete against Brazil? Mr ROWELL: I am talking about cane harvesters. Mr McNamara: It is economies of scale. Mr ROWELL: Economies of scale are one of the things, but at one time our technology was leading the rest of the world. It is not doing that now. We have to have a plan, a vision for the future. In the interim, I think that we need some support for the industry to go into making other products such as ethanol. At this time it probably appears to be one of the best options that we have. Mr Mulherin: Why does Manildra use corn instead of cane? Mr ROWELL: Because they make flour. They get the starch and they make the ethanol from the starch. Ethanol can be made from corn. In fact, if you had listened to the member for Southern Downs, he would have heard him speak about how ethanol is made in Minnesota. There are options as to how ethanol can be made. I think you should know because you have SRI right at his back door and— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! We are not having a conversation. The member for Hinchinbrook will address his comments through the chair. Mr ROWELL: The member has SRI in his backyard. They are doing a lot of work. He may have heard of the ZeaChem process at this present time which, if successful, will enable the sugar industry to make a much cheaper ethanol than by the conventional fermentation process. I do not know if he is familiar with that, but I thought I would enlighten him because it is quite apparent that members opposite have a very clouded view as to what the industry is all about. Certainly, the minister had some pretty derogatory remarks to say about the legislation. It is a bit disappointing that we have to get to this level when we are debating a bill that is so critical and so important to Queensland up and down the coast. Yes, the members opposite are right: it is not just sugar growers; it is also harvester operators, millers and other people who work in the industry—people who take the sugar down to the terminals and put it on boats and so on. It is a very big and intense industry. Although the industry uses a lot of harvesters and haul-out equipment, it certainly depends very heavily on labour. Our labour costs in Australia are considerably higher than they are in Brazil. Also, the Brazilian real—and for people who do not understand, I point out that that is the Brazilian currency—has been devalued to a point at which the Brazilian sugar industry is competitive with the Australian industry. An honourable member: They are more competitive than we are. Mr ROWELL: Yes, they grow something like 10 times the amount of sugar as Australia does. Of course, on listening to the Minister for State Development the other day when he made his presentation—and I know that he went to Brazil and had a look at their industry—we have some 3468 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003 major problems looming. It is quite likely that in the future we will find it extremely difficult to get prices above $250 per tonne of sugar. That is going to be very, very difficult for our industry because of our costs of labour and fertiliser—all that sort of thing—the size of the farms and the corporate type of structure that they have in Brazil. What are we going to do about it? There certainly needs to be some future direction. This bill was introduced before the government introduced their bill. I think that it gave them some ideas about what they needed to do. Yes, the government modified their bill. They certainly looked at having some options instead of making just crystal sugar. The bill that I introduced to the parliament gave the flexibility of making crystal sugar, making ethanol or even making crystal sugar that may be refined, put into bags and sent to different countries around the world. I know that some of the northern mills were very much of the opinion that simply making sugar and sending it along to QSL and then QSL selling it was probably not the best option. The amendment that I put together in this bill meant that the mills could get an exemption from QSL to sell the product. The definition of 'sugar' means that it can be termed a wide range of things. It can come from the mills, it can be in a juice form—it can be in a whole range of forms right to the point at which it is actually made into crystal sugar. So there was a great deal of flexibility. But I thought that, in the interim, it was better that QSL, who is the body that trades the sugar for us, should make a decision as to whether exemptions are made. When an exemption is made, it should not be given to a competitor where no benefit can be gained. I ask members to bear in mind that when sugar is sold, it is sold on behalf of the millers and the growers—both benefit from the best price available. QSL should maintain the right to make a decision on exemptions. As I said, there were many options in terms of these exemptions as long as they did not interfere with the sale of sugar that QSL was involved in. I also had to consider the current situation of mill closures. I will go into this in some detail, because many people have questioned this. When growers and millers get together—and believe you me there is a very close association between the two groups in the industry—it is not simply that the battle lines are drawn and growers are doing one thing and millers are doing something else. They are very, very dependent on one another. Cane cannot be carted any great distance. If cane is carted for longer than five to six kilometres—even 10 kilometres—the cost escalates. If we have a mill and growers who form the mill suppliers committee, an agreement is struck between them as to how they go about removing the crop. I think that it is pretty important that, if a mill is going to close, the growers know this at an early stage. I refer to the classic example of the Nambour situation and the Moreton Mill. Currently—and I think that the minister will verify this—a mill can be closed at any time and the growers can whistle dixie. We tried to arrive at an equitable situation. The agreements are usually started about early February. Firstly, the growers and the millers would get together and make some decisions about how many tonnes they can crush, because a mill has to have the capacity to remove that crop. By about early April that is about the time it all happens and from then the growers and the millers will strike an agreement as to when they are going to start to harvest. The situation is that there is estimated 'X' number of tonnes of sugar cane to be harvested. The mill has a certain capacity to crush the crop. So the millers and the growers have to say, 'We will start on 1 July' or 'We will start mid June' or whatever it is 'and we will try to pick the optimum window of opportunity to crush this crop'. That window of opportunity probably starts about mid-June and finishes some time at the end of November. That is about the optimum time. That could even be struck, because in the earlier period of the crushing the sugar levels are quite low. As a consequence, you try to get away from that period and finish up early because the crop is subject to rain and it does not ratoon well. If anybody understands anything about sugar, they would know that it may not ratoon for the next year's crop. In the closure process, we looked very closely at what was the best option. We do not want to decide to close a mill just at any time. That is not fair, particularly to the growers because they have thousands of tonnes of cane out there. They have spent money to fertilise it and water it in some cases. It could have a major impact on the harvesters, because they have t have the machinery ready. By the time they buy the haul out, the harvester and all the bits and pieces, they are up for about $600,000 to $700,000. It is not chickenfeed. It is quite an expensive operation. Therefore, we want to ensure that the cane will be there to crush. Everybody has to start thinking a little out in front with the whole operation. By giving an indication of early in May, as we have in this particular— 10 Sep 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3469

Ms Nelson-Carr: Are you giving them some new direction, Marc? You should. Mr ROWELL: I am talking about the vision. We are just going through some processes, because it is quite important. A question that was asked by numerous people is why 1 May and the end of the year were decided on for terminating crushing. In the case of the Nambour growers, a problem arose if the mill closed at any time and they could not actually find another place to go to. Some growers would have to go up the highway a couple of hundred kilometres to Maryborough and the actual cost of transport would be very high. Sugar is probably one of the lowest valued commodities of any of the agricultural industries. It is not like wheat which can be put in a truck. It is probably worth $200 to $300 to $400 a tonne and it can be taken 500 or 600 kilometres. However, with a lorry load of sugar cane at $20-odd a tonne, one cannot afford to travel any great distance. Somebody talked about putting it in ships and sending it overseas. I have never heard so much rot in all my life. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr ROWELL: That came out of the Burdekin office—Steven Rodgers' office. I can get somebody to sign a statutory declaration if the member likes. Mr Lawlor: That would be good. Mr ROWELL: Right. That shows the stupidity of some people when giving out information about the future direction of sugar. It enables the industry to make some decisions about what they are going to do. The mills knew that they wanted to finish because they did not have enough cane. That is one thing that the member for Logan was dead right about. They did not have enough to make it worth while. They needed the million tonnes and there is no question about that. Therefore, they decided, 'Okay, we will close the mill at the end of the year.' They gave an indication to the farmers that that is what will happen. The harvesters all say that they will not have another season so they will have to do something else with their equipment. Another crop will not be planted and they will not fertilise the ratoons that come up. If they had to exit the industry, I believe that that was probably the best way. That was interesting to see, and I do not think I influenced Bundaberg Sugar in making that decision. However, that is what they did at the end of the day. It gave an opportunity to the industry to wind down and to maximise whatever was left of their assets and not spend money unnecessarily. Another thing that was talked about was deregulating the industry in terms of the domestic single desk. I notice that the Premier did not want to deregulate the taxi industry. It was all right to get rid of the sugar industry's single desk domestically, but not the taxi industry. I think the taxis do an excellent job. I wish he had credited the sugar growers with doing a good job and supplying the cheapest sugar that anybody in the world has. The miserable three cents that consumers are now up for is really a joke in comparison. I think the minister would concur with that. Mr Palaszczuk: No. Mr ROWELL: It does not matter, anyway. The fact is that our sugar growers probably produce the cheapest sugar of any country in the world. We get $250 a tonne at the present time. There is no bounty on it and there is no tariff on it; there is nothing whatsoever. In most countries on the continent and many others, they certainly put a hefty tariff on it. They do it in pools, such as A, B and C pool. In A pool one pays an enormous amount. B pool is slightly less and C pool goes onto the world markets and they get what they can for it. That is the way the Europeans sell sugar, but they get three to four times what we get domestically for our sugar. Mr Palaszczuk: What is the last thing you did for the sugar industry in Queensland? You removed the sugar tariff! Mr ROWELL: And who brought the national competition policy in? The Labor government in Canberra! Our friend Keating brought it in. The sugar industry was the first cab off the rank as far as national competition was concerned. The sugar industry working party had to make a decision on whether they would sacrifice the tariff for the single desk. I do not want the minister to comment, because it would be embarrassing to hear what he would tell the assembly here today. Mr Palaszczuk: Where does the export parity pricing come in? Mr ROWELL: Export parity pricing was a decision made by the sugar industry working group. It was advice given to Minister Perrett at the time. I followed as minister, and I know that that is what the industry wanted. The minister is nodding his head. That is exactly right and that is what happened. 3470 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 10 Sep 2003

