PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Wednesday, 6 October 2004

PRIVILEGE ...... 2711 Energex; Treasurer ...... 2711 PRIVILEGE ...... 2711 Attorney-General ...... 2711 PETITIONS ...... 2711 PAPER ...... 2711 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2712 Queensland Taxis, Security Cameras ...... 2712 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2712 Queensland Audit Office, Report on Strategic Review ...... 2712 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2713 Misconduct Tribunals, Annual Reports ...... 2713 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2713 Ronald McDonald House, Townsville ...... 2713 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2714 Job Advertisements, Queensland ...... 2714 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2714 Byte Power Group Limited ...... 2714 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2715 Magic Millions ...... 2715 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2715 Indigenous Art Exhibition, United States ...... 2715 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2716 Civil Confiscation Scheme ...... 2716 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2716 Science in Parliament ...... 2716 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2717 Science in Parliament; Major Milestones ...... 2717 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2717 Energex Brisbane Festival ...... 2717 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2718

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2004 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 6 October 2004

TAFE Partnerships ...... 2718 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2719 Science; Smart State ...... 2719 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2719 Air Quality Research Program ...... 2719 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2720 Transport Safety ...... 2720 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2721 Science in Parliament ...... 2721 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2721 Explosives Security ...... 2721 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2722 Interviewing Children and Recording Evidence Program ...... 2722 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2722 Schoolies Week 2004 ...... 2722 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2723 Aviation Industry; Tourism ...... 2723 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2723 Fire Investigation and Firefighting Techniques ...... 2723 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2724 Foetal Alcohol Syndrome ...... 2724 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 2725 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ...... 2725 Annual Report ...... 2725 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 2725 Child Sex Offenders ...... 2725 PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ...... 2725 Premier, Comments ...... 2725 Somali Women's Association ...... 2725 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2726 Electricity Supply; Price Rises ...... 2726 Electricity Supply; Price Rises ...... 2726 Dangerous Prisoners, High Court Ruling ...... 2727 Energex; Treasurer ...... 2727 Federal Election; Medicare Gold ...... 2728 Energex; Treasurer ...... 2729 Federal Election; Ipswich Motorway ...... 2729 Anaesthetists ...... 2729 Science ...... 2730 Electricity Distribution, Nanango Electorate ...... 2730 Foster-Carers ...... 2731 Jet Skis ...... 2732 Smart Science ...... 2732 Real Estate Agents ...... 2733 Crossbows ...... 2733 Emergency Services, Maryborough Electorate ...... 2734 Aviation Sector; Tourism ...... 2735 Drought Assistance ...... 2736 Cypress Timber ...... 2737 COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2737 Second Reading ...... 2737 Consideration in Detail ...... 2749 Third Reading ...... 2749 MARINE PARKS BILL ...... 2750 Second Reading ...... 2750 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2770 Highlands Gas Project ...... 2770 MARINE PARKS BILL ...... 2771 CHILD SEX OFFENDERS ...... 2781 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 2791 Energex ...... 2791 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2791 Home Invasions; Student Nurses ...... 2791 Mobile Phone Towers ...... 2792 Feral Animals ...... 2792 Caboolture East Community Renewal Launch ...... 2793 Western Queensland Livestock Spelling Facility ...... 2794 Greenslopes Electorate ...... 2794 Ambulance Levy ...... 2795 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 6 October 2004

Pinefest ...... 2795 Milman School ...... 2796 Lions Clubs ...... 2796 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 6 October 2004 06 Oct 2004 Legislative Assembly 2711 WEDNESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2004

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

PRIVILEGE

Energex; Treasurer Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.31 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday in this House the Treasurer took a point of order against the member for Southern Downs and said— I draw to the member's attention that most of the people appointed to the Energex board were appointed by the Borbidge government. I will table for the benefit of the House this extract from the annual report of Energex which lists the names and provides pictures of all the directors of both Energex Ltd and Energex Retail and sets out when they were appointed. In short, 10 of the 12 people listed here were appointed by the Labor government. Mr Speaker, it is obvious that the Treasurer misled the House again. I will be writing to you later in the day urging that the Treasurer be referred to the parliamentary privileges committee for deliberately misleading the House.

PRIVILEGE

Attorney-General Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to an alleged matter of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 19 May 2004. I also refer to correspondence between the Leader of the Opposition and me about this matter. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated to me that there is evidence in relation to this matter that he is unable to provide me, despite my giving him at least two opportunities to do so. I have now considered all the material provided to me by the Leader of the Opposition. I find there is no matter of privilege and do not intend to refer the matter to the committee.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Australian Dollar, Signage Mr Wellington from 4 petitioners requesting the House to mount an advertising campaign to make the Australian people aware of the correct signage of the Australian dollar sign.

Fire Trails, Mapleton Forest Reserve Mr Wellington from 144 petitioners requesting the House to make provision in the proposed new tenure for Mapleton Forest Reserve to have some of the already existing fire trails (approximately 2% of the forest) set aside as Conservation Park Corridors. By doing so, 98% of Mapleton Forest would become National Park and horse riders will be able to ensure that fire tracks remain open and preserve the safety and livelihood of the surrounding community.

PAPER

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Communities and Disability Services (Mr Pitt)— • Response from the Minister for Communities and Disability Services (Mr Pitt) to a petition presented by Mr Mulherin from 47 petitioners regarding the relocation of a women's shelter from an established residential area to a more appropriate location Mr SPEAKER: Order! I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of Moreton Bay College in the electorate of Chatsworth. 2712 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Taxis, Security Cameras Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.): The Queensland government will make $8 million available to install security cameras in 2,700 Queensland taxis. The $8 million will enable around $2,500 to be spent on buying and installing each camera. We will fund this massive contribution to keeping our cabbies safe through the issuing of 40 extra taxi licences. Forty cabs is equivalent to less than two per cent of the fleet. It will be mandatory for the 2,700 taxis in the 12 major urban areas of Queensland with a population larger than 40,000 to be fitted with security cameras by the end of 2005. These urban areas are Brisbane, Redcliffe, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Ipswich, Toowoomba, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns. Operators outside those areas who choose to install cameras will have their applications considered on a case-by-case basis. We will bring in new legislation under the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act next year to establish the mandatory requirements. We will also establish strict guidelines on how the cameras can be used and who can access the images that are recorded. Images will be downloaded only in the event of an incident. Downloads will be performed only at authorised download stations on the approval of a police officer, QT officer or senior officer of the booking company. Such approvals will fully document why the images were downloaded and how they will be used, such as in a prosecution. Interstate experience has proved the camera technology is secure and that appropriate controls on access to and use of images are effective. This is about improving driver and passenger safety. This is about saving the lives of our cabbies and protecting their passengers. Security cameras used in taxis interstate have meant fewer robberies and attacks. In Victoria, for example, since security cameras were introduced in 2002 there have been substantial decreases in robberies, 51 per cent; in fare evasion, 42 per cent; and in assaults, 12 per cent. Similar results were also found in New South Wales and Western Australia. Additional licences in the future will require the holders to install and maintain cameras in the cabs. The cost to the industry is the ongoing maintenance, operation and replacement—an investment in safety and the future growth of the industry. There have been arguments that the public should foot the bill for the cameras either through increased fares or through their taxes. The state government does not believe the public should have to pay for what is, in reality, a workplace health and safety issue. The funding being made available through the additional future licences is a small price to pay for the increased safety of cabbies that will be delivered by the deterrent value of the cameras. I want to thank the Minister for Transport, Paul Lucas, and indicate to the House that this was approved by the Cabinet Budget Review Committee yesterday.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Audit Office, Report on Strategic Review Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 a.m.): Today I will table the report on the 2004 strategic review of the Queensland Audit Office. I thank the reviewers, Mr Henry Smerdon and Mr Richard Anderson, for successfully conducting the review and addressing the terms of reference. Mr Smerdon and Mr Anderson, who were appointed by the Governor in Council with the support of the Public Accounts Committee, took a consultative approach to the review and took account of stakeholders' views. As I advised the estimates committee hearing in July, the review was timed to ensure the Auditor- General, Mr Len Scanlan, was incumbent during the process, and could have input and respond to issues raised. In fact, Mr Scanlan was present this morning when Mr Smerdon and Mr Anderson presented me with this report. Mr Scanlan also recently wrote to me to record his appreciation for the review being progressed during his term in office and to acknowledge the efforts of the reviewers in addressing the terms of reference, and I will table that letter shortly. The report states that the office made significant progress in the past seven years under Mr Scanlan's leadership, and I commend him for his achievements and his cooperation with this review. The review examined all structural and operational aspects of the office, including its relationships with public sector entities and the parliament. In line with the terms of reference, the reviewers considered comparative models from other jurisdictions. They made extensive interviews and had discussions with current and former Audit Office staff, auditees and other key stakeholders. The reviewers believe there are opportunities for further development of the performance management systems audit mandate, with the possibility of adopting a performance audit mandate in future; a greater Queensland Audit Office regional presence for the benefit of auditees in regional and 06 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 2713 remote areas of Queensland; the relationship with the parliament through the Public Accounts Committee; enhanced training and development for staff; more flexible remuneration structures for Audit Office staff; and better communication protocols with key stakeholders, including the media. These are clearly issues that could impact on the strategic direction of the office over the next few years. Under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 the report is now referred to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration. The government will give full consideration to any matters referred to it following the Public Accounts Committee's consideration of the report. I table a copy of the letter from Len Scanlan and I table a copy of the report. In doing so I draw to the attention of the House page 96 of the report, and I do that very deliberately. Under the heading ‘Audit Coverage', section C.1.4 on page 96 of the report says— Client claims of over-auditing, too much emphasis on probity matters and calls for less public reporting of such matters evidently warrant clarification. I therefore support your recommendation for the QAO to continue to address these auditee concerns through education and communication. If members read page 96 they will see that there were some complaints—and this came from a GOC—about overauditing. Let me make it clear to every government department and every GOC that these audit processes will continue, and the Auditor-General has my full support to do his job. We will not accept any arguments of overauditing from any government department or GOC in relation to these matters. I fully support what the Auditor-General has done in his auditing task. I know that from time to time Auditors-General do have issues where they will, because of their reporting, be the subject of some public debate. I want to make it clear that I think this Auditor-General has done a good job. I want to take this opportunity, since his term expires at the end of the year, of thanking him for the contribution that he has made.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Misconduct Tribunals, Annual Reports Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): Today I table the sixth annual report of the Misconduct Tribunals for 2003-04. There is no requirement for me to table this report, but I do so in the interests of accountability and openness, which my government passionately advocates. As I informed parliament last week on 30 September, the government supports a recommendation by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee to make legislative changes to require tabling of Misconduct Tribunals' annual reports.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Ronald McDonald House, Townsville Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): I will join with the members for Townsville and Mundingburra in Townsville on Friday to officially open the Ronald McDonald House there. I want to highlight that back in 1995, when I was Health Minister, I promised an old block of flats to the Ronald McDonald people to set up a house like this at the Townsville Hospital. This was put on the backburner while the new hospital was built in Douglas, but the fundraising for Ronald McDonald House kept rolling along. Now we have a great new facility that the people of Townsville and north Queensland can be proud of. The result is a purpose-built facility catering for families travelling to Townsville for treatment by staff at the hospital. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard. Leave granted. This is a first for regional Queensland and a most worthy addition for families in need in North Queensland. The Ronald McDonald House scheme provides wonderful support for parents whose children need medical attention at our major hospitals. The other houses in Queensland are at Brisbane's Mater Hospital and the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. Townsville Hospital is the largest hospital in provincial Australia—supporting the North Queensland community from as far north as Thursday Island, west to Mount Isa and south to Sarina—even at times taking in patients from the South Pacific as well. It's never easy for the parents of children who require a stay in hospital. Sometimes they're a long way from home and the support of family and friends, their daily routine is out of kilter and often there are other children to care for during the hospitalisation period. This is where Ronald McDonald Houses play a significant role, providing accommodation, support and comfort in difficult times. In other words, a home away from home. Not just as North Queenslander by origin—but as a former Health Minister in 1995—I have a special connection with this project. Currently the house has 12 rooms and there are plans to extend that to 48 in the future. 2714 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004

I congratulate everyone involved—especially Chairman of the House, Mr George Colbran, who has been the driving force behind the project. The Townsville House is the 11th Ronald McDonald House to open in Australia since the first opened in Sydney in 1981. While speaking on matters with a Townsville flavour it is right that I extend my congratulations to the Cowboys players Matt Bowen and Matt Sing on their Kangaroo selections. The ultimate for a rugby league player is to make a Kangaroo tour. They have done themselves, their team and their families proud. I also congratulate Queensland's other Kangaroo debutants Willie Tonga and Tonie Carroll—they join Broncos captain Darren Lockyer, Shaun Berrigan, Petero Civoniceva, Brent Tate and Shane Webcke and of course great coach Wayne Bennett in taking on the kiwis and Great Britain.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Job Advertisements, Queensland Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): Recently I advised the House of Queensland's impressive record on job creation and lowering the unemployment rate. I want to highlight to the House that the latest ANZ job advertisement series, which is a leading indicator of hiring activity, gives us some optimism. Following a small rise in September of 0.6 per cent, Queensland's trend number of job ads was 13.8 per cent higher over the year. The 13.8 per cent annual increase in Queensland compares to the national result of only 2.8 per cent. Because we have an unemployment rate that has declined to 5.6 per cent and because of the importance of this, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the details in Hansard. Leave granted. The results are roughly equivalent in seasonally adjusted terms. The trend number of job advertisements in Queensland in September was 3,624. This represents the highest monthly number of advertisements in the State since June 1989. Sustained growth in trend job ads mirrors improvements in other leading indicators that suggest employment growth in Queensland should remain strong in coming months. The ABS measure of job vacancies for Queensland rose 15.2 per cent over the year to August 2004. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Skilled Vacancy Index rose by 12.1% over the year to September 2004, well above growth of 6.4% nationally over the same period. These are positive indicators that employment growth in Queensland at least is set to continue. A key driver of our strong employment performance has been the strength of the State's domestic economy. Providing more jobs increases household incomes and improves consumer confidence. When consumers are more confident they spend more, prompting businesses to again raise their hiring intentions. In August, retail trade in Queensland rose 0.7 per cent and was up 9.2 per cent over the year. That was the strongest annual growth of any Australian State for the ninth month running. In terms of the housing sector, contrary to national trends, Queensland experienced an increase in building approvals in August. Units and townhouses led the way, growing by 2 per cent, compared to a 1.9 per cent decline in the rest of Australia. Across Australia, housing approvals have eased from recent highs, but Queensland has returned to positive growth on the back of solid population growth. Queensland recorded civilian population growth of 2.6% over the year to September 2004, nearly twice the rate of growth of 1.4% in the rest of Australia. Queensland's faster population growth has been driven mainly by high levels of interstate migration into the State. The Government is focused on jobs and wants to make sure that Queensland remains the engine room of employment growth. Current indicators point to the prospects for further growth in employment and hopefully a reduction in the number of unemployed people.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Byte Power Group Limited Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): I want to congratulate Queensland based Byte Power Group Limited for its role in a $62 million venture to create 1,000 e-kiosks in the Chinese city of Zhengzhou. This is more exporters going to the world. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. Byte Power Group Limited chairman and CEO Alvin Phua was one of the business leaders who accompanied me on the Trade and investment mission I led to China in July. We visited Zhengzhou, the capital city of Henan Province, where we held positive discussions with Governor Li Chenyu and business leaders from the area. 06 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 2715

Byte Power's Hong Kong subsidiary has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to set up a joint venture with a Chinese company. The venture will roll-out a computer network of 1000 “e-kiosks” in Zhengzhou over two years. The turn-key project will operate for 10 years before being transferred to the Chinese Government. Ongoing income will be generated through advertising, kiosk rental and licensing fees. Mr Phua says the nature and size of the project underlined the massive growth in demand for technology services and products in China. He sees China as a major growth generator for the Byte Power Group of companies during the next five years. Henan Province has an official population of more than 96 million people.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Magic Millions Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): While I am reporting to the House, I want to highlight that Queensland's reputation as a source of top-quality racehorse bloodstock is gathering pace with Korean buyers spending $743,500 on racehorses at the Magic Millions horse sale on the Gold Coast on Monday. A Korean delegation which included high- ranking racehorse buyers from the Korean Racing Association and some of Korea's leading private buyers bought 42 of the 155 horses sold at the Magic Millions. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. The Association bought 35 horses on Monday while private buyers bought seven. The Association bought its first allotment of 33 bloodstock horses at Magic Millions in January 2004. With liberalisation of the Korean horse racing industry well under way and a new race track due to open in Pusan at the end of next year, the Korean horseracing industry is expected to treble in size by 2010. Currently, Korea's horseracing industry, considered to be in its infancy, turns over $6.6 billion annually. Queensland is well placed to take advantage of the projected growth of the country's horseracing industry thanks to organisations like Magic Millions. Magic Millions, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, is taking the lead in lifting the profile of Queensland's prime stock in Korea. As a result, we are now seeing a greater demand for race horses from Queensland in a market that has up until recently been dominated by America.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Indigenous Art Exhibition, United States Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): I am also delighted to report that the recent Out of Country exhibition of Queensland indigenous art has had significant success in the United States. The good news is that the exhibition not only exposed thousands of Americans to the incredible depth and diversity of Queensland indigenous art but also achieved more than $60,000 in sales for the artists. In fact, 45 works were sold at the two exhibitions; that is, 80 per cent of the 56 works displayed. I seek leave to incorporate the details of that in Hansard. Leave granted. As Members know I am passionate about promoting Queensland Indigenous art in Australia and internationally because it has great potential to deliver economic and cultural benefits to artists and the wider community. A few months ago my Department's Queensland Indigenous Arts Marketing and Export Agency organised its second international exhibition—this time in the United States. Titled “Out of Country”, the exhibition showcased paintings, sculptures, prints and textiles of 29 Queensland Indigenous artists including Richard Bell, Fiona Foley, Judy Watson and Michael Boiyool Anning, Roxanne Yunkaporta, Joey Laifoo, and Matatia Andrew Warrior—as well as bronze and aluminium sculptures produced in partnership with Aurukun artists of Cape York and Brisbane based company Urban Art Projects. The exhibition was on display at Gallery 1601 in Washington in April and May and then travelled to the University of Virginia for a three month show. The good news is that this exhibition not only exposed thousands of Americans to the incredible depth and diversity of Queensland Indigenous art—but also achieved more than $60,000 in sales for the artists. In fact, 45 works were sold at the two exhibitions—that is, 80% of the 56 works displayed. The exhibition received a tremendous reception at the Kluge Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection of Virginia University. The Kluge Ruhe Aboriginal Art Gallery is considered to be the leading exhibitor of Australian Aboriginal art in the United States and our success at the Gallery has increased Queensland's standing in the international art world. Queensland is home to Australia's second largest Indigenous population. 2716 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004

But work by our Indigenous artists only accounts for between 5 and 10 per cent of the national Indigenous arts market—so there is huge scope for further growth to occur. That is why new initiatives like the “Out of Country” exhibition and the continued work of the Queensland Indigenous Arts Marketing and Export Agency are so important—and why the State Government will continue to publicise their work.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Civil Confiscation Scheme Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): We have talked a lot in this House about civil confiscation. I advised parliament yesterday about the Crime and Misconduct Commission intelligence bulletin. I am delighted to advise the House that since the scheme came into force on 1 January 2003 assets have been restrained at a rate of more than $1 million per month. We are really getting at the crooks. As of 30 September 2004, $22.05 million worth of assets has been restrained from 112 suspected criminals. Additionally, $3.15 million in assets from 190 people has been forfeited to the people of Queensland. Some $1.5 million of this resulted from successful financial criminal proceedings, and the balance of $1.65 million was surrendered to the Crown as a result of settled negotiations. We are hurting the crooks where it matters. I seek leave to incorporate those details in Hansard. Leave granted. Assets restrained include catamarans, jet skis, residential Gold Coast canal properties, luxury cars, bank accounts and large amounts of cash. The proceeds go into consolidated revenue—to be invested in services like hospitals, schools, roads and policing for Queenslanders. By restraining this property at the first opportunity we have prevented crime barons from disposing of their assets when they realise the game is up. Our tough regime reduces the incentive for organised crime and is a powerful weapon for Queensland crime fighters, and makes Queensland a rougher place for criminals to operate. It increases the onus on suspected criminals to prove they have legally amassed their unexplained wealth. It targets two classes of serious activities, each punishable by at least five years imprisonment. These are a group of offences typically associated with organised crime including drug offences and trafficking, corruption, murder, piracy, kidnapping for ransom, child pornography, extortion, bribery, weapons trafficking, stealing, receiving, fraud or other dishonesty, conspiracy to defeat justice, money laundering, illegal prostitution, illegal gambling, and loss of revenue to the State. For these offences the court has wide powers to issue restraining orders. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions only needs to demonstrate there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspected criminal was involved in one of these offences within the last six years. All other indictable offences are punishable by five years imprisonment or more. For these offences, the court applies a stricter test. The Office of the DPP needs to demonstrate there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspected criminal was involved in one of these offences in the last six years, and derived proceeds from the offence. The success of the scheme results from effective co-operation between the CMC, the Office of the DPP and the Queensland Police Service. The CMC is responsible for the day to day operation of Chapter 2 of the Act, where people have been targeted and their assets are frozen prior to conviction. The Office of the DPP administers Chapter 3 of the Act, where restraining orders and subsequent forfeiture orders take place after conviction. The Office of the DPP also acts as the solicitor on record and takes carriage of all legal proceedings under the Act.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Science in Parliament Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 a.m.): I want to table in parliament the program for Science in Parliament and my welcoming address to 200 scientists. This morning I had the privilege of welcoming more than 200 scientists to the third annual Science in Parliament. This event is an important component of our Smart State strategy and is further evidence of our commitment to fostering science research and innovation in Queensland. Since 1998 my government has spent more than $2.4 billion on research projects and research infrastructure. During BIO 2004 in June the Minister for State Development and Innovation and I announced the investment of a further $34 million from the Smart State Research Facilities Fund to support seven new Queensland research projects. Since the last Science in Parliament we have also appointed Professor Peter Andrews as the first Queensland Chief Scientist. Professor Andrews is working to ensure that Queensland's investment in science, research and innovation achieves positive returns. He has also been involved in setting targets for our work in biotechnology. These targets are ambitious and include directly employing 2,500 people in biotechnology by 2010 and generating $1 billion a year in revenue. By 2025 we have a target of employing 10,000 people in biotechnology and generating $4 billion a year in revenue. 06 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 2717

I am pleased to announce today that Professor Andrews has agreed to succeed Professor Glyn Davis as Queensland copatron of the Queensland-Smithsonian Alumni. We will certainly miss Glyn Davis. Glyn is leaving to become the Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University. He has given tremendous support to this important position and has helped us demonstrate our Smart State capabilities internationally. I am pleased that we have found an excellent successor, but I want to put on record today my gratitude and thanks to Professor Glyn Davis for the role he has played in helping the government develop the Smart State agenda. Queensland owes him a great debt. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. This year's Science in Parliament is looking at what Queensland may be like in 2025 and how science will help to shape our future. We are fortunate to have with us today some of the scientists who will help us get there—including eminent and experienced scientists like Professor Julian Cribb, who delivered this morning's keynote address, Dr Joe Baker, Professor Alan Mackay Sim and Professor Ian Lowe. We also have young scientists like 2002 Young Australian of the Year, Scott Hucknell, and the 2004 Queenslander of the Year, Leisel Packer. The ABC's Surfing Scientist, Bundaberg-raised Ruben Meerman, is also here and will be conducting scientific displays near the Speaker's Green throughout the day. Science in Parliament is a great opportunity to open the channels of communication between scientists and politicians and to give us a chance to enhance our mutual understanding. We need leaders in science and innovation—but we also need leaders in this place who are enthusiastic about science and innovation. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating the Science in Parliament initiative. I also thank the sponsoring Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and the numerous MPs who have strongly supported this Smart State project.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Science in Parliament; Major Milestones Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 a.m.): Finally, there are a number of major milestones that are taking place in Queensland today, not just Science in Parliament. I thank all members of parliament for participating in this. I understand about 63 are participating. The importance of that is to ensure that we have a bipartisan commitment to innovation, science and the Smart State. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for joining the Leader of the House, Anna Bligh, at the lunch today as well as other key ministers who will be participating, including Tony McGrady and others. I thank him that for that. I thank the leader of Liberal Party for his commitment and support of the Smart State. We need to ensure that science and the Smart State is bipartisan and above politics, and that is what this is all about. The other milestone today is that Robert Schwarten turns 50 years of age. I think that is a half century that we need to acknowledge in this parliament. Many people looking at him would not believe that he is 50. He is a very young 50, I have to say. Ms Bligh: A great tribute to the power of science. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, it is a great tribute to the power of science that he looks so young, and at 51 I look much older than he does. I simply say to Robert: happy birthday. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Minister for Education, could I welcome a second group of students from Moreton Bay College in the electorate of Chatsworth.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Energex Brisbane Festival Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (9.48 a.m.): The Energex Brisbane Festival drew to a triumphant close last weekend. I am pleased to report that this year's festival has been a resounding success. As the major financial contributor, the Queensland government recognises the importance of the arts to a Smart State both for the pleasure and challenges it brings to audiences and as a catalyst for economic growth. This year's festival brought 28 Queensland, 12 Australian and nine international productions, a total of 64 different artistic works. When the final curtain fell at the end of a wonderful performance by violinist Nigel Kennedy last Saturday night, Energex Brisbane Festival had presented 458 performances. Ticket sales have exceeded $1 million, which is in excess of box office targets, and more than 150,000 people have attended the festival, which included 13 free events. More than 1,500 jobs have been created and more than $l0 million in economic activity is expected to be generated. This year for 2718 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004 the first time a regional program was included, with events in Toowoomba, Gold Coast, Ipswich, Nambour, Logan and Kallangur. Performances of Australia's leading ladies—featuring Australia's greatest stars of the stage: Rachael Beck, Rhonda Burchmore, Judi Connelli, Sharon Millerchip, Marina Prior, Geraldine Turner, and Anne Wood—and Nigel Kennedy's performances have all been sell-out hits. Indigenous culture has also featured as a big part, with Adelaide Festival's smash hit Gulpilil and David Page's introspective Page 8. These two solo shows combined with Kooemba Jdarra's fusion of the old and new in True, the Family Theatre production RiverlanD and indigenous themed exhibitions at QUT and the Museum of Brisbane. I take the opportunity this morning to commend the artistic director, Tony Gould, on his contribution to Queensland's arts and cultural industry and for making the Brisbane festival a key event in Australia's performing arts calendar. Tony Gould has played an extraordinary role in the development of arts in Queensland. As the inaugural director of the Queensland Performing Arts Centre he has been a leader in the performing arts sector for almost three decades. Under his leadership many artists and new companies have been nurtured and have flourished. The 2004 Brisbane festival was the fifth and final festival that Tony Gould led as artistic director. I know that members on all sides of the chamber will join me in acknowledging the contribution of Tony Gould and thanking him for his passionate commitment and service to the arts in Queensland. I also take this opportunity to welcome the incoming artistic director, Mr Lyndon Terracini, who brings a wealth of experience, ability and passion to the role, as demonstrated through his artistic record with the Queensland Music Festival. Another highlight of the performing arts calendar was Riverfestival, which ran from 27 August to 5 September, and saw more than 550,000 people enjoying events such as Riverfire, Riversymposium and Riversymphony. This year's program contained 20 events and associated activities. I thank the people of Brisbane for making Riverfestival a huge success and pay tribute to the festival director, Mr Jonathan Parsons. The Queensland government is the major financial contributor to the Brisbane festival and a major contributor to Riverfestival, along with the Brisbane City Council. Both of these festivals demonstrate the government's commitment to creating jobs for artists and arts workers, generating millions in economic activity, stirring the passions of festival-goers and building on Brisbane's reputation as a dynamic arts and cultural centre. I conclude by adding my congratulations to the member for Rockhampton on the milestone that he has reached. The Premier claims it is a feat of science; can I say it is a work of art.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

TAFE Partnerships Hon. T.A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (9.53 a.m.): A major priority of the Beattie government is addressing skill shortages in Queensland's key industries. Of course, this is a challenge that needs a strong commitment from our industries, whether high tech or traditional. This is why I am pleased to report on a successful training initiative involving a national company and a leading Queensland TAFE. A partnership between the Bremer TAFE and national industrial company Bradken is helping the company maximise its manufacturing potential in this state. Bradken is a leading supplier of capital equipment, consumable parts and associated maintenance services to the resources and freight rail industries. At its Ipswich plant the company fabricates rail freight wagons and manufactures and refurbishes equipment for the mining and other industry markets. Bradken is a key industry player in Ipswich and it is essential that its workers have first-rate skills. Having approached TAFE more than a year ago to help upskill employees in welding, the company recently asked it to undertake training in the specialised operation of flux core welding. TAFE has now provided specialised training to two groups of employees who have each undertaken a short full-time course at the Bundamba campus. Bradken looked to TAFE to supply the training because it would rather have its supervising staff getting on with the job than training others. Bundamba staff met company representatives and drew up a program tailor made for Bradken's needs. It is an arrangement which has clearly worked well and supports the government's careers in manufacturing initiative to attract, train and retain people with the skills needed to fulfil the anticipated future expansion of Queensland industry. Our 15 TAFE institutes across the state are key players in efforts to address our skills crisis by providing Queensland workers with practical, hands-on skills that employers want. They are working hand in hand with industry and, where necessary, they are tailor making programs for individual 06 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 2719 employers in their regions. I hope to report on more such successful partnership outcomes in the months ahead.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Science; Smart State Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (9.54 a.m.): Queensland can certainly look forward to a strong science future. The Beattie government's $2.4 billion investment in science, research and innovation represents so much more than a mere injection of funds into the science community. This investment is already creating whole new industries, encouraging existing and traditional industries to innovate; it is creating jobs, boosting the economy and, indeed, increasing our exports. We are serious about science. That is because the social, environmental and economic benefits that world-class science industries bring are too valuable to be ignored. History will show that we were the first Queensland government to take the initiative and put science firmly on the agenda. We were the first Queensland government to call for a strong commercial focus in scientific research, to make sure our investments create real results for Queenslanders. That is why I like to talk about R, D and C— research, development and commercialisation. We were the first Queensland government to set up a dedicated Smart State Research Facilities Fund worth $150 million so that our scientists had the infrastructure they needed; the first to establish fellowship funds to ensure that our brightest scientific minds had the incentive they needed to stay here in Queensland, the Smart State. We are the first Queensland government, and indeed the first Australian government, to initiate tough biodiscovery legislation; legislation that ensures a percentage of the benefits gained from commercial products created from our rich biodiversity is returned to Queensland taxpayers. Indeed, this government is committed to making sure that Queensland comes first out of all the Australian states when it comes to science, research, development and, of course, innovation. We want to see more scientific, health and medical breakthroughs developed right here in Queensland. That is one of the reasons why we have funded a $5 million clinical trials network. This will be a one-stop shop for Queensland, interstate and overseas companies wanting to conduct clinical trials in Australia. It is an example of how we are working to build stronger relationships between researchers and industry. Put simply, by strengthening these relationships we create better commercial outcomes from scientific research. This scientific research is all about improving quality of life, curing diseases like cancer or diabetes, finding better painkillers or sunscreens. At the end of the day this is about making our world a better place. That is why Queensland is not only the Smart State; it is also the science state. Can I join with my parliamentary ministerial colleagues in wishing my colleague, Mr Schwarten, a very happy 50th birthday. Following Minister Bligh, can I say that Robert's mum and dad were very innovative when 50 years ago they produced this young man. I want to say that over the last 50 years he has contributed much to the development of Rockhampton and central Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Air Quality Research Program Hon. R.E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (9.58 a.m.): I do not know whether the Premier, the Leader of the House and the Minister for State Development should be referred to the privileges committee or to an optometrist. I would like to place on record my undying gratitude to my wonderful mother for going through a very difficult childbirth 50 years ago to have me. I have probably been a very difficult son ever since. The Department of Public Works, through our Built Environment Research Unit, is now a world leader in the scientific research of air quality. The department recognised a national and international lack of scientific knowledge about air pollution and approached QUT to establish a collaborative program into this neglected research area, resulting in the Air Quality Research Program. Through this research program we have built an understanding of the nature of airborne particle pollution and its impacts on human health and the environment. Public Works and QUT's International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health have also established close links with the World Health Organisation. I am pleased to report that in June this year the World Health Organisation designated the QUT laboratory as a collaborating centre on the global burden of disease due to air pollution to form part of an international network. This means we will now undertake research to support the World Health Organisation's mandate for international health work. The laboratory is the only research centre in Australia doing work in the 2720 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004 field of air pollution to be granted the status as a World Health Organisation collaborating centre. This means Queensland now takes on the responsibility for collating data from across Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the Asia Pacific region. This responsibility is internationally recognised and has put the Smart State on the map as home to one of the world's leading air pollution research centres. In fact, through this initiative we have attracted more than $750,000 in research funds from the Australian Research Council to support research jobs in Queensland. Through this project we now know more about how to manage the air quality in office and residential buildings and the impact of different pollution sources on indoor and outdoor air quality. Data has also been collated on the effectiveness of different filtration and ventilation systems. Knowledge gained through our research with QUT is now being used extensively around the world to manage risk through more effective urban planning. It is also being used to ensure that the air quality inside all types of buildings—and in public infrastructure such as road traffic tunnels—is conducive to the good health of the users or occupants. The Queensland government has already started applying the research results into the design of new buildings. The air quality project is a great example of effective collaboration between the state government and academia to share skills and expertise to promote scientific research. I would like to thank the thoughtful soul who put 50 or so 50th birthday decorations on my desk to remind me how old I am getting. I have not lost my touch just yet.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Transport Safety Hon. P.T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.01 a.m.): The Transport portfolio in Queensland is at forefront of innovative science and technology initiatives, particularly when it comes to road safety. As the previous Minister for Innovation, I developed a strong interest in science and technology. There are many innovative uses of technology in the Transport and Main Roads portfolios. In August, the Premier and I launched Queensland Road Safety Action Plan 2004-05, which is the first of four plans under safe4life, the Queensland road safety strategy 2004-2011. Our overall aim is to cut the crash fatality rate to 30 per cent by 2011. That would equal 5.6 deaths per 100,000 people. Our current rate is 8.19 deaths per 100,000 people. The good news is that that is a 22.7 per cent reduction since December 1997. That is a significantly bigger reduction than in New South Wales—in fact, about two times bigger. It is a fair bit better than Victoria's as well. We still have a long way to go particularly when it comes to rural roads and younger drivers. They are some of the key challenges we have. The key action plan elements are investigating and potentially trialling new technologies to save Queensland lives. For example, seat belt interlock devices could prevent cars from starting unless seat belts are worn. Pupil movement tracking devices for fatigue could trigger in-vehicle alarms. It is very interesting when one goes to the simulator and sees where people's eyes are looking whilst they are driving along the road. Intelligent speed adaptation devices provide warnings or increased resistance on accelerator if one exceeds the speed limit. Safety is our biggest priority when it comes to my portfolios. In July, Main Roads installed sensor technology on the Bruce Highway near Gin Gin to reduce heavy vehicle rollovers on a tight bend at the bottom of an incline on the southern approach to the town. Three major accidents have occurred on that bend involving heavy vehicles since 1999. Thankfully, there have not been any deaths. Sensors in the road trigger warning lights if the vehicle approaching the bend is longer than six metres—that is, trucks and cars towing caravans. Queensland is also moving ahead with smart technology with the introduction of the new smart driver's licence and smart card for integrating ticketing. The smart driver's licence has the advantage of providing added security, added protection against fraud and added assistance for law enforcement agencies, particularly in this ugly world of terrorism. Features could include emergency contact details, secure online transactions with government; and credit card linked loyalty or reward points for buying low-cost goods and services if the holder wanted those. For the privacy of women we are looking at the ability not to have a woman's address on her driver's licence. That may be something women may not wish to have on it. Mid next year, south-east Queensland public transport moves into new smart technology with the trial of smart card ticketing. We are rolling that out in Redcliffe in the second quarter of next year. Our geographical coverage will be one of the world's biggest systems with smart card readers across 1,500 buses, 143 rail stations and 20 ferries. We are also committed to supporting those with disabilities. QR has completed the installation of hearing loop technology at 30 stations on the Traveltrain network. This delivers public announcement 06 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 2721 messages directly into passengers’ hearing aids. By 2007, all Citytrain and Traveltrain stations will be fitted with hearing loops. The technology will also be progressively fitted on trains. We are working very strongly with the University of Southern Queensland and Wagners Composite Fibre Technologies to develop bridge decks and girders from fibre composites. I have asked my department to work very closely with them on this exciting technology that is not only smart but also very environmentally sound. These initiatives show this government's strong commitment to enhancing transport operations and safety through cutting-edge technology and innovation. I could not leave today without passing comment on the 50th birthday of the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing. I know his parents, Evan and Bonnie Schwarten, very well. They are the most wonderful people you could come across. They are the greatest true believers. I suppose, Robert, one could say this, 'Faith of our fathers, holy faith, we will be true to thee til death.'

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Science in Parliament Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.05 a.m.): Once again, I am delighted the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries will have one of the largest contingents of scientists taking part in Science in Parliament today. There will be 13 scientists from the department in attendance. The department is undertaking groundbreaking research to ensure we can help meet the future food, clothing and shelter needs of the world in a sustainable and profitable way. Queensland's position as the Smart State is beyond dispute. The fact is that we have hosted more than 6,000 visiting scientists at national and international food and agricultural scientific conferences in Queensland this year. These conferences have included: the Poultry Information Exchange 2004; the fifth Asia Pacific Poultry Health Conference held on the Gold Coast; the fourth International Crop Science Congress in Brisbane; the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products also held on the Gold Coast; the 13th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference in Brisbane; the Seagrass 2004 International Conference in Townsville; the second Australian New Crops Conference at Gatton; the fifth International Strawberry Symposium; the International Society for Horticulture Science Council's biennial meeting; the inaugural Australia New Zealand Horticultural Society Conference held at Coolum; and the 22nd International Congress of Entomology and international fire ant workshops all held in Brisbane. The more than 2,000 delegates attended the International Congress of Entomology. It is expected that $7 million will be injected into our local economy as a result of that conference. As the Courier-Mail reported during the congress, the bookings of the visiting delegates forced Brisbane court officials to find alternative accommodation for jurors and a bailiff on the Gold Coast. Next month Brisbane will be hosting AusBiotech 2004. Tomorrow night, I will be meeting with the president of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations to discuss its world congress to be held in Brisbane next year. This will be the first time the congress will have been held in the southern hemisphere. More than 2,500 delegates are expected to attend. The Smart State is the place to be. IQ may stand for intelligence quotient, but it could just as easily stand for ‘in Queensland' because that is where the action is.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Explosives Security Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (10.08 a.m.): Tighter security governing the transport, storage and use of explosives is paramount in these uncertain times when we live with the threat of international terrorism. More than 500,000 tonnes of explosives are used in Queensland each year—more than any other state—as well as many thousands of tonnes of ammonium nitrate used by farmers as fertilizer. The Beattie government recognises the need for improved security and is implementing a range of initiatives to better manage security around explosives, prevent their misuse and enhance public safety. We are spending $3.85 million to further improve security infrastructure at the state government's four explosives reserves in Queensland. From 1 November, all Queensland companies and individuals using ammonium nitrate must be licensed under new national security requirements, and the Beattie government continues to play a lead role in ensuring better security arrangements for the transport of explosives within Australia. Following the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister seeking an urgent national review of security arrangements for the transport of explosives by road and rail. He agreed and, as a result, we now have in place new security arrangements for the commercial 2722 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004 transport of explosives which can range up to 25 tonnes per load. These new arrangements include such things as direct satellite tracking of explosives vehicles anywhere in Australia, duress alarms for early warning of incidents and security plans to ensure emergent incidents are addressed swiftly and efficiently. Compliance with these new security codes has been mandatory in Queensland since 30 June 2004. The government is also planning complementary measures which will make better use of existing resources and further enhance compliance with the Explosives Act 1999. We will provide appropriately trained Queensland Transport inspectors with the power to stop and inspect vehicles carrying explosives. These inspectors will be trained in explosives safety and explosives transport requirements and be appointed inspectors of explosives with powers limited to transport situations under the Explosives Act 1999. To date, Queensland has been relatively free of inappropriate activities involving explosives. However, the Beattie government will continue to regularly review and upgrade security around explosives to ensure a continued level of safety for Queensland communities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Interviewing Children and Recording Evidence Program Hon. M.F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.11 a.m.): I was delighted by the very positive response recently to a Queensland training program that enhances the skills of investigators gathering evidence in child protection matters. This very remarkable program that has been in place for just 15 months attracted intense interest and received glowing reports from world child protection experts at the congress in Brisbane organised by the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. The Interviewing Children and Recording Evidence training program, or ICARE as it is called, is a joint initiative between the Queensland Police Service and the Department of Child Safety and trains officers to minimise the trauma caused to children by evidence gathering interviews. Susan Wilson from the Department of Child Safety and Marlene Prenzler from the Queensland Police Service received very complimentary feedback when discussing this best practice interviewing model with delegates at that international congress. This important training package provides our practitioners with the practical skills that they need to ensure information obtained during interviews with our most vulnerable children and young people meets evidentiary requirements while still considering the paramount needs of the child. It is the only program of its kind in Australia to be accredited by a registered training organisation and recently the ICARE program was a finalist in the Queensland Public Sector Best Learning and Development Initiative Awards, a category of the 2004 Queensland Training Awards. The ICARE program is a crucial component of the specialist training undertaken by child safety officers and police child protection investigators. It includes vital information that is tremendously helpful for interviewing children with a disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children or youngsters from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Since July 2003, more than 100 child safety officers and 100 police officers have been trained in the ICARE program. Being invited to share programs like this one with international experts reinforces the very high standard and quality of innovative programs being developed by child protection professionals in Queensland. The development of this enhanced training package for our practitioners is greatly assisting with the provision of improved support for vulnerable children and vulnerable young people and of course their families as well.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Schoolies Week 2004 Hon. F.W. PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (10.13 a.m.): I want to take this opportunity to update the House on progress being made to ensure Gold Coast schoolies week 2004 shapes up to be another safe and enjoyable event. The government's three- point plan is again the central element for planning for Gold Coast schoolies week. In providing for the first point—better coordination—a community reference group has been formed to provide an avenue for community input. Brian Chladil and his team at Media Rare have begun consulting stakeholders and are working on a comprehensive event program. Government agencies have been meeting since March and continue to work closely together on strategic and operational issues. Community based organisations such as Hotel Chaplaincy, Rosies Youth Mission, Drug Arm and Scripture Union are involved in the planning process and will again provide invaluable services. In relation to the three-point plan's second point—increased safety—there will again be a highly visible police presence during Gold Coast schoolies week this year. Recharge zones will again be established, where young people in need of first aid or support can receive it in a safe and private 06 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 2723 environment and the ambulance treatment centre will again be centrally located. Under the third point of the three-point plan—awareness of rights and responsibilities—a comprehensive program has been put in place. Youth forums were held for year 12 students around south-east Queensland last month. Education panels are visiting about 35 schools in the south-east to provide information on safety, fair trading and liquor licensing matters. Our Top Tips for Schoolies will soon be delivered to 50,000 Victorian students and postcards were sent to 70,000 New South Wales students. The Top Tips for Schoolies will be delivered to about 30,000 Queensland students through the education panels and the Hotel Chaplaincy program of school visits, involving about 50 schools throughout the state. The official Gold Coast schoolies week web site has been revamped and is regularly updated and the Office of Fair Trading is planning information sessions for accommodation providers and will compile a weekly e-newsletter for restricted letting agents in the lead-up to schoolies in a bid to minimise accommodation disputes. Tomorrow I will be holding another briefing with all Gold Coast MPs—government and non-government. As members can see, planning for this year's event is on track. It is on track to provide a safe, enjoyable event for young people celebrating the end of their schooling years.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Aviation Industry; Tourism Hon. M.M. KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (10.16 a.m.): It seems that every month I stand in this House to report on more positive tourism statistics, news and results. Today, being Robert Schwarten's birthday, is another good day for the parliament. I am pleased to announce that Queensland airports are booming when it comes to tourism. Aviation reports out last month show a massive 33 per cent increase in domestic seat capacity for Queensland compared to September last year. In fact, this is an increase of 217,000 seats. Being a proud Gold Coaster, I welcome the results for the Gold Coast. From September last year our domestic capacity inbound has increased tremendously compared to this year. In just 12 months it has increased by 61 per cent to 140,000 seats. Queensland is the envy of the rest of Australia with results like these. But the Gold Coast is by no means unique. Proserpine recorded an increase of 68 per cent, the Sunshine Coast is up 48 per cent and Hamilton Island is up 38 per cent. There have also been significant increases of well over 20 per cent for Cairns, Brisbane, Mackay, Rockhampton and Townsville. The debut of Jetstar has been great news for Queensland's regions. Virgin Blue has also increased services and capacity, and the tourism industry is truly the big winner. But the good news does not end there. On the international front, Queensland is again making gains. With the members for Whitsunday, Aspley and Yeerongpilly, last week I visited the Brisbane airport and was told by management that there has been an increase of 31 per cent in the international passenger arrivals in the past eight months of 2004. In fact, we were informed that, over the last 13 months, every single month has been a record for the Brisbane Airport Corporation. For Cairns the news is good as well, up 22 per cent for the first eight months of the year. There is also good news at the Gold Coast airport. The annual international growth to 30 June 2004 was up 27 per cent and Pacific Blue and Freedom Air have recently announced new flights out of the Gold Coast. The Beattie government knows very well the value of a strong tourism industry. That is why we recognise that air access is absolutely critical for the success and growth of Queensland's tourism industry, which is our second largest export industry. Everywhere domestic tourists and international tourists are saying, ‘Where else but Queensland.'

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Fire Investigation and Firefighting Techniques Hon. C.P. CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.19 a.m.): Queensland firefighters now use a range of scientific processes to help them perform their activities. Modern-day fire investigators use fire modelling to indicate how a fire spreads through a building. The first time this was used in great detail was following the Childers backpackers fire in June 2001. Fire investigators, along with police scientific squad officers who were preparing a brief for the coroner, wanted to know how the fire spread so quickly in that building, resulting in the tragic loss of 15 young lives. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service's fire investigation and research unit linked with the University of Queensland and the Institute of Fire Engineers to develop a computer based model to show how the fire spread around the building. This fire modelling behaviour is now incorporated into the QFRS's highly regarded fire investigators course, which is accessed by not only fire service officers but 2724 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004 also by police, insurance loss adjusters and a range of other interested parties, including fire investigators from interstate. Another science based system being used by our fire investigators is the latest in accelerant detection equipment colloquially known as a mechanical sniffer dog. This system quickly identifies if hydrocarbons have been used to start a fire—vital in those early stages of a fire investigation to determine if the investigators are looking at arson or an accidental fire. In a similar vein, in the past few years hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent improving chemical detection equipment. These devices, known as spectrometers, can quickly help department staff identify thousands of liquid, gas or powder chemical substances. Likewise, significant funds have been spent purchasing state-of-the-art thermal imaging cameras designed to assist firefighters by providing the clearest possible images under all environments typical of structural firefighting. I am aware that it was used recently during the fire that caused significant damage to the Caloundra Catholic Church on the Sunshine Coast. These cameras can detect a person by the heat generated from their bodies so firefighters will be able to locate them even if visibility is poor due to darkness or thick smoke. Physics has not only changed how we investigate cases of fires but has played a major role in actually changing the way firefighters battle blazes. Some years ago, it was realised that the age-old technique of pouring mountains of water onto a fire was not necessarily the most effective way of battling a blaze. Instead, it was discovered that using a fine water spray aimed into the gases above a fire were extremely effective in quickly reducing the heat and spread of fire in a building. Firefighters from across the state, as well as colleagues from other services interstate and overseas and the private sector, have trained in this new technique at the QFRS training academy at the port of Brisbane, Whyte Island facility. Mobile training facilities have also been built to travel around the state also highlighting this new science based approach to firefighting. The QFRS is also involved in a series of joint projects with the CSIRO, including bushfire prediction through satellite imaging and train fire experiments, as well as with a range of universities on research and scientific projects. May I, too, congratulate the honourable member for Rockhampton on his birthday. I hope in his next five decades he never mellows.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Hon. E.A. CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.22 a.m.): There are many aspects of this portfolio that are challenging. There are many people struggling with the legacy of policies of the past that put an end to their family and to their homeland ties. But an issue that I find to be as frightening as any other is foetal alcohol syndrome. This, of course, is not an issue confined to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; it is an issue wherever women drink to harmful levels during pregnancy. Alcohol consumption during pregnancy can cause foetal alcohol syndrome, regarded as the leading, preventable cause of non-genetic intellectual impairment. It is not curable. Children born with foetal alcohol syndrome are often born with distinctive physical characteristics and they can have growth retardation, ongoing behavioural problems, and organ defects. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities where alcohol is a critical problem, foetal alcohol syndrome is also likely to be a major issue. Children can be cheated and held back by the effects of alcohol before their lives have even begun. I had the privilege of attending a consultative forum on alcohol use in pregnancy, held on International Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Day on 9 September. As the forum heard, the effects of foetal alcohol syndrome are devastating. It affects not only the child's health but also the education system, the foster system, the justice system and almost every reach of people's lives. One study found that the cost generated by one child with foetal alcohol syndrome over the child's lifetime was around $2 million and the social costs are just as critical. While there is no cure or recognised treatment for the syndrome, some of the effects can be treated as they arise. Foetal alcohol syndrome is 100 per cent preventable. We need to raise awareness of the syndrome and increase the amount of research being done, because understanding the problem and its magnitude is one of the tools we can use to fight it. There is some excellent work being done by people, including those who addressed the forum. Most of this work has taken the form of education programs where they are needed the most—among pregnant women and other people within communities so that the knowledge shared is not lost. The Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy will work with Queensland Health and other state government agencies to see that this syndrome gets the attention it needs. I thank my colleague the honourable Minister for Health for his support and efforts in this area, and particularly for his department's support for the research being done at the Apunipima Cape York Health Centre. There is hard work ahead in fighting this syndrome, but this government is committed to taking a coordinated 06 Oct 2004 Private Members' Statements 2725 approach to meeting these challenges and to stopping the grip of foetal alcohol syndrome on all Queenslanders.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.25 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the adjournment may be moved after the private member's motion today to be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Annual Report Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (10.26 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Public Works Committee annual report for 2003-04. I would like to thank all of those who assisted the committee with its inquiries during the year. I also thank my committee members for their assistance and support. I thank the committee staff for their assistance. I commend the report to the House.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Child Sex Offenders Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That as one-third of persons convicted in Queensland of child sex crimes escape prison sentences, this parliament directs that the government legislate for mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment for persons convicted of child sex crimes, including the possession, production and distribution of child pornography.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Premier, Comments Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.): In the last week Queenslanders have been subjected to a rather extraordinary bout of theatrical paranoia from the Premier. We have had the Premier running around this state accusing his cabal of Labor mates of turning on him. We have had the Premier quoted in the newspaper as saying that if you raise concerns against him he is going to sue you. He has also said and has been quoted in the newspaper that, if you raise concerns against him, Brisbane is a very small city and he is going to find out about it. I thought, ‘Is this a one-off event on the part of the Premier or is this an episodic thing from him? Is this bout of paranoia something which is exclusive to the last week or is it something that has been the hallmark of Mr Beattie's tenure in this place and prior to that?’ So I did some research and, lo and behold, I found that when Mr Beattie was the chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee he was running around and talking about these forces of evil and how he would have to stand against them and save the world alone. This forced Premier Goss to write to Mr Beattie. This is what he said— Peter, we are all subject to pressure and criticism from time to time, but we do not work ourselves into a lather and talk about resigning, we get on with the job—and I suggest you do the same. Peter, let me assure you that the only person talking about your resignation or removal from your position on the committee is yourself. But what did the honourable member for Rockhampton say at the time? I quote— Another Government member of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, Mr Schwarten, said yesterday he knew nothing of any move against Mr Beattie. ‘This is the first I've heard of anybody wanting Peter Beattie's head on a platter.' That sounds familiar. That is the sort of paranoia that we have come to know and understand from Mr Beattie—the paranoia that was displayed— Time expired. Somali Women's Association Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (10.29 a.m.): If people come together they can even mend a crack in the sky. This is an old Somali proverb and probably what inspired the Somali women in my electorate area to come together to form the Somali Women's Association recently. This association became incorporated in February this year and has approximately 40 members. The aim of the group is to promote Somali culture and traditions, represent and advocate for their needs and rights, provide information to improve settlement in Queensland and Australia, increase knowledge and skills, and provide an important link to government agencies, community organisations and local businesses. I 2726 Questions Without Notice 06 Oct 2004 congratulate the group's executive—Mumina Isse, Fadumo Yusuf, Saharla Mohumud and Anab Keinan. I congratulate all of the women who are actively involved in that association. They are doing a great job in bringing forward the issues of this very important new community on the south side to improve their conditions and improve their access to facilities in Australia. I recently attended a celebration of the Somali women's group formation, which was held at the Seville Road State School. It was a great day, with a barbecue and dance. Those people are organising themselves incredibly well. The group recently concluded the Somali women's mobility and empowerment project on 8 September. Some of the projects they have in mind are women's health and wellbeing seminars, playgroups for mothers and children, sewing and craft, and so on. One of the very important things they are doing is ensuring that Somali women gain access to drivers licences so that they can assist their families and assist the wider community. I strongly urge all relevant agencies and ministers to support this very new and important group and support the great work they are doing in the local community. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electricity Supply; Price Rises Mr SPRINGBORG (10.31 a.m.): My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the Premier's statement regarding future power pricing and to his pointed refusal to rule out price rises above inflation for Queensland's 225,000 small businesses. Can the Treasurer give Queensland businesses an assurance that they will not have to pay for his incompetent administration of the power sector with increased power prices, particularly above inflation? Mr MACKENROTH: In relation to regulated customers the government has a very clear policy, which we have implemented and continue to implement—that is, electricity prices rise only by the rate of inflation each year. The customers to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred now have the option to remain regulated customers. If they take that option of remaining regulated, they will continue to have electricity price rises at the rate of inflation, and no more, each year. They can choose to become unregulated customers under the competition policy and are charged accordingly and do not need to buy their electricity from Energex. So if they wish, they can buy their electricity from another electricity retailer in the market. If they choose to be unregulated, they do not need to purchase their electricity from Energex. I think the member needs to understand that clearly. The small business customers to whom the member refers are customers in what is called tranche 4A. It was the federal government— Mr Springborg: They are commercial customers. Mr MACKENROTH: Of course they are commercial customers. I thought most small businesspeople were commercial. I can give the member a guarantee that our government will not make one of those people choose to be an unregulated customer. So if they stay regulated— Opposition members: Oh! Mr MACKENROTH: Members opposite should listen to what I am saying very clearly. If they choose to become unregulated and go into the market, they can go away from Energex if they wish and go to any other retailer they choose. That is the free market. That is the one that John Howard and Peter Costello forced us to bring in for tranche 4A by withholding competition payments. We argued very strongly that those people should all just remain regulated. Mr Springborg: So it may go up. Mr MACKENROTH: They are going into the free enterprise system that those opposite espouse. The whole reason John Howard and Peter Costello have argued that these people should be unregulated is so that they can get cheaper power. Electricity Supply; Price Rises Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In light of the Treasurer's spur-of- the-moment decision to announce compensation for people and businesses impacted by power failures and the comments by the new Energex chairman, Ross Dunning, in his absence that the inevitable consequence would be an increase in power prices, can the Treasurer now tell the parliament how much this compensation scheme is likely to cost during the next 12 months and how it will be paid for? Mr MACKENROTH: Mr Speaker— Mr Springborg interjected. 06 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 2727