Now we are looking at getting rid of that ministerial direction so that we put sugar onto the domestic market at a competitive price. Hopefully it will get marginally more than it did. What we were doing for Australian consumers was pricing it overseas—New York No. 11 spot price—not even taking into consideration the cost of freighting the sugar cane across the sea if it was exported. I know the minister does not like to hear about it, but it is a fact. That is what happened with export parity pricing. Australian consumers got some of the cheapest sugar—probably the cheapest sugar—in the world. I notice that the minister has done the same thing. He is getting rid of the ministerial direction too. There is a bit of conflict as to whether it can be done and lose national competition payments. I can understand that, because they pilfered $90 million off the milk industry in national competition payments and I suppose that they would not want to lose anything that could come from sugar. Their main interest is that the government might lose some money. That is basically why they are objecting to this section relating to the ministerial direction. The industry is in terrible straits at the present time. We have looked for every avenue we possibly can. We recognise that there is some potential in ethanol. The member for Toowoomba South has put a private member's bill together which is part of a vision for Queensland to mandate ethanol. A lot of countries in the world mandate their ethanol. It was not a big imposition because if we had got the exemption off as far as excise was concerned, it would not have cost the motorist any more than it costs for the fuel that they are putting in their tanks. We see massive fluctuations in fuel prices. Had we had a 10 per cent mandate on ethanol and an exemption from fuel excise, less fuel would have needed to come into Australia, and that would have improved our balance of trade figures. Mr McNamara: The car engines, though. Mr ROWELL: Back in about 1940 car engines were running on ethanol, anyway. Ethanol is no big deal. There is an enormous furphy about the damage ethanol will do to car engines. Mr McNamara: You don't care, though, do you? Mr ROWELL: No, it is not a matter of not caring. There is an enormous furphy out there, and this is being perpetuated by the likes of the member. As the member for Toowoomba South pointed out, the people in the US think it is great. They are producing about six billion to seven billion litres of ethanol. In Brazil they produce about 13 billion to 14 billion litres and they will be producing more. The world produces 33 billion litres of ethanol. And poor old Australia with its 160 million litres is worried about whether we can get an industry going. The rest of the world must be laughing at us. We must be a laughing-stock. When we tried to put together something in this state to lead the nation, what did government members do? They voted against it. They decided it was not a good idea because it came from us. Queensland could have had a major imprimatur. I thought we were the Smart State, the state that used to do these sorts of things. Mr Shine: Aren't we using it in Q-Fleet cars? Mr ROWELL: We probably are. There are ethanol bowsers in Cairns. I filled up my tanks with it a couple of times. There is nothing wrong with ethanol. It is a good fuel. It is an oxygenator; it burns cleaner and produces fewer carcinogens. A Sydney doctor is claiming that there should be a mandate of 10 per cent to clean up the atmosphere and reduce the levels of carcinogens and carbon particles. This is a great option but, unfortunately, we are only fiddling with it. The Labor Party has been bickering over this. Dick Honan was putting a 20 per cent mix into the fuel that went into Sydney, and cars were running on it there for ages. Sure, a car had some problems in Sydney, but that was because it was being run on kerosene, not on ethanol. We saw a lot of furphies about the problems with ethanol. At present, this industry badly needs vision. We need a couple of years of some support. We need some alternatives for the industry. It could be ethanol; it probably will be. It seems to be the only alternative adopted in the other major sugar growing areas around the world. In Brazil ethanol is the major industry, not sugar. It is producing between 13 billion and 14 billion litres. Its industry is on the go. It has the flexibility to shift from one part of the industry to the other; they can make either sugar or ethanol. Mr Palaszczuk: So the industry needs a vision. Mr ROWELL: That is right; the industry needs a vision. 10 Sep 2003 Orders of The Day 3471

Mr Palaszczuk: We provided the life raft for the industry and the National Party jumped into the life raft. Mr ROWELL: The CIE report was the greatest joke of all time. It was directed—right down the middle—to the sugar growers themselves. Did it say anything about mills that were open only 82 per cent of the time? This season the mill in my area has been open for crushing for only 83 per cent of the time. Why did the government not look into the milling operations as well? Perhaps they are not as efficient as they are making themselves out to be. I am not trying to put them down, but if people are going to start to focus on what the growers are doing and what they should be doing, perhaps we should look a little further afield. Why does the minister have tunnel vision on this? Why is he just saying that the growers are at fault? We have had some pretty rotten seasons. Does the minister not agree that since 1998 we have had excessive rain and also droughts, and we have not had water to irrigate crops? It is not like a mill, where we can put in another bolt, nut or spare part. Ms Nelson-Carr: Why should governments pay for the weather? Mr ROWELL: The government is not being asked to pay for the weather. I should not be responding to the member, because she is not in her proper seat. Does the government want towns to collapse? The mills want throughput, not miserable crops. The other day I visited Mirani with my colleague the member for Mirani. We travelled right around the Mackay district. Some 12 per cent of the crop was affected by frost. They were harvesting cane that was about a metre high. I know people say, 'Too bad. Poor old farmers. Stupid idiots', or whatever. However, the point is that those people invested a lot of money to produce that crop. Their ratoon was about a quarter of that of a normal crop. They had no option other than to harvest the immature crop. The tops could be pulled out of the frost damaged cane. Those are the vagaries of farming. We hear stupid rot like, 'Why should we pay for the weather?' We put in a big dam for Townsville so that people could have drinking water and water for their gardens. We all paid for that. The people in the Burdekin had to pay for their water. In a crisis situation what did the government do with respect to SunWater? It increased the value of the water by $8 a megalitre, and they are still waiting for a result. The Queensland Competition Authority—QCA—said that it is in the hands of the government as to what is done about the extra $8 a megalitre charge. They have been going on about this for eight to 10 months and have paid their money in good faith, but the government has not said a thing about whether it will reconsider the $8 a megalitre increase. The government is using mischievous reports that denigrate the growing side of the industry. If we do not grow a decent sized crop, the mill does not have the throughput, the harvesters do not have cane to harvest and, as a result, the whole industry starts to crumble. Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Watson NOES, 53—Barry, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Mackenroth, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell Resolved in the negative.

ORDERS OF THE DAY Postponed Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (10.24 p.m.): I move— That general business order of the day No. 2 be postponed to a later hour of the sitting. Question—That General Business Order of the Day No. 2 be postponed to a later hour of the sitting—put; and the House divided— AYES, 53—Barry, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Mackenroth, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. 3472 Farm Debt Mediation Bill 10 Sep 2003

FARM DEBT MEDIATION BILL Second Reading Resumed from 5 June (see p. 2636). Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.30 p.m.): I rise to speak against the bill. In doing so, I will acknowledge that the proposal of the member for Gladstone is probably well intentioned and designed as a genuine attempt to assist with the financial dealings of farmers. However, the government when imposing legislation on the community needs to weigh up all relevant factors and make a judgment as to whether the benefits of a proposal outweigh the costs. This does not appear to be the case on this occasion. The House is aware of the material tabled by the member in recent years including a Senate report critical of some bank behaviour and the difficulties of a former rural constituent of the member. No-one likes to see farmers having to leave properties against their will. However, the community expects that legal obligations agreed to by parties will be honoured. Public pressure on banks regarding the management of these obligations is well documented and governments are involved in ensuring that all stakeholders' rights are respected. These situations do not, however, justify this legislative proposal which would add unnecessary cost and delay and would work against the provision of rural credit to the rural sector overall. The bill proposes government intervention in the normal commercial relationship between commercial lenders, such as banks, and other credit providers, including small businesses such as stock and station agents, suppliers of farm requisites and even retail outlets on the one hand and farmers on the other, with regard to farm debt arrangements. In particular, the bill proposes statutory interference in a creditor's ability to exercise foreclosure clauses in a farm mortgage agreement. Has the member considered the effect on small rural businesses, who may well find themselves facing failure, of legislated mediation provisions which will delay their ability to collect amounts owing? The legislative proposal is not based on any hard data about actual foreclosure rates in Queensland. In fact, it appears to be largely biased towards the farmer's perspective and unfortunately shows little evidence of consultation with other key stakeholders in this sector, including the major bodies representing farmers. There are no substantive arguments advanced as to why the government should intervene in this credit market and not in others where there is likely to be a substantive amount of loans and other credit arrangements, from financial institutions to small or medium owner-operator type businesses such as retail shops, service stations, taxis, long distance road haulers, independent tradespersons, cafes and restaurants, real estate agents, solicitors, chemists, doctors and other health professionals, and even first home owners. The possible costs of the legislative measure are unquantified. No consideration has been taken of national competition policy requirements. The bill, insofar as the proposal's retrospective operation, would breach fundamental legislative principles. There has been some inadequate consultation with major stakeholders in the development of this bill. Notably, there has been a complete absence of any consultation with the Australian Bankers Association and other non-bank financial institutions. I have looked in vain at the documentation supplied for some indication that there has been consideration of the possibility of additional borrowing costs. Will the additional costs of compulsory mediation add a further margin to rural lending? How would it impact on the attitude to provision of finance overall? Apparently the banks have not been asked. Also, there was no prior consultation with any of the statutory entities that would have additional responsibilities and resourcing requirements imposed upon them by this legislation, namely, Legal Aid Queensland, the Queensland Audit Office and QRAA. The two peak farmer representative bodies, the Queensland Farmers Federation and Agforce, have advised me that they were not consulted about the development of the bill. The QFF in particular has been involved for some time in discussions with the Australian Bankers Association and other finance providers on the development of enhanced voluntary farm debt mediation arrangements as part of a comprehensive Queensland Farm Finance Strategy. These discussions are now close to reaching fruition. Both are prepared to see the revised strategy extended to Agforce and to the non-bank finance providers. The position of these two organisations is quite public, the matters having been subject to ongoing debate over recent years. If the member cared to peruse the most recent annual reports of both bodies he would see that the preference for a voluntary, non-legislative approach is clearly stated. These positions have not changed from those advised to me by these organisations 10 Sep 2003 Farm Debt Mediation Bill 3473 some years ago, when I raised the issue of a need for effective mediation processes in this area. Since then I have supported the continued involvement of staff of the DPI to assist with the development of a revised voluntary code. In this regard, the member may not be aware of a recent QFF newsletter to its members. It states— QFF Executive Director Brianna Casey co-chaired a meeting with a Director from the Australian Bankers Association (ABA) in Brisbane Wednesday 18 June 2003 on the revised QFF/ABA Farm Finance Strategy. The Strategy has been in place since 1995, and was established to allow rural industry and the banking sector to work together to achieve a better understanding of the relationship between lender and borrower. The Strategy also assists financial institutions, assistance authorities, rural organisations, primary producers and their respective financial advisors and counsellors to work together to improve farm viability and resolve financial problems. QFF and the ABA initiated a review of the Strategy in late 2001, which involved the important input of the Department of Primary Industries, Legal Aid Queensland, Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, Queensland Justice Department, Bar Association of Queensland, AgForce and all major banks. The purpose of the review was to address any anomalies that may have arisen in the Strategy's first five years of implementation, as well as to strengthen the focus on mediation as an alternative to court action in cases of asset management or potential farm foreclosure. The revised Strategy, which has now been renamed the Queensland Farm Finance Strategy (to encourage a greater uptake from non-bank lenders and primary producers who are not members of farm bodies) will be launched in approximately three months time. I expect that further announcements will be forthcoming in the very near future. The government does accept a need for involvement in this area, and the appropriate type of involvement has been subject to detailed negotiation with industry. Indeed, when I personally raised the issue and floated the idea of legislation for mediation, industry expressed a concern that such legislation could limit its ability to borrow. This legislative proposal currently before the House has not been subject to detailed negotiation with industry. In terms of whether other parts of Australia are considered, I understand that the only other Australian jurisdiction with a statutory approach to farm debt mediation is New South Wales, and only since 1994. There appears to be no conclusive evidence that shows whether the New South Wales approach produces any better result than a non-interventionist approach. I also understand that, following the recent national competition policy review, the National Competition Council may seek further justification that the benefits of the legislation outweigh the costs. In terms of the federal position, it is worth noting that, even following the worst drought in 100 years, there has been no industry call for such legislation or federal suggestion that this type of legislative intervention is necessary for the rural sector. This is not to say that farmers are alone in facing problems with banks. It would be remiss of me not to remind members that there are a range of assistance measures available. I mention the services of the Financial Counselling Service of DPI and Legal Aid Queensland in particular, as well as the Credit (Rural Finance) Act 1966, the Banking Industry Ombudsman, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Service of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and various codes and complaints resolution processes of finance providers. In addition, face-to-face discussion is maintained between government and banks. I have met bankers in recent times to discuss and seek continued support to allow primary producers to manage through difficult situations such as the drought and dairy deregulation. At the federal level, the Deputy Prime Minister has also sought and obtained recent assurances of support from the banks regarding the drought situation. Our government is actively involved with industry in maintaining lender support for rural industry. The introduction of heavy-handed compulsory mediation processes in this area is not considered necessary given the measures that are already in place. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet even the minimum standards for prior stakeholder consultation and financial probity and does not accord with the views of industry or the vast majority of Australian governments. For all of these various reasons I believe that the bill should be opposed. I urge all honourable members to oppose it. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.40 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Farm Debt Mediation Bill, it does not give me any great pleasure to say that I have great difficulty in not supporting it, too. I am probably coming from a different aspect from other speakers, because one of the things that concerns me greatly is that it appears that there was no consultation on this Farm Debt Mediation Bill with a number of the major players. Very often we depend on the likes of the QFF, which is the umbrella organisation, and Canegrowers, which is a major body. There is 3474 Farm Debt Mediation Bill 10 Sep 2003 also the ACFA, which I spoke to and found that there has been no consultation. Agforce is probably the other big group that is very representative of farmers in this state. There are currently some voluntary arrangements between the groups which I will talk about in a minute. I can understand the thinking that went into this bill and probably some of the reasoning for it, but if we destroy some faith that has been put into a voluntary system we may end up with something that is more draconian. I think there is an opportunity somewhere down the track if all those voluntary arrangements which are being put in place do not meet our expectations, or if rain occurs and all of a sudden there is a whole lot of foreclosures. I say to the member for Gladstone that I am very much aware of what may occur. I am not going to say somewhere down the track that legislation like this would not be appropriate. When we look at the QRAA reports going back to 2001 and 1999, we can see some major changes in the borrowing capacities of rural industries. A lot of them were in the A category, and a slippage of 12.4 per cent saw them go to B plus, which gained about 2.3 per cent; B1, 8.1 per cent; B2, 0.7 per cent; and then the C category, 1.4 per cent. What was happening was that the credibility of rural industries to borrow was slipping. I could go on to quote from this document. I understand QRAA will be bringing out a report on farm debt somewhere towards the end of this year. I think that it is a two-year cycle. It will be extremely interesting to see just what the outcome of that report is, because it will reflect the position of many rural producers. I represent an area that has some major problems with the sugar industry. I have spoken to many members and we have discussed this situation. I did not take the decision lightly to not support the bill. When I first looked at it, I thought that it had credibility. I knew that there was a similar piece of legislation in New South Wales. I am sure that the best intent has been put into this legislation before the House. There are many people whom I have dealt with in Legal Aid, such as Lee Nevison and Peter Cousins, and DPI advisers. I had Peter Cousins come up to my electorate. I put out a press release saying to people, 'If you have a problem, come in and have a talk to Peter Cousins.' I did not get one person who had an issue with the raw deal they were getting with the banks. I could only conclude that there is a bit of a juggling act going on. I know that things are very tough and very tight at present, but it was quite apparent that the lending institutions were trying to accommodate the situation. I will go into this in some detail. In 1996 the Australian Bankers' Association, the Queensland Farmers Federation and the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority mutually agreed to a QFF-ABA farm finance strategy. The strategy also assists the financial institutions, assistance authorities, rural organisations, primary producers and their respective financial advisers and counsellors to work together to improve farm viability and resolve financial problems as they arise. We are not going to solve financial problems. People borrow money and things happen. That is one of the problems that rural industries face. We just had a debate recently when the fortunes of the cane industry changed considerably. There is little doubt that that will impinge on their ability to pay back debt. In many cases, many of them borrowed considerable amounts of money to expand. The strategy was designed to maximise dispute avoidance and resolution in farm finance matters, and it was adopted in preference to legislation. What was intended was to look at some options to see how we could resolve problems without putting the umbrella of legislation over it. This strategy has three stages: early identification, which involves lenders raising concerns with the account holder at an early stage; negotiations, where the bank is expected to enter into negotiations with the account holder to resolve the matter; and mediation, when negotiations do not produce a mutually accepted result. Those principles have been adopted. I know the financial state of many growers and many other people out there. I have asked members of parliament to give me a clear understanding of what they are finding. I think we will find isolated cases where people are getting a raw deal, but probably for whatever reason people have borrowed a certain amount of money and are having a great deal of difficulty paying it back because of the vagaries of growing crops, producing animals and weather conditions. That happens in rural industries. I do not know what the hell we can do about it. We are not a country like Europe, which really butters up to its producers. We are not a country like the US, which has given $US340 billion to its primary industries over a 10-year period. That is nearly 600 billion in Australian dollars in subsidies. We do not get that level of assistance in Australia. Unfortunately, because of the fractionising of our rural industries, they are not widely supported through subsidies when compared to many of our competitors. 10 Sep 2003 Farm Debt Mediation Bill 3475