Mr MACKENROTH: He does not even want to listen to what I have to say. He asked the question and very rudely started to interject across the chamber to somebody who is not even in it. If he wants to ask me a question, he should at least sit there and listen. In relation to the question asked, the statement I made in relation to compensation was not spur of the moment. Mr Springborg: It wasn't? Mr MACKENROTH: It was not spur of the moment at all. Mr Springborg: What is it going to cost? Mr MACKENROTH: The reality is that one would hope it costs nothing, because we would hope that we never have to pay. How would we know? We would need to see what happens throughout the year when it is implemented. It is unpredictable. We will see what that is. We established the Somerville inquiry to actually see what needed to be done to ensure that we do have a reliable power supply in Queensland, and that is what we will deliver. Dangerous Prisoners, High Court Ruling Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Last week the High Court of Australia made a determination that shores up this government's toughening of laws in relation to dangerous prisoners. Can the Premier detail to the parliament if that decision vindicates our legislation that was passed last year? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. Before I answer it, I welcome to the gallery the scientists who are here today for Science in Parliament. I say on behalf of all members: we are absolutely delighted to have you here and we hope that you enjoy your day. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We have found a Nostradamus in the chamber already—someone who can forecast the weather. That beats science! That is on another planet. That is sort of 'ET'. I am delighted to advise members that on Friday, 1 October the High Court confirmed the constitutional validity of a law which is part of our weaponry against heinous crimes such as violent rape and paedophilia. The House passed the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 in June last year. It is designed to protect the community when the most dangerous sex offending prisoners are coming up for release and will have served their sentence without being rehabilitated. It reflects, in my view, the community's abhorrence of paedophiles and other sex offenders and the widespread outrage when sex predators are released from prison but continue to pose a threat to the community. It aims primarily to protect children. Six out of the seven High Court judges made the right decision when they upheld Queensland's law in the appeal brought by dangerous sex offender Robert John Fardon. The constitutional validity of the legislation is a credit to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Rod Welford, who drafted it on behalf of the cabinet. He oversaw the drafting of the legislation on behalf of the whole government. The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 applies to only the most dangerous sex offenders in our prison system. There is a proper judicial process for making determinations. Under the legislation, the Attorney-General can apply to the Supreme Court for continuing detention of a prisoner considered to pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The court assesses the risk and has the power to impose either continuing detention or an order requiring strict supervision upon release. It takes into consideration the person's criminal history, any evidence that indicates the person poses an ongoing risk and other expert medical evidence. Any continuing detention order must be reviewed by the Supreme Court every 12 months. The government reviewed and improved our internal guidelines for bringing applications late last year. Our internal early warning system on serious sex offenders who could potentially reoffend if released from prison was extended from six months to one year. This means Crown Law must advise the Attorney-General of any potential applications under the dangerous prisoners act at least three months prior to the prisoner's scheduled release date. I am advised that in the case of a recent application—a matter of discussion from the bench earlier this week—there were delays in receiving psychiatric assessments and subsequently preparing affidavits. It is important to note that the court's decision in this matter was made on the merits of the case, not the timeliness of the application. Energex; Treasurer Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Was the Treasurer's revelation about the payment of compensation by power companies without any consultation with them not the subject of a heated discussion between him and the late CEO of Energex? Is it not true that Mr Maddock reached the same conclusion that the new chairman, Mr Dunning, reached, that the Treasurer's proposal will result in an inevitable price rise or a further reduction in services? 2728 Questions Without Notice 06 Oct 2004

Mr MACKENROTH: No, it is not true. I never discussed the issue of compensation with Greg Maddock ever. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting! Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition under standing order 252.

Federal Election; Medicare Gold Mr REEVES: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. There have been desperate attempts to denigrate Mark Latham's positive and far-reaching Medicare Gold plan to fast-track surgery for Australians aged 75 years and over, cut health insurance premiums and cut waiting times for other patients. Will the Premier tell the House how the state government views this initiative? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. Federal Labor's Medicare Gold proposal has been designed to ensure that we continue to provide our older citizens with effective and timely health care. Queensland has already led the way in this arena by showing that by working with our health partners in the private sector— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Will the Leader of the Opposition get out of the gutter for 10 seconds—just 10 seconds? Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: I would not mind at least a little courtesy. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South will also cease interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: Queensland has already led the way in this arena by showing that, by working with our health partners in the private sector, we can make a significant impact on health care provision. Our innovative $20 million elective surgery program working with private health providers resulted in an additional 4,700 patients receiving surgery in the five months up to 1 July. I thank the Health Minister for delivering on that election commitment. This was in addition to surgery already scheduled within our hospitals. Of the 4,700 people who received these health services, just under 1,000 received their required surgery with the assistance of our private sector partners. This is evidence that there is definitely the capability and the capacity in this state to provide and deliver health care services with a more innovative approach. The Medicare Gold proposal has been costed by federal Labor, estimating that 85 per cent of patients over 75 will have their health requirements met in the private sector. It will be the same as our successful elective surgery program: public patients will be utilising the private sector and the federal government will pay for it. Federal Labor's $3.7 billion plan will cover all hospital costs for the elderly. Federal Labor has also promised to cut private health premiums by 12.5 per cent, which may encourage the elderly to enter the private hospital sector. This means that older Queenslanders will have a choice in how they receive their health care services. The health plan has already been endorsed by the Health Services Union, Australian Nursing Federation, Catholic Health Australia and the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation. The scheme will make further cuts to surgery waiting times, and we have already produced the lowest waiting times on record for the two most urgent categories of surgery. We will continue to cut waiting times even further through the $110 million allocated for the next three years. While we are talking about federal matters, I noticed in the paper this morning there was a headline titled 'Latham seen as threat to Queensland funding'. I can confirm that my office has been in contact with Mr Latham's office, which provided the following: Mr Latham supports the status quo. A future Latham government is not proposing to change the Commonwealth Grants Commission process and associated arrangements. I table that for the information of the House because that is something that we support— Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. At least we know where our funding is coming from under Mr Latham. 06 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 2729

Energex; Treasurer Mr HOBBS: My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the spate of threatening correspondence being experienced around town from a Mr Peter Carne of Carne Reidy Herd Lawyers on behalf of his client Mr Beattie. Is this the same Peter Carne who defended Cheryl Kernot and who is a director of Tarong Energy? Mr MACKENROTH: I guess it is. Federal Election; Ipswich Motorway Ms NOLAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. As the minister knows, the Ipswich Motorway is a National Highway and as such is a federal funding responsibility. Last night we saw a shocking video of a multiple vehicle accident on this road. Can the minister please inform the House of the situation regarding funding for the urgently needed upgrade of the motorway? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member, together with the members for Bundamba and Ipswich West, is standing alongside this government, as is the member for Moggill, in fighting the federal government and Cameron Thompson's ridiculous plan for a half northern bypass. The people in south-east Queensland are sick and tired of the delays in fixing this federally funded road, the Ipswich Motorway. I know the former minister for transport had difficulties with Gary Hardgrave in the past with his total lack of cooperation with the Queensland government. I was reading the clippings about that the other day. Federal coalition MPs have misinformed the public— Mr Johnson: You have to make responsible representation. Mr LUCAS: I will quote what the member said if he likes. Federal coalition MPs have misinformed the public about roads time after time during this election campaign, but they have been at their most dishonest with respect to the Ipswich Motorway upgrade. They have exaggerated the time the upgrade will take. They have said it is eight years because they asked us to provide an eight-year time frame for it when we could originally do it in five. They have exaggerated the effect its construction would have upon traffic. The most outrageous claim was from the Prime Minister, John Howard, who said last week that construction could begin immediately the election was over. What utter tripe! It is not likely to start for four years. They have not even funded a study. We are still waiting because we are in the caretaker period with the federal government for the short list— Mr Johnson: What's Mark Latham going to do? Mr LUCAS: That is an excellent question by the honourable member. I will put it up in neon lights: Mark Latham has committed to the full funding of the Ipswich Motorway. So I thank the honourable member for raising that issue. We have already undertaken the planning with the federal government for the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, but we do not know how long it will take to build a half northern bypass—a half northern bypass that will deal with only eight kilometres of the 19-kilometre motorway. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr LUCAS: It will be of no use to the honourable member when he is sitting in traffic jams along the other part of it. Anybody who lives in the Ipswich corridor knows that most of the traffic on the Ipswich Motorway comes from south of the motorway. How is a half northern bypass going to help people if the Ipswich Motorway is jammed? Are people going to fly over the motorway? Are they going to drive to Amberley and get a helicopter? With regard to the member for Moggill's electorate, a Moggill community group—the progress association; I forget its exact name—has produced a report from very respected engineers including world renowned Ian Cameron, who said 80 per cent of the half northern bypass route is below the 1974 flood levels. Not only will it be a disaster when there is a flood; it will probably be a dam. That is the ridiculous planning that we are getting from the federal government. We have the right to expect more from our federal government on that road and so do motorists. We dragged the feds kicking and screaming into Tully. They have not funded the Acacia Ridge rail overpass. They did not fund Kessels Road until we made them do it. It is about time the federal government met its responsibilities. Anaesthetists Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Given that the Australian Medical Work Force Advisory Committee has found that there is no shortage of anaesthetists in Australia, I ask: why is Queensland Health unable to maintain a full complement of anaesthetists and why is it forced to pay up to $8,000 per week for locum anaesthetists to fly in from interstate to keep Queensland public surgery operating? 2730 Questions Without Notice 06 Oct 2004

Mr NUTTALL: The working conditions of Queensland Health anaesthetists were agreed with the relevant unions. The EB is a closed agreement and renegotiation is not due until 2005. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission recently indicated that the Queensland Health proposal to address the anaesthetist issue is a reasonable approach to take matters forward. The process to address the various concerns raised by anaesthetists will continue to require from all parties goodwill and a commitment to work in a collaborative way. The issue that the honourable member also raised in relation to paying interstate anaesthetists the sum of $8,000 is simply untrue and incorrect. That is not the case. We have written to the anaesthetists advising them of that matter. This has been an ongoing campaign by anaesthetists. They negotiated an EB with us in good faith. Subsequent to negotiation and agreement on that EB, they have continued to try to pursue an industrial campaign for increased wages and increased conditions. We have consistently said that that is a matter for the next round of enterprise bargaining. We are in discussions, as I have said, with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, and the commission is in agreement with the way we are dealing with this matter. Science Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and the Arts. Just over a year ago she launched a strategy to revitalise science education in Queensland. Can she inform members of what progress has been made on this initiative? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Along with others, she will recall that just over a year ago we had a number of students and teachers of science out on the Speaker's Green launching an action plan to reinvigorate science, teaching and learning in Queensland. It is a six-step action plan, and it is designed to put the sizzle back into science. The aim of the plan is to encourage more young people to aspire to study science, to aspire to careers in science and to build the capacity of our teaching work force in this important area. The implementation of the plan is being overseen by a task force comprised of scientists and educators. I welcome those members of the task force who are here with us today as part of Science in Parliament, and I thank them for their commitment and the work they are doing on that task force. I would also like to acknowledge 25 senior science students who will be with us in parliament today as part of the activities. Among those 25 young people are five winners of the inaugural Peter Doherty Awards for excellence in science, and I congratulate them again. I am looking forward to a very robust discussion with them in a forum later this afternoon. I am pleased to give members a progress report on the science action plan because good progress has been made. Last month I presented the first Peter Doherty Awards. There were 32 awards worth $143,000. They went to teachers, students, research institutions and industry. Some outstanding projects were recognised, and I look forward to those awards continuing to encourage excellence and to reward the great things that are happening. There have been district science forums held across Queensland in the past year. Those forums have brought together our teachers of science and technology with researchers, scientists and industry members in their local area to share knowledge and to build networks. I think that will have a very powerful impact in the classroom over time. In the last six months over 1,800 teachers of science have attended professional development forums to upgrade their skills. Importantly, we have developed a new senior science elective. That will be a general science elective that students can take in years 11 and 12 so those students who do not want to specialise in physics, chemistry or biology can continue to study science right through to year 12. That syllabus is being trialled in 45 high schools from next year, with the prospect of it being available on a statewide basis in 2007. It is a very exciting development, and I look forward to seeing it come to life in our classrooms. We have also developed a range of partnerships with scientific organisations and tertiary institutions. For example, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research has offered work experience and industry placement programs to rural and indigenous students from north Queensland, and I thank them for their partnership along with others. We are well on the way to reigniting an interest in science, teaching and learning, and to reinvigorating the profession in relation to the teaching of science. I thank everybody involved in making that possible. Electricity Distribution, Nanango Electorate Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Energy. Towns such as Kingaroy in the South Burnett are situated only a few kilometres from Tarong Power Station. With the unprecedented growth of the communities in this area, the ability of the current infrastructure to carry sufficient capacity is being questioned. Concerns have been expressed that the system is fast reaching its full carrying capacity. Can the minister assure the local councils that infrastructure will be upgraded in the near future to meet projected requirements given the current run-down conditions of the electricity industry and infrastructure? 06 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 2731

Mr MICKEL: Mr Speaker, what infrastructure is the honourable member referring to? Is the member referring to the generating capacity? Mrs Pratt interjected. Mr MICKEL: To the wiring capacity? To the poles and wires by Ergon? Mrs Pratt interjected. Honourable members interjected. Mr MICKEL: I am sorry, I did not hear that because of the interruption over here. Mrs PRATT: The question is, because of the growth of the communities in the area I am questioning the ability of the energy to be carried to the towns—to be delivered to the towns—so that it can meet the growth of those towns. That is what I am saying. I am not referring to generators. We know that the generating capacity is there, but the infrastructure to actually deliver that energy to the towns is being stretched. Mr MICKEL: I am sorry about that, I apologise. I thought the member was confusing generation with distribution. It is fair enough that I ask that because the honourable member for Maroochydore asked me a question about Powerlink and its distribution system. What that proved is that the honourable member for Maroochydore, for example, had not read up to page 38 of the Somerville report. It was all coloured in for her. That is a thing we offered for the National Party members—when they cannot read we colour it in for them. I needed to make that perfectly plain between generation and distribution. Mr Hobbs: You can't even keep the lights on. Mr MICKEL: The honourable member for Warrego interjects about keeping the lights on. The reality of this whole debate about the electricity system and the lights is that Energex keeps the lights on, even with the so-called crisis, 99.1 per cent of the time. I have an implementation unit working with us to make sure that even those challenges we face with the issues that the honourable member referred to about growth—population growth and growth in airconditioning—is being addressed. In answer specifically to the honourable member for Nanango about maintenance requirements for her township, I say publicly—because I have arranged for it privately with all the Independent members there—that I will ensure that she gets a full run-down of the maintenance and the capital expenditure that is being undertaken in her electorate so that she can keep her constituency fully informed. Foster-Carers Ms STONE: My question is for the Minister for Child Safety. What is the minister's department doing to recruit more foster-carers and to retain those foster-carers throughout Queensland? Mr REYNOLDS: I would like to thank the member for Springwood. Indeed, I welcome the important question from the member, because the trend in this area is certainly encouraging and represents very good news for Queensland's most vulnerable children and young people. The number of foster-carers in Queensland is definitely on the way up. I am pleased to advise that the total number of new carers approved by my department has increased by 25 per cent when compared with the number last financial year. The number of approved carers has risen from 803 last financial year to 1,004 so far this financial year, an increase of 201 carers. This increase reflects the Beattie government's support for foster-carers such as the $40 a fortnight increase in the foster-carer allowance, increases in loadings and training initiatives and many other benefits for our foster-carers. In a bid to boost those numbers even more I recently released a new information kit to mark the launch of the first key stage of the initiative to recruit and retain foster-carers throughout Queensland. The foster-carer information kit is the first in an important suite of materials being developed to provide potential foster-carers with a more comprehensive overview of fostering at their first point of inquiry. Can I share with the House today that some very well-intentioned people call my department from time to time with much enthusiasm but often having a limited knowledge of what is actually involved in becoming a foster-carer. This kit gives those interested in taking on the valuable role of foster-carer the vital information that they need to make an informed decision about fostering. It contains a series of brochures and fact sheets about the different types of fostering and the steps to becoming a carer. The kit helps to prepare potential foster-carers for what can only be described as the rewarding and challenging journey ahead of them should they be approved as carers. By being fully prepared they are more likely to remain with the Department of Child Safety. Can I give the House an assurance today that my department will work closely with alternative care peak bodies and agencies to ensure the kit is meeting the needs of non-government foster care agencies. The foster-carer information kit is also designed to assist departmental and non-government 2732 Questions Without Notice 06 Oct 2004 staff by improving the consistency and the quality of materials supplied to potential carers throughout Queensland. A key priority we have throughout this is the need for more culturally competent carers across the state, in particular, as I have said in this House on many occasions, more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers. My department is specifically focusing on increased awareness about the need for indigenous carers. We are totally committed to the blueprint recommendations on foster care and we are well advanced in developing and implementing foster care recruitment strategies. The foster-carers in Queensland do a tremendous job; they are valued and they are very much part of the different communities we represent.

Jet Skis Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. I refer the minister to the recent horrific jet ski crash at Somerset Dam involving two small children and the recent maritime safety Queensland recreational boating survey that found that 80 per cent of those surveyed wanted jet skiing restricted to specific zones. The government has been issuing media releases for two years promising to crack down on jet ski use but nothing has happened. When is the government going to come good on its promise to act on jet ski safety concerns and limit the use of jet skis to designated zones where they pose no danger or nuisance to the public. Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is an interesting question because it actually presupposes a solution that you think would be a safer outcome. A significant number of jet ski incidents involve striking other jet skis. I wonder how the honourable member could think it would be a satisfactory solution to have them crammed even more into an area of higher density where there is a higher likelihood of them striking each other. We commissioned a review into jet skis. I read that review the weekend before last. The vast majority of submissions in relation to that review relate to amenity issues. For example, I know in the Noosa council area there is an issue not so much with safety but with the annoyance that is caused to people by jet skis operating in their area. I can understand those concerns. But what we need to also understand is that there are businesses that operate in relation to the hire of jet skis. They have commercial rights. I presume that as a Sunshine Coast member that the member for Maroochydore would understand that. But also, of course, jet ski enthusiasts have to understand that they operate in an environment where the enjoyment of their jet ski can impact upon other people. That is what the government will be focused on. With respect to the BoatSafe program, for example, in relation to general boat licensing this government has one of the most stringent and comprehensive licensing regimes in Australia. In some states you do not need a licence or you can get one on a written application. Queensland is not like that. We are phasing out the old licensing regime where people go for a test. The BoatSafe regime will be in force by the middle of next year and will be the only way that one can get a licence. I will examine the report in light of that to see whether additional training is needed for people who want to operate jet skis. The issue is that once an area is closed to jet skis, unless you want to ban them totally there is a situation where they will be moved to somewhere else. You clear one problem away and move it somewhere else. There is a multi-faceted requirement when it comes to the solution of the issue of jet skis. This government will do it properly and will do it on the basis of consultation and the material we have researched so far. I acknowledge that there is community concern about the issue of jet skis, but that is predominantly an issue of amenity. Our boat licensing regime under BoatSafe is one of the most comprehensive, if not the most comprehensive, regimes in Australia. I invite the honourable member to be part of the process to come up with a preferred solution. It will include increased enforcement; that is one of the things I am looking at over this coming summer holiday, to ensure that everybody is a responsible boat user or jet skier for the safety of the general boating public.

Smart Science Mr CHOI: With so many Smart State scientists in the House today it is only fitting that I ask a question of the Minister for State Development and Innovation. In the minister's ministerial statement today he said that Queensland was not only the Smart State, but also the science state. Could the minister please provide examples of some recent achievements? Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for Capalaba for the question and also for the interest which he displays on many occasions in this particular subject. As he rightly said, earlier this morning in my ministerial statement I touched briefly on the new $5 million clinical trials network. This network provides a vital link between researchers and businesses and ensures that new drugs and medicines which are created are created here in Queensland, the Smart State. 06 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 2733

This project complements the government's $3.35 million investment in the pharmaceutical centre of excellence which I launched in August and which will be housed at the Princess Alexandra Hospital right here in Brisbane. It also complements our $8.1 million commitment to the Queensland preclinical drug development facility. Indeed, Queensland is fast gaining a reputation as a great destination for international companies interested in pharmaceutical research and development. For example, just last month the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which is based in Townsville, announced that they had entered into a partnership with a German company. I met with the German company and also representatives from AIMS and we discussed the work which they would do together. At the end of the meeting I certainly gave my full support and the support of the Queensland government for what they were proposing to do. This partnership between AIMS and the German company, Faustus, ensures that groundbreaking research happens right here in our own state of Queensland. This is research that could lead to a cure for cancer. I am sure every single member in this parliament today would welcome such research. The partnership also provides positions for three new research scientists in north Queensland itself. The good news does not simply stop there. The Queensland government has a standing agreement with AIMS to share in the benefits that come from discoveries created from our native plants and animals. This means all Queensland taxpayers will benefit from any successful commercial discoveries. Of course, that is all part of the bill which went through this parliament just a few months ago. Importantly, this partnership meets the criteria of the soon-to-be-enacted Biodiscovery Bill which works to protect Queensland's natural heritage. They are just a couple of the initiatives that are part of this government's policy in relation to the Smart State.

Real Estate Agents Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Fair Trading. In August the minister wrote to every real estate agent in Queensland advising that real estate contractors had only 30 days to gain certification and thereby comply with the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act. Now that the minister has granted a three-month extension to her original deadline, I ask: why did she give contractors only 30 days to comply when she really should have known that it takes at least 12 weeks to complete the certification course? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to once again recognise that the Beattie government is absolutely committed to consumer protection when it comes to the property industry. It came to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading that there were independent contractor agreements between salespersons which may be in breach of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act. Following that, the Office of Fair Trading wrote to all licensees throughout Queensland reminding them of their responsibilities when it comes to this act. In particular, it is important to note that salespersons who are employed in real estate offices need to be either registered as a real estate salesperson and employed under employment authorities or hold a full real estate agent's licence if engaged under independent contract arrangements. They can be an independent contractor, but they must have a full real estate licence. We wrote to all licensees in Queensland and we gave them 30 days to ensure that their employment arrangements comply with the act. We also indicated that we would do spot checks. We asked the licensees for proof that they had complied or they would face enforcement action. Mrs Stuckey: What about the 12 weeks? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Currumbin has asked the question. Ms KEECH: I will put some facts on the table. I have been advised by the Office of Fair Trading that up to 200 independent contractors may be affected. Pleasingly, around 160 of them have already taken appropriate action to comply with the law. For licensees and salespersons to comply with the law they need to be enrolled in an approved training course. It was indicated that it would be unfair to prosecute salespeople who are already enrolled in a training course when they had already complied with the letter that we sent to them. The Office of Fair Trading has given them until December to complete the course. When salespeople and licensees have taken every action to comply I think it is only fair that they be given an opportunity to finish the courses they have enrolled in. I think that is only fair. Not only do I think it is fair and the Beattie government thinks it is fair; I met with the CEO and president of the REIQ board and they indicated their support and said that it was only fair to allow salespeople who were enrolled in a course to continue it.

Crossbows Mr LEE: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Yesterday the minister informed the House about the progress of the government's general firearm amnesty. What is the Beattie government doing to ensure that the ownership of crossbows is subject to tight restrictions? 2734 Questions Without Notice 06 Oct 2004

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Indooroopilly for the question. As I said yesterday, in the interest of public safety this government is determined to do all it can to rid Queensland of unwanted and unregistered firearms. With respect to guns we have been very successful in doing that over the last few years. Today I want to talk about crossbows. As a result of a decision at the Australian Police Ministers Council last year where all jurisdictions agreed to license crossbows, this parliament passed legislation in this regard last year. That legislation will take effect on 1 November. From 1 November anyone wishing to possess a crossbow will be required to have a miscellaneous weapons licence, will be required to complete a weapons safety course, will have to have a genuine reason for possessing a crossbow—such as belonging to a club or have permission from a land-holder to shoot on a rural property—and will have to have access to storage facilities. From 1 November there will be a six-month transitional period where people who currently possess crossbows will have time to comply with the new law. After 1 November anyone who purchases a crossbow will immediately have to fulfil all of those requirements. As of this Friday police officers from the Weapons Licensing Branch will travel the length and breadth of Queensland informing shooting clubs, licensed weapons dealers and sporting associations about the licensing requirements. The licensing applications are available from any police station. I would encourage all members of parliament to start publicising this in their local communities. There are stiff penalties for having an unlicensed crossbow in the future. The penalty will be seven and a half thousand dollars or two years jail for the possession of one unlicensed crossbow, or $37,000 or 10 years jail for the possession of 10 unlicensed crossbows. I am pleased to say that the new laws will not affect interstate or international crossbow competitions. We are having the World Crossbow Championships in Townsville next year. Mr Terry Sullivan interjected. Ms SPENCE: That is right. I would encourage all members to go out and publicise these very important rules. Let us remember that crossbows are a dangerous weapon. They have already been responsible for a double murder in Queensland. They have been used for numerous sieges in this state. This is a serious business. I would encourage all members to support it. Emergency Services, Maryborough Electorate Mr CHRIS FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I have received a complaint from a constituent about the lack of emergency services available on weekends. This constituent woke to find her house filled with smoke. She has a very sick husband who could not get his breath and became extremely distressed. She told me that she rang her local bush fire brigade but there was no answer. She then rang Maryborough fire brigade but got an answering service that said that there was no-one in attendance and to ring back during business hours. She then rang her local police station and got an answering service telling her that the station was not manned and to call back during business hours. She then rang 000 explaining the problem and was put through to the Maryborough Police Station and was told that it was nothing to do with them and to ring the Sunshine Coast. She did this only to be told that it was not their jurisdiction. At this point she gave up. Will the minister commit additional resources to ensure that situations like this do not arise again? Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for the question. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr CUMMINS: It is question time; the member will get his later. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr CUMMINS: He savages me with a wet lettuce too often. 000 is the number we call in an emergency. When one rings 000 one is put through to a Telstra operator. That person will ask whether the caller wants the police, fire brigade or ambulance. If the person is put through to the police, I would suggest, sadly, that they did not ask for the fire brigade. If there is a fire problem the caller should ask for the fire brigade. Telstra will remain on the line until the caller is connected to the operator. They will ask where the caller is from and the state. They will ask the state because I believe there is a Maryborough in Queensland and also a Maryborough in Victoria. If it is an emergency the caller will be put through from the Telstra call centre to the fire communications centre. I would hope that the member would get back to these people and tell them not to ring the rural fire brigade. They are volunteers. They are normally not in attendance. People should ring 000. I will not turn around and ask you whether you agree or not, because last time I spoke to you about an obese person and I asked if you wrote to me you were nodding your head. But you should have been shaking your head, because you had not. Then afterwards you said that it was the member for Gympie. So if I ask you a question and you mean no— Mr Chris Foley interjected. 06 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 2735

Mr CUMMINS: That is right. That is no and that is yes. So I hope you— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will address his comments through the chair. Mr CUMMINS: I hope the member will go back to the residents in his electorate and say, 'Ring 000 in the case of all emergencies. Don't ring your rural fire brigade. Don't ring the police station. Don't ring the Minister for Racing and wish him a happy birthday. Ring 000.' Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I rise to a point of order. The minister's officers actually rang me back and apologised because the minister said he was confused about another person who has written to him regarding the same problem of obesity. Mr CUMMINS: I fully disagree with that. My staff have denied that, and I ask that the member retract it. Mr SPEAKER: You ask that it be withdrawn? Mr CUMMINS: I ask that he withdraw that statement. It is incorrect. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable member for Maryborough, you have been asked to withdraw. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Mr Speaker, how can I withdraw a statement that his officers made to me? They rang me. Mr SPEAKER: Because the minister asks you to withdraw that statement. It is just part of the rules. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Mr Speaker, is it appropriate for me to ask the minister to withdraw, because he is calling me a liar? Mr SPEAKER: Did the minister— Mr Cummins: No, I didn't use the word 'liar'. Mr SPEAKER: I think we are getting into a debate now, member for Maryborough. I think we will call it quits. I now call the honourable member for Broadwater. I think that is the easy way. Aviation Sector; Tourism Mrs CROFT: My question is to the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development. We have all heard the minister updating the House last week and today on positive trends in the domestic and international tourism sectors and predicting a tourism boom. Can the minister advise the House of visitor expenditure trends and the impact on the state's economy? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for Broadwater for her question. She is known throughout the Gold Coast for her strong advocacy when it comes to tourism and also her professional expertise in the tourism industry. It certainly is good news once again for the tourism industry. Queensland Treasury estimated the expenditure of domestic and international visitors to Queensland in June 1999 at a staggering $14.6 billion. The good news continues, because five years later there has been an absolutely dramatic increase in that spending. Tourists are flocking to Queensland both nationally and internationally and spending, spending, spending which means jobs, jobs, jobs. I am pleased to announce that Tourism Queensland's preliminary estimates for visitor spending for the year ending 30 June of this year is a massive $18.3 billion. That is an increase of $3.7 billion in just over five years. As I said, that is money spent right across Queensland—the most decentralised tourism state in all of Australia—creating jobs and boosting local economies the length and breadth of Queensland. Domestic visitors are big spenders, spending $10.7 billion. International visitors splashed out an estimated $5 billion and spending by daytrippers increased from $2 billion in 1999 to $2.5 billion this year. The tourism industry employs more than 150,000 Queenslanders, almost 10 per cent of our work force, and in some areas such as tropical north Queensland it is far more than that—probably 60 per cent to 70 per cent both directly and indirectly. Tourism is our second largest export industry, and I know that the member for Mount Isa, the Minister for State Development and Innovation, also recognises the importance of the tourism industry for outback Queensland. Government members interjected. Ms KEECH: Yes, the minister is. We are looking forward to the outback Queensland tourism function coming up soon. The drive market in particular accounted for just over 61 per cent of all domestic visitors to Queensland. This underlines the worth of the Beattie government's two-stage multibillion dollar drive tourism strategy. I particularly thank the Minister for Tourism—sorry, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads for his— Mr Beattie: He's not getting Tourism! Ms KEECH: He probably wants it, because it is such a booming industry. Mr Beattie: Well, he's not getting it! 2736 Questions Without Notice 06 Oct 2004

Ms KEECH: I thank the minister for his support of the drive tourism industry, which is going so very well. The number of domestic overnight drive market visitors to Queensland increased almost 10 per cent over the last three years, and this equates to 42.5 million visitor nights. Queensland hosted just over half of all international visitors to Australia for the year to 30 June, well over an eight per cent increase. The Beattie government recognises the worth of the tourism industry, and we are particularly very excited about the China market. Drought Assistance Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr Beattie: Here we go! Today's his birthday! Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries. Don't worry, Robbie. We'll let you off today. It's your birthday. Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: Your present is coming. I refer to the attack the minister launched on me in the Dalby Herald in which the minister accused me of not fighting for drought assistance. Minister, the federal government has injected $42 million into the downs region. How much has he given the downs region? Mr PALASZCZUK: I take offence at that remark that I made a savage attack on the honourable member. All I was doing was telling the truth. The reason why I was telling the truth is this: the honourable member is totally and completely confused between what exceptional circumstances provisions are and what the Queensland Drought Relief Assistance Scheme is. I tried to help the member. I tried to help the member in trying to work out the difference between the federal government and the state government. When we talk about exceptional circumstances funding— Opposition members interjected. Mr Hopper: How much money? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am finding it difficult to hear the minister's answer, and I am sure that many other members of this House are, too. I now call the minister and the House will come to order. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. Mr PALASZCZUK: When it comes to exceptional circumstances funding, the Queensland government contributes 10 per cent towards the business side of things. We have spent millions of dollars in that area. When it comes to the drought assistance scheme, we have spent a record amount of money over the past 16 months. Mr Johnson: How much? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked! Mr PALASZCZUK: While I am on my feet, I reckon the primary producers up in the Darling Downs regions, just like me, want to see the end of the reign of the Howard government because they, like me, believe Australia deserves better. Opposition members interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: They deserve less of John Howard, less of Abbott and Costello, less of Ruddock, less of Downer, less of Vanstone and the rest of that gang because— Mr HOPPER: I rise to a point of order. The question is definitely this: how much money did the minister spend in the downs region? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr PALASZCZUK: Australia deserves a federal government that will tell the truth—no lies about weapons of mass destruction, no lies about kids overboard, no lies about six-figure university degrees, no lies about health funding, no lies about the full privatisation of Telstra. What the honourable member over there should be doing is demanding the election of a Labor government. Opposition members interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Why? So he can stop defending the Howard government and for once stand up for Queensland. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! Order! Mr Johnson interjected. 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2737

Mr SPEAKER: Have you finished, member for Gregory? I have already given you a final warning, and I now warn you under standing order 252.

Cypress Timber Mr LIVINGSTONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I refer the minister to his recent announcement regarding resource security for the cypress pine milling sector, and I ask: what is the response to the resource allocation announcement and is the government investigating possible by-products of cypress, which is naturally termite resistant? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

COMMUNITY AMBULANCE COVER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 5 October (see p. 2704). Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill. This bill shows that this government listens. This government has listened since the commencement of this new scheme and this amendment bill shows that this government is tuning into the community's wishes in relation to this scheme. I must compliment the people in my own community who have brought before me various matters. I have made representations on those matters and those matters have been listened to very clearly by this government. Certainly in my electorate, particularly in areas such as Coorparoo where there are a lot of unit developments, a number of issues arose with regard to electricity metering on separate aspects of the corporate arrangements, such as security lights. So at the outset, I am very pleased to say that these matters have been listened to. I commend the people of my electorate for their patience and goodwill in understanding that this has been an evolving process to ensure that their concerns are addressed. Overall, this legislation represents a further step in the evolution of our Ambulance Service as well in that we have come from an era where this service was seen as a sort of clip-on charity in the community. My earliest memories in Rockhampton were attending the QATB carnival, which was actually a yearly fundraiser in a park. Basically, it was a fair with various stalls and food. As I said, it was a yearly event that the community got behind to support the local QATB committee. I am sure that similar events occurred all over the state and that many of us would have similar childhood memories of supporting our local ambulance. That era has certainly gone. We cannot rely on charity anymore. We cannot rely on the members of the community to put their hands in their pockets on what was essentially an unequal basis to support this service. It is also abundantly clear now that this service is incredibly important in terms of securing the prospect of survival from some sort of trauma. The technology that is available today is certainly very different from that which was available in the 1950s—the era to which I have just referred. Since that time the capacity to improve the chances of survival of a person who has been injured by early intervention has changed radically. That has come about not only by improvements in technology but also by the very superb levels of training that are now provided through the Queensland Ambulance Service. The paramedics on the ground who attend these incidents are well prepared and they have the technology. We cannot rely on charity anymore to fund the Ambulance Service. From the reaction in my community, I am confident that people have seen that it is important by one means or another to secure once and for all a cash flow and a budget for this service to be provided at the highest professional level that we can to secure safety for the wider community of all ages—ranging from women giving birth right through to elderly people. I am also very pleased that the funding that is now available to the Queensland Ambulance Service is manifesting itself in tremendous services on the ground in my electorate area, such as the new ambulance station that is going to be constructed as part of an emergency services precinct at Camp Hill. It will be constructed immediately adjacent to the Camp Hill Fire Station, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Chatsworth, but is basically located on the border of my electorate. My constituents will receive the benefit of this new ambulance station. This venture will mean that the Camp Hill kindy will have to be removed. A completely new centre will be constructed immediately adjacent to the new emergency services precinct on land that is now part of the Camp Hill State School. I thank the members of the kindy and the school communities for their positive approach to this matter. I am sure that, at the end of this process, we will have not only a superb new emergency services precinct but also a great new kindy to service the area. The kindy committee is very active, and I compliment them on the hard work that they have done over the years. I know that, with this new facility, they are going to be able to continue to deliver those services. Of course, the honourable 2738 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 06 Oct 2004 member for Bulimba has also been involved in this process. His constituents will also receive the benefit of this new ambulance station and kindy. This is very important legislation. It ensures the workability of this new regime to provide this very important cash flow to the Ambulance Service in the future so that we do not have to go back and quibble year after year about how much is being provided for this service. The community ambulance cover really entrenches once and for all a very sound funding base for this service. I can remember various inquiries and debates over the years as to whether the Ambulance Service was being funded appropriately. The community ambulance cover puts those inquiries and debates to an end. The finetuning that has resulted in this legislation ensures the community ambulance cover's workability. I commend the Treasurer for bringing this bill before the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (11.37 a.m.): The Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill once again gives us an opportunity to highlight the flawed way in which the free ambulance service for those people aged over 60 was funded and the serious misleading of the people of this state. This service was offered during an election campaign. The government had estimated the cost to be $17 million. After the election and after a year of the service being offered, we found out that the actual cost was in the order of $108 million. Once again we saw the way in which this government operates the finances of this state. We heard it again this morning. There was an off-the-top-of-the-head offer by the Treasurer at a previous session of parliament that compensation would be paid to all of those people who suffered from the dreadful series of blackouts which we probably will face in the future if the system keeps going the way it has been going. We find out today that the Treasurer had not even talked about it with his CEO. This is something that could cost the state hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. It would have to be funded by increases in electricity prices or funded from Treasury, yet the Treasurer had not even talked about it with the CEO of Energex. How derelict in his duty can the Treasurer be? Another example is this ambulance levy. This government just went to an election saying that the free ambulance service for the over 60s would cost $17 million. In the end it cost well over $100 million, so the new tax was introduced. We have already seen an increase in that tax. We moved a disallowance motion in that respect. The people of Queensland are stuck with this tax, because it is to pay for an unfunded promise and a promise that was not properly researched. Once again, it is the people of Queensland who are slugged. They have to pay this tax that was brought in. The inequity of the tax is another aspect, on top of the fact that the government had to bring in the tax to pay for an unfunded promise—a promise that was made not based on proper research. Any taxation system should be fair. This ambulance levy is an all-out assault on the small businesses of Queensland. A well-paid professional who lives in a house pays the levy once. A struggling hairdresser who lives in a house and has a little salon pays it twice. The levy will be paid on the house and on the business. Nothing could be more inequitable than the way the small businesses of Queensland have been attacked and assaulted by the unfair application of this levy. Many people who supported the ambulance in years gone by through subscriptions, donations and so on—they have faithfully supported the ambulance—have been hit with this tax many times over because they happen to be in one category of our community; that is, business operators who have more premises than simply their house. People paying the levy only once could be a well-paid professional, a director-general or a senior public servant with investments in shares and so on, whereas those who have a small business get slugged by this levy more than once. I have given the example of a hairdresser. It affects panel beaters and all sorts of other hardworking people. They pay the levy more than once. If they live in a house they have already paid the levy and they are covered wherever they go, so why hit people who have small businesses? The estimated actual return from the levy in 2003-04 is $92 million. The figure in the 2004-05 budget is $104 million. That is an increase of 13 per cent. Yet we saw a budget allocation increase of only 9.2 per cent. Obviously the government is creaming off money—getting more from this levy than it is paying out. In the 2003-04 budget expenditure on stations was $14.167 million. The forecast expenditure for the next year is only $10.65 million, a drop of $3.5 million. Whilst all of this extra money is coming in from the levy, there has been a drop in expenditure on ambulance stations. In summary, the levy was brought in to cover up Labor Party misrepresentation and incompetence at the election campaign—incompetence in researching and forecasting what the cost would be. It is an inequitable tax. It is unfair on small business. It is a straight-out assault that is an example of the government's don't-care attitude towards small business. Obviously not all of the money that has been raised is going back to the Ambulance Service. The government has pulled in a heap of money, but that has not transposed into a similar increase in the budget allocation. The ambulance officers at the Toowoomba Ambulance Station do wonderful work. I often have the opportunity to attend awards and functions at that station. Ours is an extremely busy district in an extremely busy area of the south-west region. A major highway goes through the city and there are a number of accidents on the Warrego Highway, which is the road that carries the most freight in Australia. It carries virtually all of the road freight from south-eastern Queensland to the southern states of Australia and in particular to Melbourne and Darwin. All of those trucks go through the city and traverse 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2739 some 16 sets of traffic lights. Somewhere in the order of 3,500 trucks, mostly B-doubles, go through the centre of our city every single day. There are increasing numbers of coal-hauling trucks coming through from the mines to the west, because Queensland Rail is not able to carry the traffic. There have been some very tragic accidents, particularly on the range. This is just typical of the very difficult work the ambulance officers have to undertake. I commend them for the professional and caring way in which they undertake their task. I also commend them for a service that has been going for many years now. That is, with a transit bus system they run patients down to the hospitals in Brisbane. That is particularly for those who need cancer treatment. It is a wonderful service. In recent times bus services out of the city have been halved and the price to travel to Brisbane has doubled. This service has made things just that little bit easier for pensioners suffering sickness and illness who have to go to the major Brisbane hospitals for treatment. It is our hope that eventually all of those treatments will be offered in Toowoomba. The hospital built during the era of the Borbidge government has the capability. We simply need to attract the people to staff it. A number of cancer patients have been able to utilise that bus service and it is much appreciated by those older people. I refer to the Star Care awards for excellence for 2004 for the south-western region, which were presented at the ambulance station in Toowoomba. It is good that the awards are presented in those facilities. It is nice to see the families who attend and the pride they have in their family member who is a recipient of these awards. Many of the award recipients come from Warwick, Gatton and other areas of the region. I congratulate Glen Maule and his staff for the way they operate services in our area. The awards were presented by Deputy Commissioner Neil Kirby, who spent his early years at the Toowoomba station, and Stephen Moore, who is the acting assistant commissioner for the south- western region. The paramedic of the year was Dennis Walker, the patient transport officer of the year was Chris Neave, the communications officer of the year was Letisha Kahler, the station of the year was Gatton station, the local ambulance committee achiever of the year was Clare McGowan and the support officer of the year was Marion Llewellyn. All of those officers represent various stations in our region. I think all accepted the awards not only on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of their fellow officers in the area. Ambulance services are just essential in our area. The work of the officers is outstanding. I know that at times they have been under great pressure in terms of the length of shifts. During my time in parliament ambulance officers have come to talk to me about the effects of the trauma. It is something that people do tend to forget. Whilst it might be a regular part of their job, it is very difficult for those of us who do not see that trauma directly to understand the effects it can have. I remember one officer telling me once how many years he had worked and that suddenly at one accident he just snapped, if you like, and found it very difficult to cope any longer. They are like the front-line troops from World War I in terms of the extent and type of trauma and suffering they see and the human comfort they have to provide to so many people. We should always salute our ambulance officers and give them a very sincere pat on the back for what they do and for the way in which they help so many people. This bill gives us the opportunity to remind this parliament and the people of Queensland about the responsibility of political parties, when they go to an election, to be honest and truthful in the promises that are made—to be honest and truthful about how much they are actually going to cost, not just use those promises to get elected and then slug the community with another unfair, inequitable tax to cover up the blatant mistakes and dishonest representations that had been made. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (11.49 a.m.): I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of the Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2004. This piece of legislation, I believe, provides some important exemptions, notably for persons who acquire multiple electricity connections because of a requirement to operate medical equipment. I am continually disappointed that the Howard government has not allowed this levy to be collected via Queensland citizens' Medicare levy. I believe it is an action that should have been taken by the federal government. I think the Queensland Ambulance Service is a great example of what can be achieved in the area of government service delivery in societies that have the political will to provide services like this. For too long in Australia, and notably in Queensland, there has been an almost bipartisan commitment to minimal provision of government services. This universal ambulance coverage for Queenslanders demonstrates very clearly that this Labor government is not a government that is committed to minimal service delivery. We are committed to providing a wonderful universal coverage for Queensland citizens. It is a service that I think justifiably is the envy of the nation and a great example of what can be achieved by a state government. One of the things that struck me when I first came to Australia was that the Ambulance Service was not operated by the national government. Universal ambulance cover is something that is commonplace in Europe and is expected. It is a shame that successive national governments have never taken any steps to provide this sort of coverage for Australian citizens. This is a great Queensland Labor government that has taken this step here in Queensland, and I am very proud to be a part of it. 2740 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 06 Oct 2004

Yesterday the member for Moggill compared the Queensland ambulance levy to England's window tax, and I want to touch upon this point very briefly. I do not think he could be more wrong. The ambulance levy is a levy that helps pay for a wonderful universal service which helps save lives. The window tax was a tax levied upon British citizens by William III, who some members of the House would know as William of Orange. It was a tax that was required because William of Orange had all but bankrupted England in his persecution and violent oppression of the people of Ireland. Many people in England bricked up their windows. People were not charged the tax unless they had more than six windows in their home. Many people in England bricked up their windows purely because they wanted to express some sympathy with the people of Ireland. I feel it is an inappropriate example, and I want to say very clearly that I do not think it is in any way appropriate to compare the ambulance levy—a levy which provides a wonderful universal ambulance coverage system for Queenslanders and which will save lives—to a tax that was levied in England in the 16th century and which was designed to oppress violently the people of Ireland. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.52 a.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2004. I support the extension of the levy exemptions to the various categories proposed in this bill, which includes stand-alone electricity accounts for hot-water systems; multiple electricity accounts for a place of residence in a building provided it is not used for an income- producing or business purpose; stand-alone electricity accounts for public park facilities such as barbecues, picnic shelters, walkways, rest rooms and war and similar memorial types; common property electricity accounts and master supply electricity accounts of buildings such as retirement villages, home units, attached townhouses, flats, shopping centres, offices and industrial buildings where the levy or an exemption already applies to each occupied unit, shop or office; stand-alone electricity accounts for security lighting where the levy or an extension already applies to the premises; and stand-alone electricity accounts for certain equipment required by a person because of a medical condition. I hope another day I will be able to stand in this chamber and speak in support of a further extension of these exemptions to individuals in Queensland so they have to pay this levy only once. I do not resile from the view that I believe we should have to pay this ambulance levy only once. A number of speakers have spoken about how this government will be remembered: that is, as a government which introduced a new tax in Queensland. There is no doubt that the Beattie government has introduced a new tax in Queensland known as the ambulance cover tax, but the reality is on 7 February we had an election and Queenslanders had a choice. Did they want to stick with the Beattie government or did they want to choose an alternative? History speaks for itself. They chose to stick with the Beattie government. They indicated that, notwithstanding their concern and the issues raised about the ambulance levy, they preferred the Beattie government to continue to lead Queensland. That is history and I do not want to pursue it any further, but history does speak for itself. Hopefully another day another government will come along and we will be able to speak about further extending the exemptions of the ambulance levy to ensure that people in Queensland have to pay only once. I want to take this opportunity to read into Hansard a letter I received from visitors from Tasmania. The letter is dated 24 September and it reads— Dear Mr Peter Wellington MP I am writing to you regarding an account we received from the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) for $800— And they attach a copy of the account. It continues— We were staying with our son at Landsborough at the time (we also have a daughter living in Nambour). I had symptoms of another heart attack, my wife rang for an ambulance and I was taken to Caloundra Hospital and was later transferred to Nambour Hospital where I spent three days with Gall Bladder problems. The distance from Landsborough to Caloundra is a total of 25km, this works out at a cost of $32 per km. My wife and I are Age Pensioners and in Tasmania, Ambulances are free to Pensioners, therefore you can understand the shock we were in when we received this account. We lived in Maroochydore for 14 years from April 1988-September 2002 (we moved back to Tasmania for health reasons). During our time in Maroochydore we subscribed to QAS because we knew we couldn't afford not to be in it. I went on a Disability Pension in 2002 after suffering a massive heart attack in 2001. I had been employed as a courier for Queensland Medical Laboratory for 13 years. My wife had already become an Aged Pensioner, and ambulances were free to Pensioners then, in this State. On receiving this account we rang QAS only to be told that interstate pensioners (visitors) are not covered and was advised to ring the Tasmanian Ambulance Service (TAS) to see if they would pay. On ringing TAS we were then told Queensland and South Australia are not reciprocal states. We, like thousands of Age Pensioners and other visitors from interstate, spend anywhere up to six months in Queensland during the winter period in Caravan Parks and Units. We inject a considerable amount of money into Queensland through Caravan Fees, rental of units, petrol, food, tourism, etc. This amount would run into the millions of dollars. These fees and rental all include electricity costs, so the owners of these premises get charged an Ambulance Levy. So why does this not cover the people staying at these premises? How many interstate visitors are aware of this situation regarding the Ambulance Service? What happens when a Queensland pensioner travels to Tasmania and has the need of an Ambulance. Who pays the cost then? Do we call an Ambulance next time or take the risk of driving to a hospital or not return to Queensland at all? Surely there is some way to overcome this situation of having to send exorbitant accounts like the one we received. As an Australian Age Pensioner we cannot afford Private Health Insurance. 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2741