This strategy does not aim to keep farms that are otherwise not viable in operation. The purpose is to ensure that financiers have acted within the law when seeking to enforce rights against rural consumers and generally that consumers are treated equitably by their lenders. In the first four years on only two occasions was formal mediation employed. In other words, during that period—four years—there were only two occasions for which formal mediation was employed. That is what I am hearing. I do not know whether that is correct. Maybe the member for Gladstone can quote other cases. The QFF and the ABA initiated a review of the strategy in the late 2001 period, which involved the input of the Department of Primary Industries, the Office of Rural Communities, Legal Aid Queensland, the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, the Queensland Justice Department, the Bar Association of Queensland, Agforce and all the major banks. So there was a widespread involvement by the financial institutions. The purpose of the review was to address any anomalies that may have arisen in the strategy's first five years of implementation as well as to strengthen the focus on mediation as an alternative to court action in cases of asset management or potential farm foreclosures. The revised strategy, which has now been renamed the Queensland Farm Financial Strategy to encourage a greater uptake from non-bank lenders and primary producers who are not members of the farm bodies, will be launched in approximately six weeks time. QFF strongly believes that legislation is not needed and that it is important for primary producers and bankers to have open relationships and not a control approach. The voluntary mediation process has been working well and has the support of the stakeholder bodies. However, we can say that it is an issue which can be revisited over time and legislation could be introduced in the future if it becomes necessary. I think we should give this process the opportunity to work, but watch it very closely. I think the minister should be watching it very closely, and I am sure that he is. In the event that there is a need to do something about it, we need to act quickly. Time expired. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (10.50 p.m.): I commend the member for Gladstone for her sincere attention to the plight of some of the most disadvantaged people in Queensland—farmers facing escalating debt, the loss of their jobs, their homes and their legacy for their children. Whether or not there was sufficient consultation does not detract from the intent to help our farmers. Under this bill legal assistance would be given to people who need it. It must be remembered that legal assistance, which costs money, is handed out freely on a daily basis to a procession of people in courts who never work and never have to pay for public services, which is something that cannot be said of our farmers. At last we have someone coming forward who wants to help people who really need it. For this reason, I must commend the thrust of this bill. The bill does not seek to bail out losers. It is a warm-hearted attempt to save hard workers and taxpayers from ruin—nothing more. I am talking about people who did not dig their way into debt recklessly. They have always had to fight the scourges of drought, low prices, pests and disease. What we are seeing throughout Queensland and throughout Australia is a relentless assault on farming profitability, not just by nature but also by man. We have people working in Australia on Third World wages. I am not talking about the garment sweatshops of the cities. I am talking about the farming families of Queensland to whom this country owes its success. There is nothing nostalgic about my support for farm families. Any view that they are backward hillbillies with no regard for commercial reality is as insulting as it is wrong. Many farmers took on large debt through the imperative of modernising their farms, using the latest high-tech equipment and cost-saving machinery. Now they find that their efforts have been undermined, not just by drought but by man as well. They face mounting competition from subsidised foreign producers. They face a relentless barrage of regulations, most of which ultimately curb their prospects of realising a proper return on their investment. Last year, beef producers averaged the same for their cattle as they did in 1984. Farmers need help to preserve breeding stocks. They need genuine assistance for fodder and freight. They need more dams and water storage. In relation to assisting farmers, One Nation says: why not mandate ethanol in our fuel? It will assist the sugar industry, provided that producers are guaranteed a fair proportion of the returns. In this instance we commend opposition members who want the mandatory use of ethanol. We support the member for Toowoomba South in his fight for that mandatory use. One-quarter of dairy farms in this state have gone out of business. Gross farm debt rose eight per cent in 2001 3476 Adjournment 10 Sep 2003 to $26.2 billion—an average debt per farm of $252,000. Some of the biggest farmers are now exiting the industry. The losses from deregulation are compounded by drought. In my seat in the Lockyer that drought has not gone away. One of the most destabilising issues in relation to primary producers is the uncertainty that now arises in regard to property rights, not from drought. It stems from a proliferation of state government legislation that effectively takes away the rights of the genuine Aussie battler. In Queensland the situation is compounded by the government's unwillingness to ensure that leaseholders have a right of renewal on their properties. The combination of international treaties on environment and climate change, which have been signed by the federal government and are being implemented by state governments, means that property owners are unsure as to what they can do on their own property, irrespective of whether their land is freehold or leasehold. On behalf of the Queensland people, One Nation Senator Len Harris is taking a test case to the Federal Court to define the rights of property owners. The federal government's approach in its effective war against farmers is the proposed free trade agreement with the US. Corporations and their think-tanks are driving this agenda. The major lobby group, the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement Business Coalition, is spearheaded by companies like Cargill, Caterpillar, IBM, Kelloggs, Mobil, News Limited and Proctor and Gamble. Agribusiness companies are the only ones lobbying for the free trade agreement. A report of the Rural Industries Development Corporation says that the impact of free trade areas on our farmers would be negative and the costs outweigh the benefits. Farmers also have a fight on their hands in the domestic market. They must battle against Coles and Woolworths, the duopoly that controls 80 per cent of Australian supermarkets. That is why so many farmers find themselves in this desperate situation. I wholeheartedly support the member for Gladstone's attempt to do something—which nobody else has done—to help ease the pain in the bush. Debate, on motion of Mr Flynn, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (10.56 p.m.): I move— That this House do now adjourn.