We have the utmost respect and cannot speak highly enough of the paramedics in the QAS, and the staff of the Nambour Hospital. We have arranged to make monthly instalments as our financial situation allows. Would you be able to help in some way regarding this matter? We will also be contacting our Member of Parliament when we return home to Tasmania in October regarding this issue. They provide the address to which any correspondence can be forwarded. I table that letter for the benefit of other members and the minister. The reason I raise this issue is that it brings home to me that we are the tourist state—the tourist destination of people not just from overseas but also from interstate. I think it is more important today than ever before for our minister and the government to prioritise the importance of having reciprocal arrangements with other states. I understand a government member indicated there are now reciprocal arrangements with South Australia. I am not sure if that is the case. Mr McNamara: Queenslanders are covered interstate. Mr WELLINGTON: I understand that if Queenslanders who travel interstate need an ambulance the legislation in Queensland will ensure that they will not be out of pocket, and the government will pick up the tab for their ambulance fees. But the issue is that we are a tourist destination. Look at the weather we have here. We have wonderful weather 12 months of the year. We have people from other states throughout the length and breadth of this wonderful country of Australia visiting us. Yet how many pensioners—how many people—are not aware that when they drive over the border or take a pace over the border into Queensland they may not have ambulance cover? Just like these age pensioners who have been long-time residents of— Ms Keech: The other states need to follow Queensland's example. Mr WELLINGTON: Perhaps we need to work harder at having our ministers work together, and I take the interjection of the Minister for Fair Trading. We really do need to work harder not just as individual state governments but as a Commonwealth and as states in the wonderful country of Australia to ensure that, when our visitors visit Queensland, they are able to enjoy the great services that we have to offer. More importantly, it will ensure they will not be on the receiving end of an ambulance account because of a need for medical treatment. I use this opportunity to again reiterate the importance of the Queensland government, the Minister for Emergency Services, the Treasurer, the Premier and every minister being prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel to lobby their colleagues in other states at the ministerial forums to work harder and faster in ensuring that we have just and fair reciprocal arrangements with other states— especially Tasmania. I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to coming back into this chamber on another day at another time and speaking in support of the Queensland ambulance cover being extended to other Queenslanders so that they have to pay this levy only once. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (12.00 p.m.): I rise to support the Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill. I want to make a couple comments on the speech made by the member for Nicklin. Obviously the policy we had in regard to pensioners has been changed. There was an occasion in Oxford Street in my electorate where a lady collapsed and an ambulance was called. The ambulance officers told me that as long as she was a pensioner they did not care what state she came from; they would treat her for nothing, and they did. They took her to hospital for observation. I hope I am not giving up my ambulance officers. Mr Wellington: I think you might be, Pat. Mr PURCELL: We have changed some things there. Ambulance service is also free for Queenslanders, of course, when they go interstate. The other thing I will say to the member for Nicklin is that a lot of members on both sides of the House agree that we should be doing this like Medicare—on a universal basis, with a fraction of a per cent collected by the federal government being given back to the states which would cover everybody—and then we would not be having this argument and the problems we have now. We just need a federal government that will do that, and this government at the moment will not do that. It is one of the things— Mr Shine interjected. Mr PURCELL: I know Latham will do that. It is one of the bugbears that gets under my skin. I will talk about my local ambulance committee shortly. Because of the service ambulances give—particularly officers in stations—a lot of people donate and give support to that ambulance. That has been a tradition in Australia for many, many years. People cannot get a tax deduction for giving money to the Ambulance Service because it is a government body, therefore we do not encourage people to support the ambulance with money. I do not think it would hurt the federal government to make donations to the Ambulance Service through local ambulance committees tax deductible. I think a lot more money would flow into the Ambulance Service that way. 2742 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 06 Oct 2004

I now turn to the bill. I do not think there is a Queenslander who does not know what the community ambulance cover is. It has been a widely discussed and debated issue, and one that affects all Queenslanders. It has had its own teething problems. This legislation provides additional exemptions from the community ambulance cover levy. These exemptions were announced late last year, and they have been operating on an administrative basis ever since. This is really a tidying up of that. Everybody in this place agrees that we need a properly resourced Ambulance Service and an Ambulance Service that gives prompt attention and saves lives. The fact is that we have come from a district based ambulance. It is sad, isn't it, that I have been in this place long enough to remember that! Until the Labor Party came into power in Queensland, people received as good a service as the people in their district gave to their Ambulance Service. That is why our local ambulance committees came about. Some services, particularly where I was in country areas, were appalling. The service was relying on people giving donations, but now this is a state based funded service it has to be funded correctly, and this is one way we are going about doing that. I would also like to speak about my LAC, the Balmoral and District Ambulance Committee. I particularly point out two people on that committee who work very hard. They are a husband and wife team, Brian and Barbara Daley. Brian is the president of the Balmoral and District Ambulance Committee. Brian is a very conscientious president. He takes the job of raising funds for the ambulance for people in his area very seriously. He is a very, very good listening post for the community. People in the community approach Brian with any concerns that they may have about ambulances. He takes them on board and he takes it up with the Ambulance Service on their behalf. When seminars are put on— usually once a year—for local ambulance committees to come together to put their opinions forward about matters to do with the Ambulance Service Brian has always attended them in his own time. He is an exemplary person in our community who really cares for people. He is working very hard for all of us on the local ambulance committee. His wife, Barbara, is the secretary. For the people who know Barbara, she is very, very efficient at what she does. Barbara is the driver of the fundraising for the local ambulance committee. She works up the rosters for us all to do our time selling raffle tickets at shopping centres and so forth. It is through Brian and Barbara's efforts—and, of course, the rest of the committee—that the local Balmoral and District Ambulance Committee has raised over $100,000 in about a 10-year period. That is no mean feat when members think that is about $10,000 a year. I wish to thank Brian and Barbara Daley, Bill Appleby—who has not been in real good health of late and recently sadly lost his wife, and who has been our treasurer and a hardworking member for many years—Dawson Corrigan, Trevor Lawson, Caroline Williams, Vince Ford, Robyn O'Toole, Denise O'Shay, Jan Prasecki, Ernie Adsett and Shayne Sutton, who has just come on to the committee. She is our local councillor for Morningside. Shayne is working very hard for the community; she has hit the ground running. Shayne finds time in her very busy schedule to come along to our ambulance committee meetings once a month. I congratulate all those people on our local ambulance committee for the very hard work that they do and will continue to do. The other people in the equation are the Balmoral and district ambulance officers. They are dedicated, hardworking and very, very professional officers looking after people in the area of Bulimba and its surrounds. I thank them on behalf of our community. I get mail and calls into my office. Politicians would realise that we do not often get pats on the back in our job, but we get a number of them through the Ambulance Service. It is because of the hard work and dedication of these officers that we get those. We get donations because of the ambulance officers—because of what they do and how they look after people. On behalf of the community in the Balmoral and district area and on behalf of the LAC I thank those officers for all the hard work they do and ask them to continue to do it. I know a lot of them have upgraded themselves to paramedics so they can take care of every patient's needs. It is a fact of life that more and more people get to hospital alive because of our ambulance officers and the hard work they do. That is what the Ambulance Service is about. I hear members from the opposition talk about various aspects of the Ambulance Service and what it does, but I can assure those members that when they need an ambulance it is going to be there, and those officers will do everything humanly possible to get them to hospital alive. If members talk to the nurses and doctors in the emergency departments and in the hospitals they are saying that people are getting there alive, they are getting there in better condition and they are getting there in a condition where they can be saved because of the work of the ambulance officers who are getting them there as fast as they possibly can. I support the bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Croft): Before calling the next member, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Middle Park State School in the electorate of Mount Ommaney. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (12.10 p.m.): The unfair and inequitable ambulance tax is still impacting people who have to pay it more than once. This legislation ratifies a number of exemptions from the tax, which applies to people's electricity accounts. However, there are still thousands of ordinary Queenslanders being hit with multiple ambulance taxes. 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2743

We will not forget that the Beattie Labor government imposed the new tax, breaking its promise not to do so after it mucked up the costings for another promise: free ambulance travel for pensioners. Free ambulance travel for pensioners was supposed to cost only $20 million but the true cost blew out to more than $100 million. It was a lovely promise and we were happy to support the policy, but we were lied to about the costings. Labor governments are good at promising things and bad at funding them. We have seen that with the Energex debacle and the Treasurer's performance today where he admitted he had not spoken to the CEO of Energex when he made an announcement for a compensation scheme for people suffering from power failures. Because of this management failure of the Beattie government in the ambulance system there are now small business people in my area paying the ambulance tax up to 11 times. I suspect that some of the members opposite have the idea that if they have that many power bills they must be wealthy people. There are many businesses that have electricity accounts for individual sites which enable them to operate their businesses; but they do not necessarily have a lot of turnover on those individual sites. This is an inequitable tax; it unfairly hits people. It has no reference to the ability of people to pay just because they have an electricity bill. The ambulance levy has gone up but the amount being spent on capital infrastructure such as ambulance stations went backwards in the last budget. This ambulance funding needs to be fairer—it must be fairer. These exemptions are still a drop in the bucket. This issue will not go away until it is made fairer. There seems to be, as you would expect, bipartisan support across this House for the work that our ambulance officers do. We all know that they do a superb job. It is a very trying job, particularly with road trauma. Road trauma is a large proportion of the work in many areas, particularly the Sunshine Coast. Their work has been complicated by the fact that many hospitals are now going into bypass and sending their patients to hospitals further away, not because their most local hospital does not have the skill and the quality of staff to do that work but because they are overstressed and overstretched and have to pass patients on to hospitals further and further away. I am concerned that this impact has not been factored into the costs that have been put upon the system, and it means that ambulances are going to be on the road for longer and out of the area of care where they need to be to respond to emergencies and to make sure that people are taken in the most timely way to the closest appropriate hospital. This issue is only getting worse and it is of major concern because it impacts upon that net of care that the ambulance services are there to provide. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (12.13 p.m.): I have much pleasure in supporting this bill. I will just get my speaking notes right. An opposition member: Just tell us what you think. Mr REEVES: The member for Maroochydore tricked me. An opposition member: Just tell us what you think. Mr REEVES: I will. An opposition member: Don't worry about reading that rubbish. Mr REEVES: The community ambulance cover scheme has ensured that the Queensland Ambulance Service has a solid and predictable funding base for the first time in its 112-year history. Every cent the QAS receives from the community ambulance cover is spent on ambulance services. This year's budget proves a record $300.8 million has been allocated to the Queensland Ambulance Service to boost paramedic numbers, provide new and redeveloped stations and new vehicles. I had the pleasure of hosting the Minister for Emergency Services at the Mount Gravatt Ambulance Station recently. The minister came to hand over a new Ford Transit patient transport service vehicle valued at over $94,000. The Mount Gravatt Ambulance Station has been on the corner of Logan and Wishart Road for as long as I can remember. I used to walk past there on my way to school. The station is presently managed by Stephen Owens, who does a terrific job. The station workload consists of over 7,000 emergency cases per year and over 3,000 patient transport cases per year. The station consists of 18 staff: one OIC, 14 paramedics—seven advanced care paramedics, one Queensland ambulance officer, six student paramedics—and three patient transfer officers. The station has a training room, a study room, a 10-ambulance parking bay and a dedicated ambulance wash bay and storage area. The original station was built before I was born. It was opened in 1961. It was rebuilt and officially opened in 1990. The station has five class 1 emergency response and transport capable ambulance vehicles and two patient transport vehicles. One of them was the patient transport vehicle that was handed over by the Minister for Emergency Services recently. The station is situated to provide backup support to Sunnybank, South Brisbane, Nathan and Balmoral ambulance stations and the southside of the city due to quick access to the South East Freeway and the Gateway Arterial road. Prior to the Nathan Ambulance Station being built, the Mount Gravatt Ambulance Station was the principal intensive care paramedic training station. 2744 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 06 Oct 2004

The Mount Gravatt Ambulance Station has a very active and supportive local ambulance committee. The president for a number of years, who is still the vice-president, was Harry Penkeyman. I know Mr Penkeyman well as I used to live a couple of doors down from him. The current president is Cameron Dick, who does a terrific job. The members opposite would think he is a Labor mate because he has volunteered to work in the ambulance station. The secretary is Carol Scothern. The treasurer is Judy Turnbull. She is a wonderful lady who fundraises extremely well. The committee members consist of Ben and Thelma Muirhead, Margaret Organ, Jill Henderson and Marie Hayes. The LAC has funded equipment in the training room as well as on-road patient care equipment. The LAC does terrific work. Every year they go to the Mount Gravatt show and run a fundraising stall. They have conducted open days. The Mount Gravatt Local Ambulance Committee also does first aid courses. The first aid courses are very well received. Mr Wallace: They do a good job in my area too. Mr REEVES: I would imagine they do a good job in a lot of areas. We support them and they support the community; they do a terrific job. The Mount Gravatt Local Ambulance Committee has recently contributed funding to patient care equipment to the value of $900. The Mount Gravatt Ambulance Station has recently had completed minor works to the value of $6,500 to renovate the station's kitchen area. In January 2004 the station had a new airconditioner installed to the value of $3,000. The Mount Gravatt Ambulance Service does a terrific job. It is great that we have a good funding base to be able to support the Ambulance Service. Without the community ambulance cover this would not be the case; we would not have been able to have that record budget of $300.8 million. An extra 110 paramedics were employed by the QAS during 2003-04. There will be an additional 240 paramedics over three years. This is the largest boost to paramedic numbers in the history of the Queensland Ambulance Service. This is aimed squarely at addressing the growing demands for ambulance services caused by Queensland's growing and ageing population. The budget also provides a boost in funding for new vehicles and upgraded equipment. The increased funding has enabled a boost to the QAS capital budget of $31.1 million. This includes funding to provide nine replacement or redeveloped ambulance stations, two new stations and one field officer residence at Cooktown to be completed in 2004. $9.9 million has been provided for new and replacement ambulance vehicles across the state. This is a great service. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.20 p.m.): I rise to address the Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill, which addresses exemptions to the compulsory community ambulance cover which was brought in on 11 November 2003. Since the introduction of the bill on 1 July 2003, a significant number of exemptions have had to be implemented. Most exemptions pertaining to this bill have been operating on an administrative basis since that time. This bill seeks to remedy that situation. The ambulance levy was one of the most contentious issues ever debated in this parliament. There has been no other bill which has incensed people like this one. It resulted from an election promise of the Labor government. As with all promises made by any government they have to be paid for in some way. The money has to come from somewhere. The promise made by this government was that all seniors would have free access to ambulance cover. The costing of this was underestimated by a massive amount and taxing on the general populous was the only way to cover the accounting miscalculation. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whilst there was great concern that a fundamental right of a person to choose whether or not to have ambulance cover had been removed, the majority of the general public, I believe, have had or have no real problem with the concept of ensuring that our Ambulance Service is properly funded and maintained to the appropriate community expectation. However, the speed with which the government drafted and introduced the bill caused it to be badly flawed. As in all things the old saying 'act in haste, repent at leisure' could be applied to this piece of legislation. All the flaws showed up pretty much straight away and—as most members in this House could attest—people were not happy. Although the government was prepared to bluff its way out of the mess, the outcries outlining the bill's unfairness have been loud and long. This has forced the government to address the unfairness through the amendment process. The amendment bill we are debating now is yet another example of that. It also reflects the most fundamental flaw that I see in this government. It has a tendency to act in haste. Many bills pass through this House. There have been times in debates where the relevant minister has introduced a wad of amendments that at times are thicker than the original bill. At other times the government gets an idea, introduces poorly constructed legislation and then, when there is a hue and cry from the public, finds itself having to clean up the mess created by the legislation over months or years. Until all Queenslanders pay the levy once and only once the ambulance cover legislation will never be viewed as totally fair. There are many people who have slipped and always will slip through the net. They include people who share a residence—such as a group of seven young people in a single 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2745 residence I know of—people on solar power or generators or people who reside with a pensioner parent. All those people are free from paying this particular tax. When council refused to be the government tax collectors the plan was hatched to have the power companies collect it. When people said that they would pay only one account containing the ambulance levy and for the second, third and fourth accounts they would deduct the levy and only pay the electricity amount, the government decided that the first $22 of the power bill would be the ambulance tax and customers would thereby be refusing to pay the power bill. Therefore, they would risk their power being cut off. Some have opted to test this, as many members in the House have said. They have been threatened with termination of their power. This government says that it is a government for all Queenslanders. It is a government which condones extortion. What else can one call it when it conspires to make it impossible for people not to pay more than once? It condones blackmail by threatening families that they will have their power disconnected. It threatens that their credit ratings will be affected. The collection of this tax is placing hardship on people. Centrelink has now made it possible to have power bills deducted from Centrelink payments on a regular or one-off basis to ensure that its customers can meet their power bill obligations and the ambulance levy. I can understand how many of the government members can say in all honesty—and I do not doubt their honesty—that they have had few complaints from their constituents about this tax. The reason is that in most of their electorates the majority of people do not have businesses; they live in a single dwelling. They are usually in a dwelling that has been pretty recently built. They have not had to pay the levy more than once and therefore have had no reason to complain at all. Questions arise about this levy. Where does the money go once it gets into consolidated revenue? Why are there rostering problems and ambulance officers raising concerns? The demands on ambulance staff can be gruelling because they have to attend traumatic accidents and clean up the mess of a society which does everything to excess, be that speed, drink, drugs or sport. It is down to the dedication of these personnel that the service succeeds at all. I have often seen figures touted by the government concerning response times to 000. During the height of summer the Murgon area gets extremely hot. I attended a service at the local RSL club which is about 100 yards away from the ambulance station. The Minister for Emergency Services knows where the ambulance station is because we both attended it very recently. It is not very far away from the RSL club. During the service an elderly veteran collapsed and the ambulance was called immediately. It was extremely frustrating for everybody there to be able to see the ambulance station and have to wait almost 30 minutes for the ambulance to arrive. Listening to similar tales from rural members in this House and then listening to city based members saying they have no such problems, I can only conclude that the rural services are less than equal to the city services. I often hear tales of ambulances having to be redirected from a neighbouring town because the local ambulance is off at a third destination. I have also been told of delays in excess of eight hours and the air ambulance being used when a car would have sufficed. As one who is very careful with my pennies, I cannot see that as being very efficient. As I stated earlier, this legislation has created more resentment than any other. Everyone who works in a business, whether they are the owners, the staff or the customers, has supposedly paid the ambulance levy. So any call to that premises will be to a person who has paid the levy. Why then does the business operator have to pay again and again? I take this opportunity to thank the minister for his visits to the electorate. I believe he got a feel for the size of it as we travelled to quite a few towns. Through the awards that were presented, he can see that the people in rural electorates take very seriously their duty and obligation to the community in which they live. Everybody in those towns should be proud of the dedicated services provided not only by ambulance personnel but also by other emergency service personnel. They should be proud of those people behind them, especially their families and the LAC. This bill does not go far enough. In time, I am hoping to see more exemptions tabled in the House until the day arrives when all people, including business houses, pay this levy only once. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. C.P. CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (12.28 p.m.): I speak in support of the Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill and address numerous misleading claims of non-government members. I do not know whether they did it intentionally or told pork pies to the House in ignorance. Community ambulance cover delivers a solid and predictable funding base for the first time in the Ambulance Service's 112-year history. Every cent that the QAS receives from the CAC is spent on the Ambulance Service. This financial year the QAS received a record budget of $308 million, not, as the member for Burdekin said—obviously confused about the ambulance budget—a budget of $246 million. The CAC does not raise the entire amount for the QAS budget. The Beattie government still significantly contributes to the QAS over and above the CAC amount. Some $104 million is raised by the CAC and 2746 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 06 Oct 2004 the entire budget for the QAS is over $300 million. Since 1998, funding for the Ambulance Service in Queensland has risen by about $130 million. On the issue of the location of stations raised by the member for Hinchinbrook, I say this: I have opened a station in Howard in the electorate of Maryborough, a station in the electorate of Burnett and a station at Boyne Island in the electorate of Gladstone. I am about to open a joint facility in the electorate of Mirani. I note that yesterday during his contribution to this debate the member for Mirani said that he was the opposition spokesperson for the Ambulance Service, so it seems that the poor old member for Hinchinbrook may be out of a job. This year we will also open a new station in Boonah and will have handed out vehicles in many non- government electorates, including— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr CUMMINS: Hear, hear! As I was saying, we have handed out vehicles in many non- government electorates in towns such as Coolangatta, and Toogoolawah in the electorate of Nanango, as was mentioned by the member in her contribution to this debate. I have recently announced a brand- new station for Gympie and we are purchasing land for facilities in Roma. These are not political decisions and are based on need and growth, and I must point out that most members appreciate facilities being delivered for their constituents. Funding of $5.6 million in 2004-05, which is part of a $35.9 million commitment over three years, has provided for an additional 240 paramedics over the next three years, with the first 100 paramedics commencing during the 2004-05 year. This is on top of the extra 110 paramedics employed by the QAS during the 2003-04 financial year. A search of Hansard on 31 August shows that the member for Caloundra has a belief that prior to the CAC the Ambulance Service was free. Perhaps the member for Robina should approach one of the other three Liberals to be the shadow shadow minister for emergency services as the member for Caloundra is clearly clueless as to how the QAS operated in the past or in the present. Mind you, the member for Currumbin is also sadly out of touch when she criticises the union's move—a positive move—to ensure the safety of all paramedics. These moves are backed by independent research. Roster reforms were rightly put forward by the union, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, to ensure the workplace health and safety of our paramedics was not endangered by working such long shifts such as a 14-hour shift. These rosters have been done in consultation with paramedics. We are delivering 350 paramedics over four years. Anyone can see that this will mean that there will be an adjustment to the rosters. The member for Burdekin said that the LAC has been undervalued in her area. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, since the CAC was introduced, the Home Hill station has received a brand- new Mercedes ambulance vehicle which has been well received by the community. LACs are as vital to the Queensland community and the Department of Emergency Services today as they were when the Ambulance Service was formed in the last millennium. Our thanks go to all LAC members for their support. The member for Hinchinbrook also raised the issue of interfacility transports in Bowen. The QAS receives requests by facsimile or for interhospital transfers from the Department of Health in emergency situations by telephone. I am advised that the QAS has no record of any requests for the transfer of a 14-year-old boy with appendicitis from the Bowen Hospital to the Townsville Hospital. The QAS has contacted the Bowen Hospital and nursing staff advised that the matter of patient transfer was discussed between the doctor and the parents of a child. As a result of those discussions, no official request—no official request—for transportation was placed with the QAS. Had the QAS received a request to transport the 14-year-old boy from the Bowen Hospital to the Townsville Hospital, the QAS had the available resources to undertake the request. Yes, it had available resources to undertake this request. So in future the Nationals' shadow emergency services spokesperson needs to get the facts right before he misleads the House. There have been a number of cases recently where members of the public have moved seriously injured victims of accidents and driven them to hospital. This can seriously worsen their injuries or even cause death. I am sure that these people have very good intentions and think that they are doing the best for the victims. They probably believe that taking accident victims to an ambulance station or hospital will save time, but it does not. In fact, they are putting the patient at a very real risk. Ambulance crews responded to more than 600,000 cases in 2003-04, which equates to a demand for services every 49 seconds. Like other leading ambulance services around the world, our crews are to be found out on the road most of the time. Therefore, the QAS urges anyone who comes across a serious accident to stay put and call 000 straightaway. I request all members, especially those opposite, to refer to triple zero and not triple O, because nowadays with SMS texting it is triple zero and not triple O. If anyone is in doubt about what to do in the event of coming across a serious accident, they should be proactive and contact the QAS about doing a first-aid course. Our QAS communications centres have also been brought into question during this debate. The rationalisation of communications centres is to maximise the use of available resources and modern technology. This is not an uncommon practice. Advances in our communications process will make this even better into the future. In areas such as Quilpie, Greenvale and Richmond the QAS has been 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2747 talking to the community about the best way to deliver services. This is not a one-size-fits-all scenario. However, the QAS is committed to delivering services to all Queenslanders, whether by local paramedics, first responders or our helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. At no time have I said that the residents of Jericho do not deserve an ambulance officer because they are too careful. I would expect better from the current member for Charters Towers. At my request the QAS is also reviewing the standby and charging arrangements for ambulance attendance at community events such as polocrosse, country races and country shows. As a result of the issues raised during the debate by the member for Gladstone, I have also asked for a review of all emergency services—ambulance, fire and counterdisaster service—staffing levels within her electorate. If there are not enough, we will resolve it. If there are too many, then we will act accordingly. I am sure that the member for Gladstone will support this decision as she called for it during the debate. The Beattie government values its hardworking paramedics. They are the most trusted professionals out there, closely followed by our firies, and they deserve our sincere thanks. There has been a 10 per cent increase in code 1 and code 2 calls—that is, attending to those people in under 10 minutes. That means 8,631 more patients have been attended to in under 10 minutes than in the previous financial year. Response times have improved, so any non-government member who says that response times are getting worse is misleading the House. The member for Currumbin also raised response times. I note that she missed mentioning the part of my letter which stated that response times on the Gold Coast had improved. I also note that she neglected to mention that Southport and Runaway Bay are consistently over 70 per cent and that in August response times were 64.39 per cent for Mudgeeraba. I cannot actually keep up with the amount of pork pies that have been stated in this House in the last two days about our fantastic QAS. The member for Maryborough has spoken about obese patients. The question without notice he raised in this House on 2 September did not mention road accidents at all. That issue was raised in his consequent letter that he nodded that he had sent but which arrived only after my staff contacted him and asked for further information about the issue he had raised. I have responded, and I table the letter and the response. My staff simply rang him to clarify his confusion. A quick check of the dates of the letter will clarify this. I also table my speech notes for the opening of the Howard Ambulance Station. At no time did I mention that Howard was in the electorate of Hervey Bay. I can only assume that the residents of Howard wished that they were in the electorate of Hervey Bay, because the member for Hervey Bay is an advocate for all people in the area. I stand by my comment that the member for Hervey Bay fights hand over fist for his region. On the incident raised by the member about an elderly gentleman who collapsed at the local Woolies, a call was received at 9.45 a.m. and the gentleman was in the local hospital by 10.18 a.m. However, I have asked for the other issues raised to be investigated. Mr Seeney: Have a drink; you'll do your voice damage. Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member very much. I know he worries about my health. I would like to commend all members of the House who sing the praises of our hardworking paramedics. It is ludicrous for any member to say, ‘I do not wish to criticise the ambulance system', and then go ahead and criticise the ambulance system—whether they criticise the communications centres, their LAC volunteers, or the patient transport people. The primary focus of LACs has evolved from fundraising activities to raising the awareness in their community of the QAS, promoting community preparedness in an emergency and providing advice on ambulance matters to the commissioner and assistant commissioner through their attendance at meetings and conferences. Yes, the majority of them continue to proactively raise considerable funds. Part of the expansion of the role of LACs includes the introduction of educational bursaries and the active promotion of the CPR for Life. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (12.41 p.m.): We have had a wide-ranging debate on the funding regimes of ambulance coverage over recent times. During that debate, some of the members opposite referred to the good old times when ambulance officers would be selling raffle tickets outside the ambulance station for hours at a time and when the funding for the Ambulance Service depended on subscriptions. A huge percentage of the time was taken up with people trying to gain more members or trying to get people to retain their membership of the ambulance scheme. For a number of people, this system became a bit of a lottery—a sort of an insurance gamble—as to whether they did or did not take out ambulance cover. If they chose to take out the ambulance cover, then they paid their amounts of money each year. If things were tight and they did not pay the money and needed an ambulance, then they were faced with a bill of up to $600 on average for ambulance transport. I remember when a former member, Jim Elder, tabled his review of the ambulance cover. It was realised that, realistically, a statewide system, properly funded, had to be put in place. How would members feel if members of the Queensland Police Service were selling raffle tickets outside police stations and trying to get people to subscribe to the Police Service in order to provide funding for crime prevention? We just would not countenance that, yet that is what was happening with the ambulance system of earlier decades. That in no way takes away from the magnificent work of the local ambulance 2748 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 06 Oct 2004 committees—the past and the present committees. However, the work that they did in the past contributed to the core funding of the Ambulance Service and it should not have. We are in new times. We have highly trained ambos and paramedics. They can provide the highest level of patient care ranging from first aid to serious injury. Gone are the days where the QATB had an emphasis on the 'T' in its name, that is, the transportation side. I well remember Tom Burns as Emergency Services Minister in the early 1990s telling me that he had a discussion with one of his constituents—a woman from Wynnum—who on a regular basis would come up in the ambulance to the Princess Alexandra Hospital for treatment. She would come up in the morning and then go home later in the afternoon. One day she was told that she would be transported in the morning, having her treatment and then quickly going home. She said, 'You can't do that. I have to go and do my shopping.' This person was using the ambulance as a subsidised taxi scheme to get from Wynnum to the city. She would go and do her shopping, come back to the PA Hospital after lunch and get the ambulance back home. That is not what the modern ambulance system should be about. It is probably what it never should have been about. I am in high praise of our ambulance officers who are faced with some horrific situations. They attend a growing number of cases of drug overdoses or life-threatening situations and they save people's lives. That is what a modern ambulance system should do. There has to be a system to pay for it. The question is: what is that system to be and how is it to operate? The one constant message that I hear from members opposite is that some people are paying the community ambulance cover levy more than once. We are yet to hear from the members opposite how they would amend the system so that it would, in fact, be a fairer system across the board. I have not heard from any of the speakers opposite about the benefits that the community ambulance cover provides to so many people—those pensioners who previously would not dare miss their subscription in case they had a fall and they needed the ambulance, because they could not afford the $600 transfer fee that is payable for a non-ambulance subscriber. I also do not hear from the members opposite the thanks from the P&Cs and the P&Fs who now do not have to allocate the money for the group coverage schemes that applied in our schools. Perhaps the members opposite and some of the newer members have never been to a meeting of a P&C association at which they have been discussing their budget and they have had to allocate an amount of money for their school coverage scheme so that on any school outing or school occasion, without wondering about the individual child's subscription eligibility or not, they could call on the ambulance and that person could receive ambulance coverage. The members opposite have concentrated on a small group of people who they believe are receiving a bad deal. They have to acknowledge—and I think they have in that they are supporting this bill—that the exemptions that are now being recognised are part of a sorting-out process of the community ambulance cover. The member for Callide referred to a retired gentleman who was doing a bit of mowing and to whether he parked the cars in the shed or parked the mowing equipment in the shed. I am certain that the member for Callide would know—because he is the shadow spokesperson for Treasury—that there are specific regimes of taxation and income that deal with that situation. He would know that if that shed was being used to house the mower and that man was getting an income from that mower, he would be declaring that income. That income would not be part of the black economy. That man then would have been able to claim any charges against his tax. I am sure that the member for Callide would alert his constituent to the fact that, because he would be declaring that income and because he has been charged the community ambulance cover levy on that shed, which is part of his income-generating activities, then it is tax deductible. I hope that the member for Callide would take that information back to his constituent. I also wish that I had the problem that was raised by a couple of other members of having to pay the $88 a year on my holiday home or on my investment property. A constituent who came to me owned seven units. He complained about what was going on. I said to that person, ‘With the income from each of those seven units, the $88 a year'— Mr Cummins: $90.20 now it is. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Sorry, 'The $90.20 cents a year over the cost of that unit with every other element of income and expenditure is absolutely minimal.' I had a bit of a mutual disagreement with that constituent of mine. Mr Reeves: Robust debate. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Robust debate might be a better description. I suggested to this gentleman that if he was in the position of owning seven units, then $90 a year per unit to contribute to a statewide scheme—in fact a national scheme—does not represent a great problem. Am I right, Minister, that if a person from New South Wales is up here and they have an accident the ambos cover them? Mr Cummins: We cover all Queenslanders anywhere in Australia. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: So a Queenslander who has an accident in New South Wales would be covered here. 06 Oct 2004 Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Bill 2749