Telstra Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.56 p.m.): I rise to speak on behalf of a segment of my community who live at Tannum Sands. Telstra has heralded long and loud about the fact that it is improving and increasing coverage. In fact, the sale of Telstra has been justified on the basis that rural and regional Queensland will enjoy the same telecommunications services as the rest of Queensland. This is not the case. Even if there is an achievement of good coverage for mobile phones in Queensland, the sale of Telstra will do nothing towards the improvement or maintenance of those services in the long term. I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition from residents of the Tannum Beach Caravan Park and Tannum Beach area indicating their lack of service from Telstra. Leave granted. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: The Tannum area is unique in that it is a developing region. Tannum and Boyne have enjoyed a high level of development over the last few years. However, one of the ironies of that development, and the fact that it is an emerging urban area, is that Telstra has been unable to provide good mobile coverage for residents and visitors to that area. In fact, the residents of Tannum Beach, most of whom signed that petition, cannot use mobile phones on the beach and rely on a single Telstra phone box for contact, particularly for emergency services. If there is an accident on the beach, if there are stingers on the beach, they have to run up to a phone at the small recreational camp site to be able to access a phone and contact the emergency services. The petition I have tabled calls on Telstra to remediate that situation and provide better mobile coverage for the area in question. I support that. I do not believe that Telstra has any justification for the sale of mobile services for the people of Queensland and the people of Australia. Telstra says that there will be better coverage and that it will not sell until the coverage is better. The fact is that, in the long term, that service to the community cannot be guaranteed and 10 Sep 2003 Adjournment 3477 the sell-down should not occur. That petition represents just a small number of people who oppose any change in Telstra and call for an improvement in Telstra services for rural and regional Queensland.

Live Cattle Exports Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (11.00 p.m.): I rise to speak about the live cattle export trade. There are two aspects of this particular issue. One relates to the evergrowing concern about animal cruelty and, secondly, the correlation between this trade and the loss of meatworkers' jobs in the state and in Australia generally. I feel very qualified to speak about this issue because I grew up under the spectre of the Lakes Creek Meatworks. My father worked there for 51 years and I started work there as a schoolboy. It was my father's view that to start there would encourage me to concentrate on my studies, and it worked. This is a very complex issue and it is controversial in the sense that essentially no-one knows whether there is a strong correlation between the export of live cattle and the loss of jobs. Apparently there is no comprehensive study that establishes that. However, the anecdotal evidence would appear to indicate that there is adequate grounds for concern. In response to a question in the federal parliament, the federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson said— Some estimates indicate that the equivalent of throughput for some seven to 10 works are now leaving the country in live form, and that is understandably putting some pressure on domestic works. I note that processors have expressed some concern about that in recent times. That is a fair indication that this is a real issue. However, previous indications, particularly from Rutherford's paper, indicate that valueadding and the potential trade-offs between Australia's beef and live cattle exports have been examined. There is some suggestion that segmentation of those markets does not mean that they overlap and that there is even some encouragement to future exports from this trade. However, this is not conclusive. I believe that we have to maintain a strong stand against live cattle exports. We must not turn a blind eye to this issue. We must not accept it as a given. We must initiate actions and strategies for the future. I believe that this is a national and state as well as an international issue. I believe that one of the areas that needs to be examined is the prospect of looking at international initiatives to perhaps set up treaties in terms of the international treatment of cattle being exported overseas so that equivalent standards are agreed internationally on the way cattle are treated and exported. Obviously, there are concerns about cruelty to those animals when they are slaughtered in other countries as well.

Harristown State High School Mr HORAN: (11.03 p.m.): Tonight I want to congratulate the Harristown State High School in Toowoomba on the outstanding work it has been doing for its students. In particular, I congratulate the school on its success in winning the Queensland One Hundred Per Cent in Control Rock Eisteddfod. Harristown has always been one of the better schools in the competition. Indeed, it came second the last time it competed. Harristown puts together an entry for the rock eisteddfod only every second year. One of the things that I have noticed about its performances is that it always picks a happy theme. One year it used the theme of an agricultural show; another year the theme was a backyard barbecue and this year it was Ship Ahoy. It gives the students a great opportunity to work together in a disciplined manner in their preparation and training for the rock eisteddfod or rock musical. It has become a real tradition at Harristown. Harristown is the eighth biggest school in Queensland. Probably about 15 years ago, Harristown set out to excel in a number of areas. Over the years it has produced one of the best Rugby League sides in Queensland. Steven Price, who captains the Bulldogs, was captain of Harristown. He is one of the great ambassadors of Rugby League, Harristown High School and Toowoomba. The school set out to achieve a standard of excellence in sport not only in Rugby League but also in volleyball and many other sports. Last year, it won the award for being the champion Darling Downs school in sport. Harristown has a good mix of academia, sport and culture, and students have great pride in the school. One of the interesting things happening at Harristown State High School is the introduction of a middle school, which is providing a focus on the younger students in the middle section of the high school. Recently, they applied the $3 million that they obtained under the 3478 Adjournment 10 Sep 2003 secondary school renewal program to a new high-tech centre. That will also be a part of the middle school program. That will provide them with the latest in high-technology teaching and will embrace a curriculum that concentrates on high-tech. I have always supported the rock eisteddfod. When I was Health Minister, I ensured that it received some financial support. It is based on the theme of being 100 per cent in control. The rock eisteddfod gives young high school students a chance to work together in a disciplined manner, to prepare and train, and to make a pledge amongst themselves that they will not touch drugs or alcohol during the time of preparation for their performance. Hopefully, that will continue with them. It is a great experience for them and it gives them the chance to know that they have done well. They can look back on their performance with pride. I congratulate Harristown State High School on its success.