Mr Cummins: And if New South Wales had the same— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Members will direct their comments through the chair. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I thank you for your assistance, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the minister for his assistance. I wish I had that problem. A $90 a year problem for owning a unit, an investment home or a holiday home would be a lovely problem to have. I would like to speak about the Chermside Local Ambulance Committee. Its president, Daryl Gould, has done a tremendous job over a number of years. Just a couple of weekends ago, during Ambulance Week, the Chermside station was open on the Sunday and a lot of people came through. Daryl was there. I know that Tracey Absolom was selling the raffle tickets. Mrs Lyn Cobb, the secretary, does a fantastic job for the LAC. They did a great job working with the trained officers in opening the station, showing people around the station and increasing awareness in the community of the work they do. I know that the LAC does other things. For example, the minister would be aware—we have had some correspondence—of the difficulties with ambulances coming out on to Hamilton Road, next to the fire station and just to the east of the very large roundabout on Webster Road. Because it is such a large roundabout the cars can maintain relatively high speed, still within the speed limit of course. Then as they are coming up the hill of Hamilton Road they are often merging. In the mornings the eastern sun is shining in their eyes. The ambulance officers and their colleagues the firies next door have experienced some difficulty in getting out onto busy Hamilton Road. Daryl Gould and the LAC, working with the ambos, have approached me to see if we could resolve that. They have also gone to the local councillor, Faith Hopkins, who is also a very good supporter of the LAC and works very closely with her community. I thank the minister for agreeing to look at the situation. The solution that is emerging is flashing lights on demand. That might be exactly what is required. I believe that permanent lights would not be good because people would learn to ignore them, whereas the flashing lights are different. I think that would be an excellent solution. Here I am emphasising that the local ambulance committee, working with the minister's officers and with elected members and the community, is coming to an agreed-upon solution that will be safer for ambulance staff, safer for those using Hamilton Road and better for everyone all round. Mr Cummins: They are a great link to the community. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: The LACs are a great link to the community. I must confess that I have some reservations in that I do not think they should be fundraising arms. I think they should really be policy direction arms and not have to be involved in fundraising. One of the local schools, Mount Alvernia College, is located between Somerset and Cremorne roads. It has a new complex—the San Damiano Centre—which is wired separately from the main part of the school, and the school was receiving two accounts. The school had no problem paying the two accounts, provided that applied to all schools. It asked whether in fact it applied to government and non- government schools. A letter from Neil Roberts, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, mentioned that religious bodies are exempt in relation to premises used solely or almost solely for church or other places of worship. That did not apply in this case as it is a school. The letter states— There is no specific exemption for school electricity accounts. While an exemption is available for electricity accounts relating to the provision of core government services or public infrastructure, this does not extend to electricity accounts for State schools. The school now knows that the same rule applies to non-government and government schools. I am certain that it will be happy to pay those accounts because it will actually be a saving on the group scheme it used to be involved with. I recognise that there are some difficulties that may still have to be worked out, but I appreciate that the Treasurer is responding to community need and community requests to see what should be done in this regard. I come back to the overarching principle behind this. I believe that the Ambulance Service has to be funded from general revenue to cover its core costs. It should not rely on subscriptions, which are a bit of a lottery for the residents of Queensland. The new funding regime, which guarantees revenue out of government funding, is what is needed. I support the amendments before the House, because I believe they represent finetuning of the legislation. I encourage the Treasurer and the Minister for Emergency Services to continue their fine work in this regard. I support the bill before the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 25, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. 2750 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Order! I welcome to the public gallery staff and students of Gayndah State School in the electorate of Callide.

MARINE PARKS BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 17 August (see p. 1846). Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (2.00 p.m.): The National-led government put in place in 1982 the Marine Parks Act, which was a great step forward for the marine environment. The National Party has the strongest environmental credentials of any political party in this House. Government members: Ha, ha! Mr RICKUSS: Unlike some of the members opposite who are content to bathe in meaningless rhetoric, conservative governments have implemented meaningful ways to manage and preserve our environment rather than just talk about it. For instance, it was the National Party which established the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service in Queensland. In 1976 it was a conservative government which saw sandmining cease on Fraser Island and which subsequently placed Fraser Island on the Register of National Estate. In 1978 the Queensland Noise Abatement Authority was created by a conservative government. The Nationals in 1981 ensured that the Great Barrier Reef received World Heritage listing and in 1988 ensured that the Wet Tropics area received World Heritage listing. Again in 1987 a conservative government established the Queensland Department of Environment, Conservation and Tourism. However, one of the conservative government's most important achievements was the introduction of the Marine Parks Act 1982. The act—a legislative landmark for its day—was to ensure sound management and preserve our pristine marine parks. It is an act which the National Party is extremely proud of. The management of national parks is something which this side considers a very important responsibility of government. An honourable member interjected. Mr RICKUSS: That was not part of the Marine Parks Act, was it? The Marine Parks Bill 2004 needs some amendment. If changes at the consideration in detail stage allow the public due process, we will support this bill. Whilst the National Party will always support the sound management of national parks, we cannot in good conscience support the bill as it stands at the moment because it wipes away the people's right to public consultation. Proposed sections 31(4) and 36(6) are of particular concern to me and my National Party colleagues. An inclusive government and an honest government will not try to hide the truth from the public or manipulate information. However, Queensland is lumbered with a government that is willing to introduce or amend zonings if they are complementary in nature without the requirement of public notification or consultation and without regard to the livelihoods that this action may affect. Given the uproar in parliament in recent months over the Beattie government's complementary zonings, I am stunned that the minister would have the audacity to introduce such a clause. The government has tried to confuse what is happening in relation to its complementary zoning in this bill. Federal government ministers Ian Campbell and Ian Macdonald have stated that there is no need for complementary zoning. These plans are designed to affect 600 kilometres of coastline between Baffle Creek near Bundaberg and Cape York, banning amateur fishers from fishing along beaches and shutting down key commercial fishing grounds. I ask the minister: does this mean that the Vietnam vets at Kalpowar outstation cannot fish off the beach? The great swarms of grey nomads who travel throughout Queensland and who generally have great respect for our environment will not be able to throw in a line and catch a few fish. The plans will, in particular, hurt barramundi and mud crab fishermen. Closures of key inshore fishing grounds come on top of fishing closures and catch cuts that the industry estimates have removed $44 million and 800 jobs from the industry in 2004 alone. Opposition to the complementary zoning is strong, with more than 7,000 people signing petitions and letters opposing the state government's complementary zoning fishing closures, according to the Cairns Post of 3 September 2004. In just two days the Queensland Seafood Industry Association collected more than 1,400 signatures from the Burdekin and from Burdekin residents in support of a petition opposing state government fishing closures. This should have put the Beattie government and the minister on notice of problems with this bill. The amount of public hostility out there is growing and the general public is concerned about this matter. Given the extreme impact that the Beattie government's complementary zoning is having on communities down the length of the Queensland coast, the National Party cannot in good conscience support a bill which allows for other such plans to be introduced in the future with no consultation. I have 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2751 grave concerns that these clauses are a means for the Beattie government to open the door for more zoning plans by stealth without consulting the public—an outcome which I cannot support. I recognise that zoning plans and management plans were provided for in the 1982 act—a sensible outcome which allowed for sound management practices for marine parks. However, I do not support any move by any government to introduce new measures without adequate consultation, which is exactly what the bill does. I do not believe the public and my constituents will be pleased to hear that the bill allows for the government to introduce or amend a zoning plan without consulting them, and the National Party will always represent the interests of its constituents. Mr Shine: There's a lot of interest in the Lockyer about marine parks! Mr RICKUSS: There is, actually. I thank the member for Toowoomba North. There is a lot of interest in the Lockyer about marine parks. In addition, my National Party colleagues and I also have considerable concern regarding proposed section 111, which relates to enforcement orders. In particular, proposed subsection 3 notes— A person may ... bring a proceeding for an enforcement order whether or not any right of the person has been, or may be, infringed by, or because of, the commission of the offence. Whilst I recognise that a similar provision is included in other state and federal legislation, I seek an assurance from the minister that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent vexatious claims being lodged by groups or persons who have no real involvement in the issue at hand. The National Party will always support the principles of natural justice, and I seek an assurance from the minister that these principles will not be compromised in any way. Whilst the National Party has extreme concerns with a number of provisions in the bill, we remain the party that supports sound management of marine parks. It was only the National Party that stood up for and spoke out about Moreton Bay. While the Beattie government was trying to lure SunAqua to put a major fish farm in a marine park, the National Party was taking a sensible approach and saying, 'Let's preserve our pristine marine environments.' It was only due to the political and public pressure applied to the government that the SunAqua proposal was defeated. The National Party remains the only party that has developed a practical solution to clean up the bay. The Beattie government is content to keep pouring effluent into the bay. It has offered no answers, no plans and no environmental solutions. The National Party is committed to stopping pollution in our waterways. That is why we have committed to piping waste water effluent to Lockyer and the Darling Downs, returning the bay to its pristine state. I have had a look at the Marine Parks Act 1982, and it makes up only 20 pages of that. About 80 per cent comprises regulations relating to the act. Could the minister in her summing up state whether these regulations relate to the new act in 2004? There is a wedge of them in there. Because of the National Party's strong record of environmental management, our record of supporting our constituents and being honest with them, we must oppose the bill before the House unless these changes are made in the consideration in detail stage. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (2.09 p.m.): I want to say a few words in support of the bill. In doing so I want to outline some of the activities being undertaken by Earnshaw State College at Banyo in my electorate to increase students' knowledge not just about the environment in general but about the importance of Moreton Bay—which is a subject covered in this bill—and the adjacent Boondall Wetlands. The bill arises out of a policy commitment made during the 2001 election campaign which principally focused on reviewing and strengthening the regulatory protection of our marine parks. The main purpose of the bill is to provide for the conservation of the marine environment. As I have indicated, for constituents in my electorate the visible need and impact of that objective is in the protection of Moreton Bay, which forms the eastern boundary of the Nudgee electorate. The Marine Parks Bill strengthens the multiple use model which is currently in use in Moreton Bay. This essentially means that areas within declared marine parks may be used for a range of legitimate purposes such as fishing, shipping, tourism, ports, aquaculture, extractive industries and marina development, all of which need to comply with relevant appropriate legislative provisions as they apply outside the provisions of this bill. I was interested to listen to the member for Lockyer's contribution about the SunAqua proposal. He asserted that the campaign by the National Party had some influence on the final outcome of that matter. The facts of the SunAqua proposal are that it was considered by due process—which the government is required to undertake—and at the end of that process the government properly made a decision based on the report following that due process that it was not going to proceed. As I have said, the Marine Parks Bill strengthens the multiple use model. In addition to that, the bill provides for zoning of particular areas. Two particular zoning areas can be established under the act. They are, firstly, the marine national park zones which are areas set aside for complete protection due to their environmental significance and, secondly, conservation park zones which will allow for activities such as fishing, bait netting, recreational collecting and oyster culture. 2752 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

An important aspect of the bill is the definition of conservation. It is defined to mean 'the protection and maintenance of the environment while allowing for its ecologically sustainable use'. As I have indicated, that is in keeping with the multiple use model contained within the legislation and a model which, I might say, has broad community support. There are a number of other important aspects of the bill which I am sure will be covered by other speakers, but it is important to say that this is a significant piece of legislation which will enhance our ability to manage and protect important environmental and economic resources like Moreton Bay in a sustainable way. As I have indicated, sitting adjacent to Moreton Bay in my electorate are the spectacular Boondall Wetlands. I want to make a brief comment on an initiative which I think is playing a significant role in highlighting not only the importance of Moreton Bay and the marine park there in the protection of that environment but also the protection of the Boondall Wetlands. It involves a cultural and educational exchange agreement between Earnshaw State College at Banyo and the Yatsu-Minami Elementary School in Narashino, which is just outside Tokyo in Japan. That agreement establishes a relationship between two schools in two countries. It essentially involves year 6 students or the equivalent in Japan and the year 6 students at Earnshaw State College. In June of this year the students from both schools engaged in a landmark exchange which was an Internet based video link—I am not 100 per cent sure of the technology—where the students exchanged information and ideas about protecting the wetlands in Japan and the wetlands and adjacent areas in Queensland. Translators helped the students communicate with each other in both Japanese and English. The event has stimulated considerable interest from the Federal Ministry of Education in Japan and also from Education officials from the Chiba Prefecture where Narashino is located. In November of this year a further Internet based link between the classrooms in the two cities is planned to again talk about the importance of the local environment and, in particular, the Boondall Wetlands. In addition to the Internet based exchange, students exchange reports each year on the state of the wetlands and the surrounds which are translated into both Japanese and English. Currently there is group of volunteers from the Yatsu-Higata Wetlands, which are located in Narashino, visiting the Boondall Wetlands and the shores of Moreton Bay as part of an annual exchange which occurs under this agreement which was signed last year between the Brisbane City Council, Education Queensland and the city of Narashino. Some of the year 6 students from Earnshaw State College are participating in activities at Nudgee Beach today, furthering that agreement. With those few words, I want to endorse the exciting initiatives which will arise out of this bill and help the cause of protecting and preserving our marine parks in Queensland. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (2.15 p.m.): I rise to join the debate on the Marine Parks Bill. The shadow minister clearly indicated that the National Party and the coalition back in 1982 were very interested in the future of the marine park area in Queensland. As a consequence they brought in the bill that has been in existence up until now. In many instances there were requirements for amendments to be made to the legislation, and that happened. We live in an area that is extremely interesting. The electorate which I represent is pretty much in the centre of this proposed marine park. Of course, what we are seeing now is a marine park which is going to go from Baffle Creek right up to the Cape York area. That area includes many islands and many reefs, including many close in-shore reefs, but for the most part it is a very narrow strip along the coastline and for the most part it is between the high-water mark and the low-water mark. Of course, this area along the Queensland coast—including some existing marine parks such as the one in the Hinchinbrook Channel—is extremely important to the economy of the state. Whether you are a person involved in recreational activity or whether you are a person involved in commercial fishing or whether you are just a tourist, these areas are extremely interesting and are of some significance to the future development of the state in a number of areas of commercial and recreational activity. For that reason, whatever we do in the future, we have to be extremely careful that we do not lock up some of these areas to the point where we have the prospect of getting some reward from them from commercial activities but that type of activity will not be able to be carried out. This bill is being introduced to set up the complementary zoning. The complementary zoning is going to run very much in parallel to RAP, that is, the representative area program. This is a Queensland initiative. There is no requirement whatsoever from the Commonwealth government to mirror the RAP process. It is something the state government has taken on by itself. Of course, the RAP process caused an enormous amount of difficulty when some 30 per cent to 35 per cent of the area was locked up. There was significant compensation and restructuring provided by the federal government for that area. We have GPS coordinates for the representative area program. Of course, we will not quite have that. During the consultation period I asked the staff questions about how they were going to define the area. I will go into that in a little more detail later. 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2753