Wooloowin State School Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (11.06 p.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the House the positive community spirit that has arisen from the recent arson tragedy at Wooloowin State School and preschool. An arson attack must be one of those terrible things that is every principal's nightmare or every community's nightmare. Can members imagine that it is a Sunday afternoon, one is closing the front door, starting to cook dinner and perhaps having a glass of wine when the phone call comes that there has been an arson attack. The feeling that goes to the pit of one's stomach is really quite frightening. It was a shocking thing to get that call. Wooloowin State School is a beautiful heritage listed school. The preschool, the library and the administration block, the after-school care and tuckshop were destroyed, with estimated damage of about $1 million. I have to say that in adversity, of course, everyone pulls together. That is an extraordinary thing to be a part of as well. The staff, the parents, the children and the community, even though they are still in shock, have bonded to work on the rebuilding of the school. Mr Terry Sullivan: They are a great community. Ms LIDDY CLARK: They are a fantastic community. There is quite a bit of need in the area of Wooloowin State School. When something likes this happens, it is not only shocking but, as I said before, what comes out of the adversity is the pulling together of a strong community. From what I witnessed that evening, I have to acknowledge the Hendra fire brigade, which was extraordinary in the work that it did. The very next day the Hendra police apprehended two adolescents who allegedly caused the fire. Q-Build was extraordinary in that week, as was Education Queensland. In particular, I mention the work of Fay Jeppesen, the Education Queensland facilities manager of the Metropolitan North Corporate Services Unit. She was just extraordinary. It seemed to me that she was up for 24 hours straight, 48 hours straight—almost the entire week, in fact. Also, I commend the most extraordinary principal, Bruce Davis, and the Wooloowin P&C. Organisations outside of the school community circle have also joined to lift everyone's spirits high into the sky, including the Queensland Arts Council and New Farm Coles, whose social club paid for icy poles for the children to eat after school assembly last Friday. Of course, the Arts Council provided a free puppet show. Together, those people have worked around the clock to ensure that the social and material needs of the children have been met. They have well and truly exceeded all expectation. I went down there one day to see how everything was going. We took sandwiches down for the Q-Build staff. When we arrived, the children were dancing in front of a charred building. It was an extraordinary moment in time. I acknowledge everyone who has been helping to rebuild Wooloowin State School.

Suncorp Stadium Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (11.09 p.m.): I wish to speak about two issues. Firstly, I refer to the irresponsible attitude by both the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Public Works in respect of the returfing of Suncorp Stadium. Anyone with commonsense would realise that the government is being irresponsible in thinking it can returf Suncorp Stadium three weeks before it is host to a Rugby Union World Cup match. I can just imagine the pressure that will be placed on that surface when players form rucks on it. To think that such a loose new surface will stand up to that is completely irresponsible. It is a disaster waiting to happen. We saw what 10 Sep 2003 Adjournment 3479 happened at the Gabba when they tried to lay turf in front of the Aussie Rules posts. Aussie Rules and soccer are completely different in terms of the pressure players put on turf. Rugby Union rucks and scrums will be forming over turf that has been laid for only three weeks—loose turf that is very deep and has to be watered—and that is a disaster waiting to happen. I think there is going to be an embarrassment. The second issue concerns an approach to me from the board of South Coast School Sport. All of us would be approached by young people going on sporting tours and whose parents have to raise $1,400 or $2,000 in order for them to participate. The issue raised by the school sports board is the 'continually spiralling cost of transport borne by our students and obviously parents to enable them to participate in our well organised inter-school sports program'. The board states— Sport and physically active recreation are an important part of Queensland's lifestyle and play a vital role in developing our children and young people. ... It is important that children are given opportunities ... Through sport, our Schools, perform a vital role. It states further— It is our intention to fulfil these stated roles of schools servicing lower socio-economic communities, but the costs have become almost prohibitive, with parents and schools able to offer only limited opportunities for students to participate in sporting activities due to the cost of transport. ... On behalf of the ... School ... Board I wish to thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns over this very real problem confronting our schools and therefore limiting opportunities for our students. Any member who has been approached by any of these young people knows how much a parent or child has to pay to participate in a sport in order for some of these kids to become elite sportsmen. If they do not participate, they do not have a chance of going on in the future. I believe Sport and Recreation has to do something positive on behalf of the government to help to support these young people.

Bushland, Burleigh Electorate Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (11.12 p.m.): A piece of remnant bushland in the Burleigh electorate is currently the subject of much debate. This 5.7 hectare piece of land is owned by Queensland Health and is presently zoned for a hospital. However, to those residents whose properties abut the land it is seen as valuable open space. Since the purchase of the Robina Hospital, Queensland Health has no further need for this land and a decision on its future is yet to be made. The local residents have clearly stated that they believe the land must be preserved in its present state for future generations. I must admit that I agree with the residents. Not content to sit back and wait, a group of locals formed a committee and began a campaign to save the bushland. I met with representatives of the group on a number of occasions, offered resources to print flyers to advertise a public meeting and attended that meeting to speak with the residents. When community cabinet met in Burleigh last March, I facilitated a meeting between this group and the Minister for Health and the Minister for Environment. They were able to put the case directly to the ministers, and the feedback was very positive. The group also collected more than 6,000 signatures on a petition, which I was happy to table in the parliament. To Queensland Health, however, this land has a commercial valuation of approximately $5 million. Should this land be disposed of on the open market it would mean a financial windfall for Health on the Gold Coast. In order to achieve an outcome acceptable to both the residents and Queensland Health, I have over the past nine months put forward to the state government, the Gold Coast City Council and the residents a number of suggestions. The government has looked at negotiating a land swap with the Gold Coast City Council or offering the council first option to purchase the land at a discounted price. A green space levy is paid by all Gold Coast City Council ratepayers, and I called on the council to use funds collected by this levy to purchase the land. The local councillor, however, stated that it was not a significant enough piece of bushland, that there were other areas of land considered to be more environmentally sensitive and the levy was to be used in those areas. For more than nine months I have sought to find a solution. I have had many discussions with both the Health Minister and the Premier and have found them willing to explore all avenues. In that time many others have attempted to gain political mileage out of this situation. There have been wild claims and absurd comments about how they could save the bushland. Instead of 3480 Adjournment 10 Sep 2003 making promises I may not be able to keep and giving people false hope, tonight I want to assure the residents that I will continue to pursue this issue until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. I urge all those involved to put politics aside and work together. I will not give up until the land is secured in its present form for future generations.

Melissa Pearce Benefit Fund Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (11.16 p.m.): It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to speak in the chamber tonight. I wish to bring to the attention of the Queensland parliament and the Queensland people the fact that on 14 April this year a young policeman, Detective Senior Constable Jason Pearce, his young policewoman wife, Melissa, and their two young children, aged three years and 18 months, were transferred to Longreach to take up duty there as police officers. They purchased a home and were prepared to stay for some time in Longreach. However, they suffered a severe blow when on 3 August Melissa took ill through what was thought to be meningococcal disease and then meningitis. However, both of these diseases were ruled out. Unfortunately, some sort of brain virus has struck this woman down. She was transferred to the Royal Brisbane Hospital on 4 August and lies there today totally paralysed, only able to move her eyes. They are a devoted couple and dedicated to their police careers and young family. Senior Sergeant Ron Van Saane of the Longreach police district has set up the Melissa Pearce Benefit Fund and has made representations to Assistant Commissioner George Stolz of Rockhampton, the Commissioner of Police, Bob Atkinson, and the Minister for Police, Tony McGrady, making them aware of what his and the Longreach police office's intentions are, namely, trying to raise money to give this beautiful young lady some sort of comfort in her paralysis and the family some comfort in its time of need. In early November the police will stage a gala night in Longreach and hopefully get as many high-profile sportspeople and other identities there to raise money for this young lady to give her some sort of quality in her time of need. As I speak this evening the prognosis for Melissa is that she will have this for the long term. Not even the medical profession knows precisely what the future holds for her. However, I appeal to all members and other Queenslanders who can do so to donate to the Melissa Pearce Benefit Fund. Any donations sent to the Longreach Police Station will be greatly appreciated. I do not think we know for half a minute what lies around the corner for any of us. This beautiful young couple, who are very much in love and devoted to each other and caring for their young family, have found themselves in this unfortunate situation. I urge all honourable members, if they can see their way clear, to help Jason and Melissa at this time. I would greatly appreciate it. I can assure all honourable members that the Longreach police and their colleagues around the state would greatly appreciate any donation possible.

University of Southern Queensland Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.19 p.m.): The University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba is one of the state's premier universities. Staff and research students are conducting fundamental and applied research projects, and producing outcomes of national and international significance. I want to mention some examples. One fantastic research endeavour being undertaken by USQ is research into a vaccine for whooping cough. USQ's industrial collaborator, Delta Biotechnology Ltd, has recently filed a patent on the technology used to make the vaccine which stimulates the protective immune mechanisms required for long-term protection against whooping cough. I also want to mention the development of a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common fatal genetic disorder of children, which has been the primary aim of pharmacologist Dr Andrew Hoey and his team at USQ since 1997. So far, research has produced small sequences of nucleic acids that bind to the mutated area of the gene that causes Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This research holds considerable promise with findings subsequently confirmed in other labs across the world. I also want to mention Dr Ray Marshall and his team at USQ who have been researching ways to chemically identify subgroups of children with autism. They are one of only a few Australian researchers working on a chemical analysis of autism. There are many other research programs focusing on health, such as the psychology of aviation accidents under Professor Gary 10 Sep 2003 Adjournment 3481

Fogarty, the development of a state-of-the-art neonatal retrieval system and research to produce a vaccine against bacteria that causes gastric ulcers. In the engineering field, USQ's fibre composites design and development group, helped by the state government's grant of $7 million to $10 million for the fibre composite centre of excellence, is progressing well. The mathematics and computing facility at USQ headed by Professor Tony Roberts is undertaking hydrodynamics research to assist engineers design structures and adopt techniques to reduce the destructive potential of floods. USQ's computational engineering research centre is an intellectual powerhouse of world- class research in computer engineering. The centre is USQ's focal point for high-performance computing applications and is not only aiding the development of a smart, globally competitive engineering sector in southern Queensland and Australia but also providing post-graduate students with invaluable experience as part of their programs. Research by Dr Harry Harris and Simon Zillman to develop a new antivortex fan is expected to revolutionise the cane harvesting cleaning system. The new extractor fan outperforms the standard extractor fan in cane loss and extraneous matter percentage, and it improves blade life and power requirements. The blade design is easy to manufacture and should perform better with captured solids. In 2001 Fuji Zerox granted USQ's Centre for Australian Financial Institutions the funds to conduct a benchmark study of the banking industry. A nation-wide study—the first of its kind in Australia—benchmarked a number of backroom banking processes, including those for home, personal and business loans. There are many other important and exciting initiatives being undertaken at the University of Southern Queensland. The research being done is inventive, imaginative and cutting edge. I would like to congratulate Mr Peter Swannell, who is soon to retire, and Deputy Vice Chancellor, Malcolm Mackay, as well as all of the staff, students and partners of the university on each project for their work. USQ is making a statement that a regional university has the facilities and the drive to compete with local, national and international competitors and to be a leader in many fields.

Atherton Hospital Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (11.22 p.m.): If the Beattie government has any interest at all in a decent hospital in Atherton, it will step in and act quickly as there has been a total betrayal of the community and its medical professionals by Queensland Health through its local officers. I have here a document issued by all of Atherton's doctors outlining exactly how the Beattie government has lied about the redevelopment of the Atherton Hospital. This government— Mr Terry Sullivan: Rubbish! Ms LEE LONG: It is true. I have it here. This government, through its local functionaries, issued guarantees about a range of matters just a few months ago. But those guarantees have now been proven to be totally worthless. It is infuriating that a community, which turned out in force to demonstrate its support for its hospital and nursing staff, has been delivered such a poor result by Queensland Health. When the Health Department slammed shut the doors of Atherton's original maternity ward, the community rose up in protest. The department became desperate to silence the groundswell of criticism caused by this ill-considered move. A Clayton's revamp with a $1 million budget was hastily announced and was quickly followed by assurances that the district would lose nothing and, in fact, could expect at least as good, if not better, facilities. The community accepted the word of the Beattie government. They believed what they were told by this government through officers of this government's Health Department. Among the undertakings was a commitment to work with local doctors in the development of the refurbishment plans. Like me, the community took comfort from the involvement of our doctors. We had no reason to think that we had been fed a load of rubbish. But rubbish is exactly what the promises of the Beattie government are. This consultation with our doctors has been so poor that these dedicated medical professionals now call Queensland Health's guarantees 'worthless'. Queensland Health's attitudes to the Tablelands community is summed up by the reception that doctors say they have received 3482 Adjournment 10 Sep 2003 in trying to represent the medical needs of their community. In the doctors' own words, their attempts were 'met with contempt and deceit'. It is clear that doctors do not think that it is possible to deal anymore with Queensland Health because of the betrayal that they have been dealt. The community can feel no different. This abysmal performance, which seems set to leave Atherton with seven fewer surgical beds, a cut in the number of maternity beds and the loss of facilities, has gone on long enough. The relationship between Queensland Health and the Tablelands community, along with its medical professionals, is I believe beyond repair. How it got there should be investigated, but more immediately drastic steps need to be taken to restore at least some measure of community trust in the way the hospital is run. To restore that trust, I call for the immediate replacement of the senior administration at Atherton Hospital and within the Atherton Tableland health service district. I table a doctor's letter in the interest of informed debate.

Bakers Creek Memorial 60th Anniversary Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (11.25 p.m.): I rise to speak about the 60th Anniversary Bakers Creek Memorial activities that were held earlier this year. Bakers Creek is a small community south of Mackay. On 14 June 1943 a United States Army Air Forces B-17C Flying Fortress crashed near Bakers Creek. The 41 American servicemen on board had been on rest and recreation leave in Mackay during WWII. All but one of these men died in the crash. The sole survivor was Corporal Foye K. Roberts. While the crash is thought to be Australia's worst air disaster, this may be the first that many members have heard about it. For many years the crash was enshrined in secrecy. Due to wartime censorship and to maintain morale, details of the crash were hushed and the families of the crash victims were not told exactly how or where their loved ones died. The people of Mackay and Bakers Creek were deeply saddened by the loss of life. The young American men had become well liked by locals. The crash was not forgotten by the community and became part of local history. In the early nineties the former member for Mackay, Mr Edmund Casey, initiated the establishment of a memorial to honour the men who died. A committee was established, which worked tirelessly to erect the memorial. The memorial was dedicated on 11 May 1992 and includes a plaque with a list of the casualties. This memorial is the only memorial to American servicemen on foreign soil that was not erected by the government of the United States of America. So it is a credit to our community that we have honoured these young men. A list of casualties from the crash was never released by the US Air Force, and they have been learned only through intensive research by a number of dedicated Australians and Americans who have taken an interest in the crash. Researchers undertook the task of contacting the families of the deceased to tell them the truth about how their relatives died. Most are grateful and happy to learn that their loved ones died while enjoying themselves in beautiful tropical Mackay. To this day the search continues for a number of families who are still in the dark about the fate of their loved ones. Every year, a memorial ceremony is held at the Bakers Creek Memorial, including a parade featuring Air Force, Army and Navy cadets. This year was the 60th anniversary of the crash and, as a result, a very special weekend of commemorative events was planned. A large contingent of American relatives of the deceased men journeyed from all over America to Mackay to take part in the commemorative activities. Special guests included Brigadier General Vern M. Findlay II of the US Air Force, Vice Commander of the US 5th Air Force; Lieutenant General John B. Hall of the US Air Force, the retired former commander of the US 5th Air Force and Group Captain John Ward of the RAAF. Activities included a commemorative ceremony, a special dawn service for relatives and a commemorative dinner. I was pleased to be able to attend the ceremony and, with my parliamentary colleague the member for Mirani, lay a wreath in memory of the men who died. I also attended the dinner. It was great to be able to mingle with the many American relatives and guests who attended. By all accounts, the visiting American relatives and servicemen thoroughly enjoyed their visit and were grateful for the proficient and considerate way in which the schedule of commemorative events was presented. It was a very emotional but ultimately uplifting occasion for all concerned. 10 Sep 2003 Adjournment 3483