I am aware that other states with marine parks, such as New South Wales, have been able to come up with some GPS coordinates. It can be pretty damn difficult, because you would be precluded from actually knowing where the low-tide area is for probably about 20 hours in the day. As the tide goes out you are not sure where it is until it gets to low tide and then, of course, the tide is turning. Within two or three hours that area can vary significantly. There is no fixed area as far as low tide is concerned; even more so as far as high tide is concerned. There will be variations in the heights of tides when there are neap tides and so on. What we see is a great variation. It is important that people know what they are doing within the area. The Emerald agreement is a cooperative arrangement between the state and federal government. This arrangement is part of the process of managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. What I cannot understand is, after the state being involved with the federal government in this process, why the government had to go about setting up another process of complementary zoning. Quite simply, this is just a second set of no-take areas. Commercial and recreational people in particular are concerned. Industries such as the mud crab industry and estuary fishers are very, very dependent on this strip that we are going to put into a marine park. They are very uptight about what their future is going to be. There is no intention as far as the federal government is concerned to provide any compensation. Ms Boyle interjected. Mr ROWELL: This government is developing a park under its own steam without any requirement from the Commonwealth government whatsoever. The government is saying, ‘Well, we are going to wash our hands of those industries that are going to be impacted as a result of it.' The government has a good history in relation to that. When it came to what happened with the coral reef fin fishery and the spotted mackerel, where people were affected and lost their incomes and their right to go fishing, there was no compensation whatsoever provided by the state government. The government simply walked away from them. I will be very interested to see if the government will do the same as far as this area of marine park that we are now looking at is concerned. Yes, there were marine parks before and there were limitations about what you could do, and we will probably go into that in some detail, but I believe this Marine Parks Bill that we are debating is really going to be the legislative vehicle as far as complementary zoning is concerned. To a large extent commercial fishers, recreational fishers, tourist industry people and the public who use it very intensively will be disadvantaged. I do not know about future consultation. I will go into some clauses in the bill about that. I do not know if any further consultation in relation to the complementary zoning area is going to take place. If we look at what the bill intends to implement, it is quite possible that there will be no more consultation. In fact, I asked the minister a question the other day, and I do not want to read it back, about what dates the minister intends as far as finalising complementary zoning and whether there was going to be any further consultation. I did not get an answer, Minister. Ms Boyle: You got as fast as I could talk. Mr ROWELL: You did not answer the question. Do you want me to repeat what you said? Ms Boyle: I gave you some of your answer. Mr ROWELL: You told me what you wanted to tell me; you didn't tell me what the question was all about. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Order! The member will direct his comments through the chair. Mr ROWELL: The minister told me exactly what she wanted to tell me and, yes, she may have run out of time, but if you are going to put a question forward to somebody about a specific issue at least you should have the courtesy of responding to that before going on with all the issues about the maps and the definition. The maps were an A4 map of the Queensland coastline which was available to most people which lacked real definition. It was an absolute joke. Anybody who wanted to get some definition from those maps had no real capacity to distinguish what was intended as far as the government was concerned with this marine park area that was going to come in under the complementary zoning. That is a bit of an indictment. Whether I agree necessarily with all that the RAP system was about, those people went out there, they had meetings up and down the coast about what they were going to do as far as changing areas. If there was a requirement for them to be changed, they were there explaining the intention of it: where a yellow zone was going to go, where a green zone was going to go, where they were going to have pink zones. Those things were gone into in great detail. I recall they came back twice. But I never, ever saw any consultation at that level as far as complementary zoning is concerned. It is extremely disappointing that we are seeing this brought in. We are seeing the state government involved in a process with the Emerald agreement which manages the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and now we are coming in with a little slip along the coastline, developing a marine park and putting in place complementary legislation which the state government is doing of its own volition. It 2754 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 is not something that is required as far as GBRMPA or the federal government is concerned. In fact, I will quote what both ministers who are involved in the process, Ian Campbell and Ian Macdonald, have said about it shortly, if I get time. I am having the same problem as the minister had the other day where I am getting to the point of what is important as far as this area is concerned but I may not be able to go right through everything that I want to put forward. Dot point (4) of the RIS in the complementary zoning states— ... ‘there will be uncertainty as to whether fishing can continue from some beaches as the rules will change at an unknown line in the water'. The public has been educated through considerable effort expended by GBRMPA as to which activities can be carried out in particular zones. If uncertainty does exist, this issue should be dealt with by GBRMPA. Thus far, such uncertainty has not been reported or refuted by the Authority. Dot point (5) states— ’Commercial fisheries will be unsure of the full impact of the new GBRMPA zoning plan, making their decisions in relation to seeking access to the structural adjustment package difficult'. In fact, the devastating effect of the RAP zoning plan upon the commercial fisherman have already occurred and this has been offset, to some degree, by the structural readjustment package offered by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth government has said quite clearly that it will not be paying compensation for the complementary zoning areas. That is absolutely clear, Minister. There is no equivocation about the intent of the Commonwealth government. We also have issues such as the third-party enforcement orders. I believe that is a very detrimental issue. The Queensland government is now looking at other people out there who are prepared to take whoever might infringe on the legislation to court. I have been through that experience once with some of my constituents. I can assure members that it is extremely unpleasant. There is no provision in the bill for socioeconomic impacts. This is extremely important because if we are going to start drawing up zones and start making determinations about what people can do in certain areas there is going to be an impact. I have not seen anything whatsoever pertaining to socioeconomic impacts in this bill. There appears to be nothing about compensation. The minister said to me that the Commonwealth should pay. If the minister believed that should have been the case then before she started drawing up this marine park and talking about complementary zoning she should have given consideration to the government's involvement in the Emerald agreement as far as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is concerned and done something at that point. The government has management rights for GBRMPA areas. If the minister wanted consideration given to some areas on the coast—and some of the areas are adjacent to these areas and only delineated by the low-water mark—why did we not give it further consideration if she believed it was important? The minister has the capacity, as far as involvement with the Emerald agreement is concerned which was set up some time ago, to have a joint management arrangement between the state and federal government. Now the minister is coming back and saying that she wants to do something as far as compensation is concerned. If we do do it—and I am not sure that the minister is prepared to say that anyway; I am probably trying to put words in her mouth—then she says that the Commonwealth should pay. Every time something comes up about support packages this government shoves it off to the Commonwealth government—whether it is dealing with fisheries, whether it is dealing with national parks, whether it is dealing with the dairy industry or whether it is dealing with the deregulation of the sugar industry. It always is the Commonwealth government that should pay up. It does have more capacity than the states, but the government should not go about disfranchising people and then say somebody else has to pay for its actions, activities and requirements that it puts in place. That is totally unfair. We need structural adjustment. I do not see anything in this bill about that. I do not see anything in the complementary rezoning provisions about structural adjustment. If people are going to be affected there has to be some offset. I am sure if we were going to knock a few houses down and put a road through an area that there would be some compensation for the people affected. If one takes a person's livelihood away from them and says, 'Too bad, my lad, off you go,' that is extremely sad and irresponsible. That would be the case for any government. I have enormous problems condoning this. That is one of the problems that I have with the bill. This bill will affect people who are involved in recreational fishing activities and commercial fishing activities. It will mean that because of this marine park people cannot do certain things. It is incumbent on the government to recognise that there are some problems with what it is proposing. It needs to recognise that in the future if we are going to go about ensuring that we have all this area as a marine park and that people who have businesses or operations close by are going to be affected as far as the requirements of this legislation are concerned, there is very good reason to start thinking about some structural adjustment package. It could be a family group that is affected in the future. It could be a group that wants to go fishing off the beach. Even in the RIS package it recognises that there will be some down sides. We simply 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2755 cannot do these things without any recognition of the impacts. I am very disappointed that the government does not recognise this. That is a trait that has become very evident in this government. It does not worry about how it affects a small group of people. It thinks that they can wear the consequences of it. If it is a big group and there is some vote power in it, my goodness, the government comes to the party then. There is little question about that. That is the disappointing thing happening with this government. As I have said before, the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the honourable Ian Campbell, and the federal Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, the honourable Ian Macdonald, said that the Australian government has not requested that the Queensland government take any action within Queensland borders to mirror the recent rezoning of the park. They were talking about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. They said that, despite the stated purpose of the proposal being a response to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park RAP zoning—that is on page 1 of the RIS—the Commonwealth government has confirmed that it has not requested the state government to implement complementary zoning. The government had the capacity when it was dealing with its rights under the Emerald agreement to do something about this at the time. But it is quite clear that it did not do it. There is no actual basis for the complementary zoning. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (2.36 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker Shine, I begin my contribution today by passing on from the back bench many happy returns for your birthday yesterday. I note that the front benchers get a big wrap when they have a birthday, so happy birthday to you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Shine): Order! I thank the honourable member. Mr FRASER: I will be supporting the Marine Parks Bill before us today, which is an update of the 1982 legislation that brought in the first regime. I would like to make it clear up front that one of the things we are doing in this bill is putting within the objectives that this bill is about the protection of marine biodiversity and promoting sustainable use. Key parts of this bill include bringing in commensurate fines with other environmental legislation, as well as providing for third party standing under the bill to enforce the provisions of the bill, and making enforceable things which are made explicitly unlawful under the provisions of the bill as well as any unlawful activity which visits serious environmental harm in a marine park. I reaffirm our government's commitment to the protection of marine parks generally, particularly the protection of the Moreton Bay Marine Park, which is the one that often gets mentioned in this context. A good many of the citizens of my electorate have a keen interest in having a healthy Moreton Bay. That was certainly reflected at the start of this year and last year in relation to the SunAqua proposal. The waters of Moreton Bay, including the Pumicestone Passage, have been described in this parliament many times as important areas to the people of south-east Queensland generally. With a population now approaching two million people on the doorstep of Moreton Bay this is an area that really does require protection. Moreton Bay is internationally unique. It consists of a semi-enclosed basin bounded on its eastern side by two of the largest sand islands in the world. Not surprisingly, this area is Queensland's busiest marine environment. There is shipping, ports, sand extraction, waste disposal, commercial fishing, tourism, swimming, diving, recreational boating and scientific research, as well as the bay supporting the cultural values and practices of indigenous people. This marine environment, however, is also an internationally significant wetland that provides habitat critical for rare and threatened migratory birds, turtles and dugong. The Beattie Labor government has made substantial progress in conserving the marine environment of Moreton Bay. Some of the achievements of the Beattie government in respect of promoting a pristine environment include placing limitations on land clearing—I note that the self- proclaimed guardians of the environment in this state, the National Party, voted against that—improving water quality in the bay by working with local councils and the community to reduce pollution, prosecuting those who pollute water entering the bay and protecting the ecosystem of the bay by maintaining biodiversity. Biodiversity protection has primarily been achieved under the existing act through the declaration of Moreton Bay as a marine park and its management under the park zoning plan. Under the legislation that we are amending today, controls have been placed on the discharge of waste directly into the park; littering is prohibited; disturbing shore birds is prohibited; turtle and dugong go-slow areas have been declared to reduce mortality caused by boat strikes; coral extraction has been phased out; habitat and recreation values have been protected from trawling in much of Pumicestone Passage, South Passage and adjacent banks, and southern Moreton Bay; commercial whale watching is managed; tidal works and most extractive uses are managed; and some areas such as Flinders Reef, Peel Island reef, Swan Bay and elsewhere have been zoned as no-take protection zones. This week is Science in Parliament Week. There has been a lot of comment today in particular in other parts of the House and around the corridors that would not have been recorded by Hansard about 2756 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 the value of science and what science means for a good many of the environmental debates that we have in this parliament. In relation to that last point I made about no-take zones, some interesting research by PhD candidate Suzanne Pillans indicates the benefits provided by the wholly protected areas of Moreton Bay Marine Park. Initial results from the Willes Island area in southern Moreton Bay indicate that 10 times as many legal size male mud crabs occur inside the protection zone as compared to areas outside the zone. Catch rates of yellowfin bream were also five times higher in the highly protected area than outside, and this is in line with findings elsewhere that species are larger and more abundant within highly protected areas. There are many public authorities, public servants and members of the community who are actively involved in protecting Moreton Bay Marine Park. I particularly want to acknowledge the work that Maritime Services Queensland and Queensland Transport have done in waterways planning and through the introduction last year of regulations limiting sewage discharge into our waters from vessels. The commitment of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries to ensuring sustainable fisheries in Moreton Bay, to the protection of fish habitat and to the minimisation of fishing impacts on turtles, dugong and grey nurse sharks is also important in achieving conservation. The work of the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership, which is a government and community collaboration, has also been of great conservation value. Last year the partnership reported that the health of the bay had improved, with large areas complying with water quality objectives. These results could not have been achieved without the significant investments made by local councils in upgrading a number of the larger sewage treatment plants that discharge waste directly or indirectly into the bay. Further improvements in the health of the bay are expected to be delivered from the recent efforts of more than 3,500 volunteers in restoring riparian areas in the bay's catchment area. From 2002-03 this group has planted approximately 390,000 trees. The Marine Parks Bill that we are debating today will reinforce that the protection and management of the marine environment is to be based upon protecting areas and species of high conservation value or special significance, managing all uses of the marine environment and related conflicts, respecting the relationship between marine parks and adjacent environments and communities, and encouraging participation of all stakeholders as well as aligning or sharing management roles under the legislation. The marine environment is a common resource for all Queenslanders, including future generations, and this bill is not about locking up areas from the public; it is about protecting and managing large areas of the marine environment so that the environment and its multiple user groups can coexist sustainably. The Marine Parks Bill increases our capacity to conserve the environment, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (2.42 p.m.): It was quite amazing to hear that the previous speaker in this debate, the member for Mount Coot-tha, is concerned about sewage effluent from yachts in Moreton Bay when his government continues to see 130,000 megalitres—or double the full capacity of the Leslie Dam—discharged every year into the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay and is tardy in getting involved in the recycled water project—that is, cleaning that water up, recycling it and sending it to the Lockyer and the Darling Downs. This bill is supposedly modernising the bill brought in by the National Party government in 1982 which put in place a structure for marine parks—that is, protected areas and sustainable development areas within the marine environment. There are some aspects of this bill that are literally frightening because of the way this government is trying to sneak in ways in which it can do things. One example of this is complementary zoning, which has caused so many problems. This legislation means that it can almost do what it likes by virtue of some parts of this legislation. I want to speak in particular about complementary zoning and lay to rest once and for all the notion or the excuse that the state government has been putting up that it had to do this to mirror the zones put in place in the Great Barrier Reef by GBRMPA. As most members are aware, the federal government is responsible for the deep-water areas and the state government is responsible for those areas between the low-tide mark and the high-tide mark, and that is where the mirroring of the complementary zones by this state government is taking place. In a lazy way, it is simply mirroring those zones on the Great Barrier Reef that GBRMPA put in place and on which GBRMPA spent years and years in consultation. Despite the fact that there are many commercial and recreational fishing families who are disappointed about the GBRMPA zones, at least they can say that they had thorough and lengthy consultation. At the end of the day, because their ability to fish commercially has been taken away, there is at least compensation from the federal government. At least it is abiding by the philosophy that, if something is deemed to be good for the nation— something is deemed to be good for the national environment—then everybody should pay, not those people who will be rubbed out or those hardworking people who will lose their livelihood, lose their superannuation, lose part of their assets, be in severe financial difficulty or be under deep emotional strain because of the difficulties their family will face not only in making a living but also in providing for the future. I want to read into the record a letter from Senator the Hon. Ian Campbell and Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2757 and Conservation respectively. The letter was written to the president of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association. The letter states— Dear Mr Olsen Thank you for your letter of 30 July 2004 regarding the Queensland Government's decision to establish a Great Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park with zoning arrangements that mirror that in adjacent areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. As you are aware, the State Environment Minister, Mr John Mickel— the Environment Minister at the time— claimed that the Australian Government was forcing the State of Queensland to undertake such an action and that operators affected by those closures should approach the Australian Government for adjustment funding. We also have been concerned by the confusion that has resulted from statements by the Queensland Government and welcome the opportunity to clarify the Australian Government's position in relation to the three points you raise. We can confirm that marine protected area arrangements within Queensland waters and outside of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are wholly the responsibility of the Queensland Government. The Australian Government has not requested that the Queensland Government take any action within Queensland waters to ’mirror' the recent rezoning of the Park. The Australian Government has no intention to use its powers to override any decisions that the Queensland Government may take regarding marine protected areas in Queensland waters, including where those decisions have been made in consultation with the Queensland fishing industry. Any structural adjustment assistance that may be required to support Queensland's decisions on marine protected areas or fisheries management is also the responsibility of the Queensland Government. The Australian Government's announced structural adjustment assistance package relates only to those decisions supported by the Australian Government on rezoning within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We trust that this helps clarify the situation. You should be assured that, notwithstanding any confusion arising from the Queensland Government's statements, the Australian Government intends to work closely with the Queensland Government for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and the promotion of sustainable industries that are based on its resources. I have raised my concerns directly with my Queensland counterpart. I have suggested that the Queensland Government has an obligation to meet the structural adjustment costs of its biodiversity conservation decisions. I also indicated that in order to reduce industry confusion, I would be prepared to consider extending the Australian Government's structural adjustment package to cover the Queensland decision, if the Queensland Government was prepared to meet the cost and apply the same principle of fair and equitable treatment of displaced fishermen. The letter is signed by those two ministers. There have been many closures in recent times, and the effects of those closures on jobs is amazing in not only this year but also preceding years. There have been all sorts of bans, closures and changes. The fishing industry certainly has taken an absolute hammering. This Labor Party does not seem to care about the working people anymore. It is like the hammering that Mark Latham is about to give the workers in the Tasmanian forests in the obscene chase of any sort of green preference or green votes. The Labor Party will trample and walk all over workers like a dirty doormat. It does not care. The same thing is happening with fishing on our coast. Instead of abiding by the principles of sustainability, true research and science and coming to an arrangement that is sensible and allows the environment to be protected and allows the fishing resource to be sustainable, the Labor Party goes to the wrong end of the spectrum, takes away too much, closes down too much and damages the fishing families and the recreational industry in Queensland to an extent that was never, ever necessary. One of my colleagues the member for Charters Towers made a pretty down-to- earth and sensible comment. He spoke about some of the fines and prison terms for people who do particular things and how weak some of them are. He said, ‘If you go and catch a fish you could be fined thousands of dollars. What is so wrong with catching a fish?' There are many people in his electorate who catch fish as a bit of a break from the hard work that they do throughout the week. Complementary zoning is going to close some 600 kilometres of onshore fishing in that low-tide to high-tide area along the coast—an area between Baffle Creek near Bundaberg to Cape York. As I understand it, approximately 60 areas are going to be deemed to be complementary zones. A whole range of them are not necessary. I know that the Queensland Seafood Industry Association endeavoured to talk some sense before these complementary zones were announced. When there was the draft plan, there were so many areas where it said that foreshores and creeks could be retained— areas like Margaret Bay, Temple Bay, Cape Direction, Bobardt Point, Port Stewart, Ninian Bay, Cape Bowen to Point Lookout, Cape Bedford, Deception Point, the Russell-Mulgrave area, Hinchinbrook Island, Halifax Bay, Cape Pallarenda, Cleveland Bay, Bowling Green Bay, Pioneer Bay, South Midge Point, Seaforth, Shoal Point, North West Hill Island, Clairview, Broadsound, Shoalwater Bay-Townsend Island, Yeppoon, and Yellowpatch. They are areas within that complementary zoning area where, in some places, there were recommendations to retain the foreshore and the creeks. In other places, they delineated the areas that could be retained. There is not even a proper environmental reason for doing this. These complementary zones and the areas along the coast contain about 80 per cent of Queensland's barramundi and mud crab fishing areas, which are very important for a number of fishing communities along the coast. Some of them are quite isolated communities. There has been no real environmental reason for these complementary zones. All we get is the bland statement that it has to be done or we will have chaos. I noted that in the 2758 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 previous minister's second reading speech he said that it was designed to bring Queensland back into sync with the Commonwealth and to deliver certainty for all reef users. He said that the alternative would be chaos. We could not have two sets of rules for one body of water. The one body of water was contained under the Commonwealth zones out on the Barrier Reef. All that this state government wants to do is extend those zones to those areas along the shore where recreational fishermen throw in a line and have a fish, or where the barramundi and mud crab fishermen are able to fish for their livelihoods. As a result of what has been done with the complementary zones in the so-called name of protecting the environment, the government has forced a displacement of effort. It has forced more and more fishing families into more concentrated areas where it has to try to make a living or they have forced more and more recreational fishing out of these complementary zones into other areas where fishing is allowed so that we have a greater density of effort. If all the fishermen can get into those areas, the poor fish that are left in those areas will not have a chance. I have been told by fishermen that, in some of the areas, they have been told that they can fish in particular creeks and so forth. The area that I was talking to someone about recently was Bowling Green Bay. But even in those areas where there are creeks where people can fish, there are so many days in the week when they are not allowed to fish, there are so many days in the week when people cannot fish because of the running tide, and then there are three months of the year when people are not allowed to fish there at all. All in all, it ends up with something like about 12 days a month that people are able to fish in some of these creeks. That is how ridiculous that whole issue has become. This issue is not only hurting the fishing families; it is hurting many other people who rely on the fishing industry. Last week in parliament I spoke about people who operated a small courier service in the Burdekin area. They relied upon the mud crab industry as a core part of their business. They ran a little courier service from the Ayr-Home Hill area up to the Townsville airport. Those people are going to lose a core part of their business. That has gone. There will be no compensation for them, there will be no compensation for the commercial fishermen; it will be just taken away from them. It is what their grandparents had done, it is what they have done, it is what they wanted to hand on to their families. They wanted to maintain their livelihoods in a viable and sustainable way. The government has just trampled all over the top of them with jackboots and taken away their living for no true scientific reason and made no proper adjustments or tweakings. The minister's staff said that they were going to do some tweaking around the edges. But the government had its mind made up. It was what the government was going to do. It was just going to be carte blanche. It was the lazy way out. It was just going to mirror exactly the GBRMPA zones and forget about the fishing families and forget about decent, hardworking Queenslanders. As I said, this issue of the complementary zoning is just part of the total hammering that the fishing industry has taken. There have been all sorts of closures, adjustments and changes to the industry. There has been the introduction of size limits, bag limits, sporting closures, and increases to the no-take species list. Even now, while this complementary zoning is an issue, the Department of Primary Industries and Forestry is about to undertake an inshore fishing review. It must have searched around, scratched its head and asked, ‘How can we give the fishing families of Queensland another hammering and another kick in the backside just while they are trying to deal with these complementary zones? Let us have a review of inshore fishing and see if we can knock them about a bit more.' For example, there is the issue of the protection of the grey nurse shark around Double Island Point and some of the areas out to the east of Moreton Bay. I spoke to a fishing family who has been involved in fishing around Wolf Rock, which is out to the south-east of Tin Can Bay. Those fishing families are the ones who have the practical knowledge. If the government had listened to them, it would know that it could protect the grey nurse shark by not having any night fishing and not allowing any deep fishing, because the grey nurse shark stays down the bottom. These people are trolling the top part of the water. That is what they have been doing for 30-odd years. They have never caught a grey nurse shark, let alone seen one in the area. Instead of making some sensible recommendations like no night fishing or no deep fishing, an 800-metre or half-mile circle exclusion zone was made around this rock. So the government has virtually excluded this fishing family and another one from fishing the particular area where they could catch a particular species of fish up near the surface and make a living. The government should look at the human effect of some of these arrangements. It is all right for the members opposite to stand here in parliament and read prepared speeches and so forth, but they should go out and talk to these people—people who have fished for all their lives and probably had another five years to 15 years of fishing left and thought that that would get them and their wives over the line with regard to having something on which they could retire. At a late stage of their lives, they have had a substantial part of their income taken away from them. It is what they knew, what they did, and what they did best. Worst of all, they have the absolute frustration of knowing that what was done to them did not make any sense. There could have been the maximum protection of the grey nurse shark by some simple, practical rules that could be imposed through the knowledge of the fishermen who knew the area, who understood the species and who had fished in the area for years. But, no, it is just this bureaucratic clampdown on them. The government walks all over the top of them. Those poor people are left to scratch their heads and ask, 'What on earth is it all about? What sort of a government 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2759 is it that does not care about sensible people, that does not care about practicalities? It is just out there in its obscene chase for green votes.' Previous speakers have spoken about Science in Parliament. In the coral reef fin fishery the quota was reduced from 4,800 tonnes to 3,061 tonnes. Since then the cooperative research centre in north Queensland has indicated that that was 400 tonnes too much. A lot of heartache would have been prevented had the government instituted something that was based on science and gave protection but also meant a minimum of disruption to the area. I have mentioned some of the frightening things in this bill. Some the clauses of the bill virtually state that people can do what they like. We will be getting stuck into that when we consider the bill in detail. The frightening part relates to third parties. This is the way the Labor Party likes to treat people. Instead of this being a government matter that can come before parliament and can be argued and debated in a democratic way, there is an ability for third parties to take action against people. It is the era of government supported professional pimps who go out there and get stuck into hardworking people. Whether it be issues to do with the rivers in western Queensland or issues to do with fishing, there are provisions relating to third parties—to allow these groups of people to get together and to frustrate, attack and maul the hardworking fishing families of this state. The ability of third parties to come in and take action represents one of the most cowardly and dangerous principles that this government has introduced into this parliament. It would be different if the government wanted to take some sort of action and it had the courage and the wherewithal to do it and then stand for re-election on the pros and cons of its actions or bring its actions into the parliament so that it could explain them and talk about them. But it hides behind the skirts of third parties and gives them the power to start to take action and harass people. Those third parties might have a particular vendetta against people or they might be extreme greens. They could make the life of the fishing families absolutely hapless by their continued harassment and attacks and by taking action against them. This is a dangerous principle. It is a dangerous precedent. It is undemocratic and it is not the sort of thing we want to see in Queensland. I think it is about time that we in this parliament started to stand up for the decent, hardworking people of this state. If the government is fair dinkum about doing something for the environment, it should do it correctly and accurately so that people will come along with it. They will join enthusiastically and realise that it is better for the future. The government should not destroy these people. It should listen to them. They are practical and they care about their environment. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (3.02 p.m.): It is now more than 20 years since the Marine Parks Act 1982 was introduced, and much has changed in Queensland since that time. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Hear, hear! Dr LESLEY CLARK: Thankfully. I take that interjection. The Marine Parks Bill 2004 is the result of a comprehensive review of the act to update and extend the government's powers to protect our marine environment based on a greater appreciation of the functioning of marine ecosystems and more effective management strategies founded on the principle of ecologically sustainable use—unheard of in any National Party legislation 20 years ago, despite what the member for Lockyer might have told us. When I was first elected to this House in 1989, the coastline around Cairns was excluded from protection afforded by a marine park. Persistent efforts on my part and the part of other stakeholders finally remedied that situation with the gazettal of the Trinity Inlet-Marlin Coast Marine Park in 2001. Regrettably, despite that gazettal legislation was required to be enacted last year to allow for dredging in that marine park because of past development approvals. It was arguable that the chief executive had the power to make an administrative decision to allow such works to occur; however, the government resolved to bring the matter to parliament to ensure an appropriate level of public scrutiny. Currently, provisions in the act dealing with reclamation of marine park areas are ambiguous resulting in administrative uncertainty, divergent legal interpretation, public criticism and potential legal challenge which is unacceptable for both park managers and developers. Bluewater, the canal development at Trinity Park, served as a timely reminder of the need to review the Marine Parks Act to address this important issue and provide certainty in the process for dealing with reclamation in marine parks. The bill makes a distinction between highly protected areas such as preservation, national park and conservation park zones and general use and habitat protection zones in the way that proposals for reclamation would be treated. In the highly protected zones there have been no instances of reclamation works, and it is not likely that there would be any in the future. However, if such a proposal were to be put forward then reclamation would have to be preceded by a rezoning of the area, which would require community consultation or a parliamentary resolution for revocation of the area from the marine park. 2760 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