The 60th anniversary of the Bakers Creek air disaster provided a wonderful opportunity for the Mackay community and visiting Americans to pay their respects to the 40 men who lost their lives in the crash and also the survivor of the crash who, unfortunately, due to ill health was unable to attend the ceremony this year. It also provided an opportunity for us to reflect on the shared history of Australia and America. Our two nations are close allies and many bonds were forged during conflict. As part of this year's activities, Mackay State High School history students completed a research project and created a documentary about the crash which was screened to a standing ovation from locals, attending relatives and guests. I commend the Mackay State High School students for their great work and must also praise the enthusiastic and inspiring efforts of their teacher, Mr Bruce Litte. The gravity of this year's commemoration has also given this important memorial, which has long been enshrined in local tradition, the national and international acknowledgment it deserves. Media converged on the Bakers Creek community during the weekend of the commemoration, and the ceremonies made the news in a number of Australian and American media and were reported as far away as London. Hopefully the attention created will help to locate more relatives and also shed more light on this disaster, which is a significant part of our wartime history. An enormous amount of time and effort went into the planning and organisation of this event, and I commend the Bakers Creek Memorial Committee for its dedication and compassion. In particular, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr Col Benson, whose dedication to the memorial goes above and beyond the call of duty. Other committee members and contributors include RSL President, Lieutenant Colonel Brian Cuttriss; Councillor Greg Thomsen; Corporate Communications Officer at Mackay City Council, Ms Jannette Thompson; Ms Lori Leonard of Mackay Family Connections; Mr John Pickup; Mr Bruce Litte; Mr Martin Klibbe, representing the federal member De-Anne Kelly; Pat Manning from the Daily Mercury; and Allan Ruming. Two members of my staff have been heavily involved with the memorial over the years. My electorate officer, Pam Jaenke, also worked for my predecessor, Ed Casey, and put in many hours as a member of the original committee working on the establishment of the memorial. Pam also attended a number of the memorial activities this year and maintains an active interest in the memorial. My representative on the current Bakers Creek Memorial Committee is my assistant electorate officer, Jody McDonald, and I thank her for her time and efforts over the last two years. It has been rewarding for me as the state member to be involved in the 60th anniversary events commemorating the Bakers Creek crash, which forms a significant part of our local history. I am proud that our community has made such a committed effort to keep alive the memories of those who died in the Bakers Creek tragedy. Mr Speaker, I would like to present you with a copy of the publication Mackay's Flying Fortress, written by Professor Robert S. Cutler, which is a special historical account of the aircraft and the crash published for and launched during this anniversary. I seek leave to have the names of the deceased and sole survivor incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. NAME RANK UNIT BURIAL SITE

ABRAHAM, Jerome Pfc 49th Fighter Grp, HQ Sqn FLORIDA

BERTHOLD, John O. Capt 49th Fighter Grp, NEW YORK, Woodlawn National 8th Fighter Sqn Cemetery, Elmira

BRIGGS, William A. T/5 478th Service Sqn, HAWAII, National Memorial 1037th Signals Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

BUSSE, Dean H. Sgt 35th Fighter Grp, COLORADO, Hillside Cemetery, 40th Fighter Sqn Julesburg

COPELAND, James A. T/Sgt 8th Service Grp, HQ Sqn HAWAII, National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

CUNNINGHAM, Carl A. Sgt 49th Fighter Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial 8th Fighter Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

CURTIS, Lovell Dale S/Sgt 317th Troop Carrier Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial (Crew Chief) 46th Troop Carrier Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu 3484 Adjournment 10 Sep 2003

EHRMAN, George A. T/5 5th Fighter Command, CALIFORNIA, Golden Gate Signal HQ Company National Cemetery, San Bruno

ERB, William C. (co-pilot) F/O 317th Troop Carrier Grp, CALIFORNIA 46th Troop Carrier Sqn

FINNEY, James E. Pvt 27th Depot Repair Sqn PENNSYLVANIA

FLETCHER, Leo E. Sgt 38th Bombardment Grp, KENTUCKY 405th Bombardment Sqn

FREZZA, Alfred H. T/Sgt 27th Depot Repair Sqn PENNSYLVANIA (Altoona?)

GIDCUMB, Vern J. Jr. 1/Lt 317th Troop Carrier Grp, ILLINOIS, Wolf Creek Cemetery, (Pilot) 46th Troop Carrier Sqn Eldorado

GOETZ, Norman J. Pfc 480th Service Sqn ILLINOIS, St. Mary's Cemetery Evergreen Park

HATLEN, Roy A. S/Sgt 35th Fighter Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial 40th Fighter Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

HILSHEIMER, John W. S/Sgt 35th Fighter Grp, VIRGINIA, Arlington National 40th Fighter Sqn Cemetery, Fort Meyer

JOHNSON, Vernon Pfc 440th Signal Battalion, HAWAII, National Memorial Company A Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

KYPER, Donald B. Sgt 38th Bombardment Grp, PENNSYLVANIA, Riverview 405th Bombardment Sqn Cemetery, Huntingdon

LaRUE, Charlie O. Sgt 49th Fighter Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial 8th Fighter Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

LONGABAUGH, Pvt 842nd Aviation Engineer HAWAII, National Memorial Raymond D. Battalion Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

MANN, Kenneth W. Pfc 36th Service Grp, 374th MISSOURI, Jefferson City Service Sqn National Cemetery, Jefferson City

METZGER, Marlin D Cpl 374 Troop Carrier Grp, NEBRASKA, Hillcrest Cemetery, 6th Troop Carrier Sqn Omaha

MONTGOMERY, Pvt 49th Fighter Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial Charles D. 7th Fighter Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

OGREN, Jack A. 2/Lt 317th Troop Carrier Grp, Unsure—thought to be OHIO (Navigator) 46th Troop Carrier Sqn (Army records not located)

PARKER, John W. Pfc 809th Chemical Company SOUTH CAROLINA

PENSKA, Frank S Pfc 374th Troop Carrier Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial 6th Troop Carrier Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

POWELL, George N. Maj 49th Fighter Grp, HQ Sqn VIRGINIA, Arlington National Cemetery

RUDNICK, Anthony Sgt 565th Signal Battalion, NEW JERSEY, Beverly National Company A Cemetery, Beverly

SAMPSON, Charles W. Cpl 8th Service Grp, NEW YORK 11th Service Sqn

SEIDEL, Arnold Pfc 5th Air Force, MINNESOTA, Fort Snelling 415th Signal Company National Cemetery, Sth Minneapolis

SKAGGS, Jacob O., Jr. Cpl 27th Depot Repair Sqn OKLAHOMA

SMITH, Franklin F. Cpl 38th Bombardment Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial 405th Bombardment Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

SMITH, Raymond H. Cpl 35th Fighter Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial 40th Fighter Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu 10 Sep 2003 Adjournment 3485

SWEET, Frederick C. Pfc 481st Service Sqn, MICHIGAN 46th Ordinance Company

TENNY, Edward Cpl 479th Service Sqn WEST VIRGINIA, Big Bend Cemetery, Upshur County

TILESTON, David E. Sgt 317th Troop Carrier Grp, HAWAII, National Memorial (Radio) 46th Troop Carrier Sqn Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu

Van FOSSON, Dale Pfc 8th Service Grp, 1160th WEST VIRGINIA, Grafton Quartermaster Company National Cemetery, Grafton

VAUGHN, Ruben L. Pvt 5th Fighter Command, TEXAS HQ Sqn WHELCHEL, Frank E. S/Sgt 374th Troop Carrier Grp, GEORGIA, Lyons City (Crew Chief) 22nd Troop Carrier Sqn Cemetery, Lyons

WILLIAMS, Charles M. Pfc 455th Service Sqn MISSOURI Sole survivor: Corporal Foye K Roberts Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.32 p.m.