In the case of reclamation in zones that are not highly protected, the parliament would have three opportunities for disallowance of relevant provisions: firstly, in the approval of the relevant zoning plan, which must incorporate provisions allowing for reclamation works in the respective zones before any reclamation can occur; secondly, through the tabling of the Governor in Council notice of intent prior to the grant of any permit for the reclamation; and, thirdly, through the tabling of the Governor in Council regulation revoking the reclaimed area following satisfactory completion. The revocation of an area of a marine park prior to the undertaking of the reclamation works would not be desirable as this would remove the development from the scope of the bill and prevent the chief executive from managing the reclamation until its completion by imposing management, rehabilitation, monitoring and supervision conditions and bonds. The bill also provides for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of marine park rezonings. In the past, Queensland marine parks have sometimes been criticised as not being secure because a national park zone, for example, could be readily downgraded through rezoning. To facilitate parliamentary scrutiny, the bill now requires that where the classification or boundaries of an existing zone are changed in a way that decreases the level of protection a statement must be tabled in parliament clearly identifying the area affected and giving reasons for the reduced protection. In addition, the bill provides more flexible powers to achieve compliance and stronger penalties to bring it into line with other environmental legislation. It allows for compliance notices to be issued as an alternative to prosecution. It allows the chief executive or an inspector to seek enforcement orders. This is consistent with current practice under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and other legislation. The bill also allows third parties to seek an enforcement order in relation to matters which have been explicitly prohibited in a marine park, for example illegal reclamation works in a national park zone or unlawful serious environmental harm. The bill also toughens penalties for environmental harm. Under the present act, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is 100 penalty units, or $7,500, which is considerably lower than penalties for similar offences under other natural resource management legislation. The bill consequently introduces a range of penalties consistent with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and other relevant legislation. In the most severe cases these may be up to $225,000 for an individual or $1,125,000 for a corporation or two years imprisonment, which is much more appropriate given the significance of our marine environment. The issue of coastal developments in or adjacent to state marine parks continues to generate public concern in Cairns and elsewhere down the coast of Queensland. The problem of longstanding approvals, often with inadequate conditions reflecting lower standards of environmental management, must be addressed. The Bluewater and False Cape developments in Cairns are examples of such legacies of the past. The Bluewater deed of agreement signed by the council, the state government and the developer was an attempt to minimise environmental impact with new conditions and environmental offsets and community benefits, but the reality is that approval for a canal development estate in such a location would not be given today. It is time that all such longstanding but environmentally unacceptable coastal developments are identified and their approvals revoked, be they local or state government approvals. The same two-year ‘use it or lose it' rule that operates under IPA for developments following a change in a council planning scheme could be invoked to address this issue without giving rise to claims for compensation. Adopting such a scheme would ensure that we have greater certainty about the extent of planned coastal developments and hopefully have eliminated the most inappropriate ones. New development proposals will now become subject to the provisions of the Coastal Protection and Management Act and relevant regional coastal management plans as well as local authority planning controls to ensure a much higher level of ecological sustainability than in the past. The recent Fitzroy Island development application will be a good test of the Wet Tropics region coastal management plan and the Cairns City Council planning schemes. This proposed resort consists of 148 holiday apartments, a 160-bed hostel, a hotel, restaurants and day-use facilities. It will effectively mean the end of a camping site enjoyed by locals on the island and will intensify development to an unacceptably high level. I believe it should be rejected or significantly modified. Protection of our coastal marine environment is critical for social, economic and environmental reasons, and this legislation is another attempt towards achieving that goal. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.10 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Marine Parks Bill, which was introduced by the previous Environment Minister. I have a couple of areas of concern which I wish to raise—in particular, the consultation, or potentially the lack of consultation, which this bill allows for. The issue of fishing, whether commercial or recreational, has been very much in the forefront of legislation in the last few years. Commercial fishermen and their families in my area say that, in terms of impact on their ability to earn a living over the last 10 years, there has been significant change and in the majority of instances a shrinkage in opportunities to earn a living. As a group of people I think they have been most affected by government requirements—both state and federal—to adjust not only the areas in which they can earn a living but also the times in which they can earn a living. There have also been 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2761 other obligations such as turtle excluders, VMSs and other equipment which they have had to purchase in order to remain consistent with state and federal legislative requirements. I had concern expressed to me regarding the GBRMPA declaration which just recently occurred. Other members have already stated that there was significant consultation up and down the coast on the GBRMPA declarations. Since the issue of complementary zoning by the state government first came onto the public agenda, quite a number of fishing families, both commercial and recreational, have been seeking some additional information. I did get some from the previous minister, but at the time it was still unclear as to what direction the government was going to take. I passed what was available at the time on to the constituents who made inquiries, but it is fairly concerning that this legislation appears to allow for that complementary zoning without any further consultation. It is concerning to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, it appears as if the constituencies that will be affected will not have an opportunity to have direct input into the government's decision making on the basis that government is allowing itself the power to declare the areas where the declaration is in cooperation or conjunction with the Commonwealth or other states' legislation or decisions. The fishing community—and I am including recreational fishers—would very much appreciate the opportunity to talk to the minister on the ground about some of their own experiences. I know it is not her portfolio, but in the fishing industry when there are decisions to be made there is sometimes conflicting information which goes to the minister's information gathering group. I know at times the professional fishing industry can be a very mixed group of people to deal with, but the feedback I have had since the complementary zoning was discussed indicates a high level of concern in the community. I believe the minister and the minister's officers would be very positively enlightened if community members up and down the coast were afforded an opportunity to discuss with her and with her officers the impacts that such complementary zoning genuinely would have. Another concern that I have with it not being consulted and/or discussed prior to its declaration is that, depending on the level of information dissemination after the event, there could be very innocent, good community people who inadvertently breach the legislation and who would be subjected to quite severe penalties when their intention was never to breach any legislation at all. There have been other pieces of legislation outside the Environment portfolio which have had far-reaching effects and impacts on the community. There are very clear examples not just under the Labor government but also under other governments where information dissemination either has not occurred or it has occurred relatively inefficiently as far as departmental officers are concerned. However, when you talk to members of the community, the new restrictions and the constraints have not been well announced and articulated, and so many people have been inadvertently caught in breach of new legislation. So any action that this government takes without consulting with the community means that the chance of innocent people inadvertently breaching legislation without any intention to do harm increases. I have a third concern. The provisions in this legislation mean—and this is not just in relation to the complementary zoning—that in legislation where we often mirror other jurisdictions the chances are that that, too, will accord with the powers that we are allowing in this legislation. However, again, it could impact on people inadvertently because there is not any obligation for that public consultation process. So I have some real concerns about the exemption given in several sections of this legislation, to the discretion that will be allowed not to release the draft of proposed amendments for public consultation. I would seek the minister's review of that provision that is being allowed in this legislation. I was on the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee when I first joined this parliament, and Jon Sullivan was the chair at the time. He was very—I am trying to think of a word other than 'terrier'— proactive in ensuring that certain parts of— Mrs Carryn Sullivan: He was very committed. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Committed; that is right. Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: He did. One of the areas which was lobbied for at the time concerned people appointed under legislative powers as inspectors. These people sometimes had quite invasive powers as inspectors. They could not just be an officer of the government or an officer of the government bureaucracy; they had to be a suitably qualified person. It has been noted throughout this bill that any inspectors who are appointed have to be suitably qualified, and I commend the minister for that. Although it is some years now, many ministers have followed through with that qualification for the appointment of inspectors and other enforcement agents, that that 'suitably qualified' title is attached to them. Another area of concern to me—and I am sure it is in other pieces of legislation—is that of the issuing of a warrant. There is an 'out' clause that allows for a warrant still to be executed and still to be valid even if there is a defect in the warrant or a defect in the procedures in obtaining the warrant. Whilst I am sure the minister could rise and tell me 16 other pieces of legislation where that 'out' clause has been included, I would like to put on the record my concern that, in having that exemption, it places no 2762 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 constraint or little constraint on a person responsible for applying for that warrant and the person responsible for granting and executing that warrant to ensure that the details are correct. The warrants that are made available to officers under legislation do have quite intrusive powers. They are upsetting to the people against whom the warrant is executed. Whilst some of those people, in the eyes of the government, may deserve to have that intrusion, in many instances innocent parties are caught in the net when the warrants are executed. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on those applying for warrants and those executing warrants to ensure that in all material ways and as much as possible the information and the area of impact of the warrant is accurate and done properly. I look forward to the minister's response to those issues. Other than those areas of complementary zoning, I believe that the community will support very strongly the protection of our marine parks. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (3.20 p.m.): I will be delighted to support the Marine Parks Bill a little later today when we vote on it. It is an important piece of legislation. It is another significant piece of environmental legislation which the Beattie government is introducing. I think it was John Kenneth Galbraith who observed that we are all Keynesians these days in terms of economics. A little later Bill Clinton paraphrased him to say that we are all environmentalists now. Ms Nolan: Even the National Party! Mr McNAMARA: The member for Ipswich notes the National Party's position on this. I listened with interest to the speech from my friend the member for Lockyer, who proudly proclaimed the proud environmental record of the National Party. Ms Nolan interjected. Mr McNAMARA: He is a new member and I guess he— Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Mr McNAMARA: He may perhaps be unaware that for a very long time the environmental motif for the National Party has been two bulldozers and a piece of chain. Nevertheless, it is heart warming to hear him talk about this newfound belief in the environment. The difficulty which my friend the member for Lockyer will encounter is that in this place the proof is in the pudding; the proof is in what a member actually does when they come to vote. It is all well and good to stand up in this place and say, ‘We have a proud environmental record,' and, ‘We are going to support the environment,' but when the time actually comes to vote on the bill there is a requirement to actually vote for it before a member can claim credit. Just as the National Party did not support the Vegetation Management Bill when it came up, it will be interesting to see what happens later today in relation to this piece of legislation. Speakers on the other side of the House have ducked and weaved a little bit and said nice things about supporting the environment and about having a proud environmental record. If, at the end of the day, it is an exercise in finding a way to vote against the bill, then all of that talk about, ‘Now we like the environment,' ‘The Nats have a proud environmental record,' is exposed for cant—for hypocrisy, for deceit. This is the member's opportunity. The member for Lockyer is new here. He is a very sensitive chap and a very good person—I hold him in high regard—but he may find that it is one thing to say, ‘I support the environment,' but it is another thing to do it as a National Party member in this House. We do not see a lot of it. This is a very important piece of legislation. It has great importance, particularly in my part of the world, but up and down the length and breadth of Queensland this legislation will be welcomed by people who care about the environment, particularly the marine environment. It enhances and takes forward the multiple use model which is so important these days. All of us with coastal seats, and those speakers who are unfortunately landlocked but still have strong views on this matter, will understand the significance of the multiple use model coming to the fore. No longer do we have a situation where one side wins; where one side takes all. The Minister for Environment knows well that in my electorate the Great Sandy Strait Marine Park zonings are an issue of great concern. People are waiting with bated breath for the minister to produce a draft zoning plan—which she has assured me will be coming out soon—because of that great significance. Families want to use the marine environment for recreation. Commercial and recreational fishers have legitimate interests, as do indigenous people, divers, tourists, tourism operators, the aquaculture industry, mining interests and scientists. Everyone has a legitimate right and a legitimate interest to have a say in relation to use within these marine parks. We do not subscribe anymore to the idea that someone wins. Everybody has to win; everybody has to give a little. The process of coming up with that draft zoning plan for the Great Sandy Strait Marine Park has been a difficult one as people get their minds around the fact that this is for everybody. The previous Minister for Environment, the Hon. John Mickel, was good enough to allow me to bring to him a series of delegations of people from all sides of the argument from quite different ends of the spectrum to put their views forward on how the area should be divided up and on how the zoning 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2763 should be done. I am proud to say that the people from Hervey Bay who came down to see the minister—the recreational, commercial, tourism and other groups—all adopted a very professional, open and trusting attitude. There was a lot of goodwill as people put forward different models. They said, 'This is what the map should look like.' The minister was very, very open. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr McNAMARA: The minister was very, very open to listening to what those people had to say. It was a good and open process. Of course, it is not helped by squealers like the member for Burnett, who will always try to derail a mature process. A government member: The lowest common denominator. Mr McNAMARA: That is right. It is worth considering that the term ‘conservation' in this legislation is defined to mean ‘protection and maintenance of the environment while allowing for its ecologically sustainable use'. That definition is vital—an understanding that we are going to protect the environment while allowing for sustainable use is the message that all parties have to have. I think they have it. I think people around Queensland have received this message. I would like to add a couple of things about perhaps where we go from here. I hope and trust that this legislation will be passed. There is more to do in terms of taking all of the legislation which we have in this area now which governs the relationship between land and sea. We have the Integrated Planning Act, the Vegetation Management Act, the Coastal Protection and Management Act, and hopefully soon a Marine Parks Act. The important thing is to integrate all those pieces of legislation so that we truly understand the relationship between the land and the sea. I think, to a degree, that we still tend to see these things as separate. There is legislation governing what we do on land, and there is legislation governing what we do on the sea. We are moving towards a more integrated understanding of that. Mapping the sediment plans of what is coming out of our rivers and going into the ocean is a vital process. It is going on. In discussions I had with some of the scientists today, who have very generously given us their time, I had an opportunity to consider that sediment has been found at Heron Island, 80 kilometres offshore. What happens in our rivers flows all that way out. We can actually map and track the sediment and look at what sorts of nutrients—what sort of nitrogen and phosphorous levels—we are getting up to 80 kilometres out to sea from what is being done on land. Over time the process of looking horizontally from land out to sea will have to become more sophisticated and more developed. The land impact on the marine environment means that we cannot have unregulated catchment use any more. Bit by bit we need to make sure that there are buffers on every waterway. In the end we need to understand that we will have an impact on every drop of water that flows out to sea. The use that is made of land after it is cleared is vital. Down the track we will need to look at further integration of all of these pieces of legislation. Nevertheless, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. In the second reading speech of the previous minister I was delighted that mention was made that there was no intention to replicate the high level of no-take areas in the Hervey Bay area in the Great Sandy Marine Park which is being seen further up the coast. That is appropriate. This is an appropriate piece of legislation. Goodwill has been shown by all parties in relation to this legislation, with perhaps the exception of the wreckers in the National Party who like to talk about their care for the environment but when it comes time always go to water. Members of the National Party always stand up in this place and say they care for the environment and then vote it down. I will be voting this piece of legislation up because I do care about the environment. I am voting for this piece of legislation because I care about the jobs that depend on that good environment. I am voting for this legislation because I understand that it will provide a framework within which commercial and recreational fishers can coexist and make a legitimate living. It is a great piece of legislation. I congratulate the minister on bringing it to the House at this time. I congratulate the staff who have worked with her and the previous minister, John Mickel, on advancing this legislation and commend the bill to the House. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (3.30 p.m.): I rise today to speak on the Marine Parks Bill. Whilst I recognise the need for proper management of our marine parks, we cannot support any measures that would pave the way for this government to bulldoze over the rights of the Queensland public. I believe this bill effectively allows for the government to introduce or amend a zoning or management plan without adequate consultation if it is complementary in nature. Ironically, it is the government's current complementary zoning plans that are causing so much angst along the length of the Queensland coast. Therefore, I cannot support any bill that would allow future additional zoning without consulting with those families affected. I stand here today to speak on behalf of the thousands of Queensland families who often travel to the coast for a spot of swimming and fishing. Complementary zones will result in traditional fishing spots being closed to these families. If they do fish from these areas they will be hit hard with extreme fines. If the government continues with this bill, it will be responsible for discriminating against families with children who will lose the right to fish in traditional areas in the northern part of the state. 2764 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

I would like to know what extensive study or report has been commissioned to show the impact of recreational line fishing on marine biodiversity. What is the name of this report and when was it completed? Approximately one million Queenslanders go fishing. Adults pack the picnic, kids pack the rods and collect the bait and they head off to the beach or the river for a spot of fishing. These people are being discriminated against because their chosen recreational activity is being banned without any facts to support the ban. No sound scientific report has been produced and there is little evidence to suggest that well-managed recreational line fishing reduces long-term sustainability. Complementary zoning has the potential to stop people line fishing off the beaches along the coast in a cheap attempt to pander to the green lobby without real investigation into the lives affected. Complementary zoning is based on a precautionary principle, not facts, scientific reports or evidence. If all decisions were based on a precautionary principle, no person would ever drive a car or fly a plane. One thing that really concerns me is that the people within my electorate who like to fish may make a trip once a year to the ocean unsure of the invisible boundaries and could be hit with massive fines when their only crime is to catch a fish. No-one in this House should be in any doubt of the extreme effects that complementary zoning will have on the lives of all Queenslanders. That is why any attempt by the Beattie government to introduce or amend a zoning plan without public consultation should be viewed with suspicion. The people I represent oppose the continued attempts by the government to silence their voice and deny them adequate consultation on issues that affect their daily lives. That is why I must oppose the bill before the House. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (3.34 p.m.) I am really pleased to stand in support of this bill, a bill that seeks to update the Marine Parks Bill 1982 and to bring it into line with 21st century realities and expectations. This bill focuses on creating a workable balance that recognises the demands of modern development and the absolute imperative of preserving the environmental integrity of our coastal waters, including the Great Barrier Reef. This government's determination to ensure the future protection and integrity of the Great Barrier Reef was made very clear in the lead-up to the last election when the Premier released the reef protection plan, which includes an emphasis on improving the quality of water in the reef lagoon by focusing on reducing the amount of sediment and pollutants coming off the land. An important key to the success of the reef protection plan was identified as the need to review and strengthen the existing regulatory protection regime, and that is what the Marine Parks Bill before the House today will deliver. As members are probably well aware, I am very proud of my electorate of Whitsunday. Government members interjected. Ms JARRATT: I take those interjections of support for the absolute environmental splendour of the Whitsundays. They are fantastic. In fact, the Whitsundays are arguably one of the most attractive marine environments in the world. The 74 islands, most of which are national park, provide many activities including hiking, camping or simply spending time relaxing on pristine beaches or snorkelling in the clear water of our spectacular fringing reefs. Of course, there is Whitehaven Beach which has recently been voted as one of the word's top 10 beaches. It relies into the future not just on good environmental practices but on the best environmental practices. Statistics show that the Whitsundays section of the Great Barrier Reef is facing an unprecedented level of pressure, however, from visitors. This is reflected in the growth of aviation inbound seating capacity over the past 12 months. As the Minister for Tourism mentioned in this House this morning, in the last 12 months Proserpine has seen a 68 per cent increase in seating capacity, and that amounts to some 10,844 passengers. On Hamilton Island there has been a 38 per cent increase in this capacity, or over 20,000 extra inbound passengers in a 12-month period. For many of those visitors, it is the up- close-and-personal experience with the Great Barrier Reef that attracts them to the area and provides the unforgettable experience that we hope ensures a return visit. For many visitors a boating holiday provides that once-in-a-lifetime experience. The Whitsundays is widely acknowledged as one of the world's premier boating and sailing destinations. We have one of the largest pleasure boating fleets in the Southern Hemisphere and visitors can choose from a do-it- yourself bareboating holiday, a guided sailing trip or an unforgettable experience aboard one of our retired racing maxi yachts. One of the difficulties of being not just a home for so many wonderful vessels but also a haven for travelling yachties is the ever-increasing demand for marina berths to accommodate the boats. Among the billions of dollars in development applications currently before the local government authorities in my electorate are a number of proposals for new and extended marina developments. Often such applications involve reclamation and revocation applications which have been notoriously difficult to deal with in the past. This bill seeks to make the process more streamlined and well managed, providing a far greater degree of certainty for developers and a balanced environmental outcome. Procedural certainty has definitely not been a feature of the current act under which two different legal interpretations of the 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2765 procedures to be adopted in approving reclamations have been possible. Such uncertainty does no-one any good and in the long run it is detrimental to our economy because we are seen to be difficult to work with. This bill contains provisions to validate past reclamations, thereby removing the possibility of having another situation like Nelly Bay in which a legal challenge has delayed development and divided the community down the middle. Under the new regime reclamations and associated revocations from a marine park in general use and habitat protection zones will proceed in a straightforward manner, while revocations involving national park or conservation zones will still require a resolution of the parliament. In the former instance work will occur under a permit system that invokes sensible protection mechanisms such as environmental impact studies which involve public consultation. In addition, the bill allows for more flexible powers to be used to achieve compliance and stronger penalties for infringements. For those reasons, I truly welcome this bill. I am very pleased to support it today. I welcomed a visit by two scientists earlier this morning. Not only were they informative; they were really passionate about the work they are doing. That work has direct implications for my electorate. Dr Rosanne Casu is a microbiologist working with the CSIRO. She is looking at the process that allows sugar cane to accumulate more sugar. This is fascinating research. It is something that I cannot quite get my head around. What a wonderful opportunity if we can develop a species of sugar cane that will increase the production of sugar not by ripping down more trees and ploughing more land and thereby causing environmental downstream impact but by increasing the amount of sugar that is in a stem of sugar cane. I wish her well with that research. I think it is going to have some positive implications in the future. Professor Mary Garson also visited me today. Professor Mary is a teacher and research academic at the University of Queensland. Amongst a range of things she does, she is actually exploring the chemistry of marine plants and animals and the interrelationships that exist at the chemical level. It is fascinating stuff. Mary is a keen scuba diver, as am I. I look forward to an opportunity in the future to perhaps have a little underwater exploration with Mary. There are fascinating things happening below the surface of the water—things that we are only just starting to tap into. Our understanding in terms of this area is like, let us say, a clock that is one second past the hour. We have a long way to go. Thankfully there are good people doing important research. I have to say that I was even more delighted that the two scientists I met today were women. I am very impressed by that. I know that they are a great role model for girls and women who are looking to the sciences for a future career path. I thank the Premier for the initiative of bringing science into parliament. It was a great learning day for me. It is a great model to put out there for the rest of the state. I support the initiative of science in parliament. I also support this bill and commend it to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (3.41 p.m.): I have a bit of a fire in my belly over this legislation because I have had too many fishing families in my office who are affected by bad fishing legislation, too many fishing families who are desperate and feeling as though no government is looking after them. The Marine Parks Bill 2004 is a lazy, opportunistic piece of legislation which locks the Queensland Labor government into mirroring or replicating Commonwealth no-take green zones. There are no winners with this legislation, just a whole heap of losers. The environment is a loser. I will quote directly from the recreational fishers peak body, Sunfish. It made a submission regarding this legislation. It is a voice from Hervey Bay that will be heard through the member for Burnett. Sunfish stated— The state marine park area zonings are external to the GBRMPA bioregions and do not contain the same biodiversity. They are dry at low tide whereas the RAP zones are continually under water. At best, the proposals can only be described as opportunistic land grabs to stop fishing in the state's tidal areas. The proposed state closures have no sound biological or environmental basis nor do they have or nor have they been subject to community consultation. There are far more important areas that urgently needed real protection within the new proposed marine park that have now been ignored and now need to be the subject of further consultation. The recreational fishing experts were telling us that this bill will create an environmental disaster. The environment is a loser; professional fishers are losers. John Olsen, the President of the QSIA, says, 'This bill is going to affect over 1,000 kilometres of Queensland coastline.' I do acknowledge that other members have said that it will be 600 kilometres. Mr Olsen, President of the QSIA, states that it will 1,000 kilometres and the cost to professional fishers alone will be $6 million and 150 jobs. There has not been any mention of compensation from Mr Beattie's government for this hardworking section of our society, which accounts for $400 million or five per cent of the gross value of Queensland primary industries. The only mention of compensation from the Beattie Labor government is, ‘Don't worry, the federal government will pay the compensation for this state government's legislation.' The federal government, under Prime Minister Howard, is offering compensation but only for an increase in the GBRMPA no-take zones or green zones from four per cent to around 33 per cent, not for state government complementary 2766 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 zoning. The Howard government's fishing compensation bucket has already guaranteed $10 million worth of funding and is uncapped. The state government's fishing compensation bucket must be made out of tin and it must have been sitting in salt water because the bottom is rusted out. The Queensland fishers are guaranteed zero dollars worth of Labor compensation funding. The environment is a loser, professional fishers are losers and recreational fishers are losers. Once again I will quote directly from a paper by Sunfish to the state Labor government. It stated— Much of the explanation is based on the parameters for the GBRMPA RAP process. Although it was flawed scientifically it did have some justification for protecting areas. RAP areas were justified on bioregion protection and no assessment was done on the adjacent tidal areas during the process. The RAP closures were entirely based on water access below low-water level and only concern 20 per cent of the angling public fishing from boats. These new proposals will affect around 75 per cent of anglers who shore fish. How many people in Queensland shore fish? Just about everyone who picks up a fishing rod. What about the effect that this legislation will have on the tourism industry—the visitors who come to this state to fish? With this legislation, the Labor government is telling tourists who want to fish in Queensland to take a long walk off a short pier. The environment is a loser, professional fishers are losers, recreational fishers are losers and battlers who like a feed of reasonably priced fresh Queensland seafood are losers. This Christmas when the only items on the menu will be imported seafood and tinned crab we can all say, 'Thank you very much, Mr Beattie. Thank you very much state Labor. Thank you for increasing the price of seafood for all Queenslanders.' The environment is a loser, professional fishers are losers, recreational fishers are losers and battlers who like a feed of seafood are losers. Who are the winners out of this legislation? The Peter Beattie socialist Smart State Labor government. They think that this legislation will win them green votes at the next state election. I, like most professional and recreational fishers in the Burnett, agree with the principle of a Great Barrier Reef green zone which is increased from four per cent to 33 per cent. Sunfish have acknowledged that by stating— Previous benefits under the RAP—the fish could move out into the green protected closed waters at low tide and still be available to anglers as the tide receded or flooded. In fact, one of the strong reasons for green areas was their ability to regenerate fish stocks for adjacent harvest. Many of these species are estuarine and do not migrate and will now not be available to be caught or be of any value to anglers. Fishers, both men and women, recreational and professional are some of the best conservationists. They are not out to damage the environment. They know that there is such an animal as a sustainable fishing industry. We can catch or harvest fish and not harm the environment or damage the biodiversity of fish species. It is a pity that members opposite who belong to the rabid left and green of Queensland politics cannot find a bit of commonsense and stand up for our fishers. This legislation will create conflict, and I quote again from Sunfish, the peak recreational fishing body— This further closure to both commercial and recreational fishing will create conflict within the commercial sector and between sectors. We will both be competing for the same fish which is the remaining 70 per cent. All shore fishing is done in the tidal areas. The Howard government has recognised that the increase in green zones or no-take zones will significantly affect the professional fishing industry and has tried to construct a plan where sensible protection was given to the Great Barrier Reef marine life while at the same time ensuring the sustainability of the fishing industry. I do not like the fact that the Burnett Coast and Discovery Coast have 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the green zones while the rest of the coast north of Queensland has 33 per cent. I once again take this opportunity to call on all governments to scrap GBRMPA because of its arrogance and lack of consultation. This bill basically means that we have fewer areas we can fish in and no compensation from the state. We have learnt through bitter experience that Mr Beattie and his socialist Labor government do not give away favours to anyone unless they are a mate of Labor. With this bill Labor is taking livelihoods and fun away from families. This bill shows that Labor is no friend of anyone who fishes. This bill will create nothing but more confusion and human misery. It is the tip of the iceberg. My message to fishers who are voting this weekend is to think long and hard before they cast their vote. If state Labor can do this much damage to fishers, what sort of damage will Mark Latham do? When I personally questioned Mr Latham at one of those Labor Party love-ins and asked if he would guarantee that, if he became Prime Minister—God forbid it—he would not increase the GBRMPA green zones from 33 per cent to 50 per cent or 80 per cent or 90 per cent, he would not say that the green zones would not be increased. He could not give that guarantee. If you fish and you vote for Latham, then you have rocks in your head. Latham's green mates—Garrett and the like and most members opposite—want to stop all fishing. That is the only conclusion I can draw. This bill proves it, and I vehemently oppose it. 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2767

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Before calling the member for Broadwater, I remind honourable members of the rules relating to relevance in this place and the fact that we are debating the Marine Parks Bill. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.52 p.m.): I want to say a few words about the appalling display by the member for Burnett in this debate and how he addresses debates generally in this House. I raise some concern about the sources of his speeches. I recognise that he has quoted directly from an email that was addressed to members from the Queensland Seafood Industry Association. When the member is quoting directly from those kinds of emails, those sources need to be cited to bring some relevance. I now want to bring this debate back to where we were, because we were taken to a place that was beyond my belief. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Marine Parks Bill 2004. The Broadwater electorate covers a substantial area of the Moreton Bay Marine Park which is zoned as a conservation zone. There are two small no-take areas zoned as protection zones in Swan Bay at the southern end of Stradbroke Island and Willes Island which is located between Russell Island and Stradbroke Island. This zoning reflects the unique nature of the area being one of four passage landscapes in Australia. These are narrow channels between the mainland and a large offshore sand island. The remaining three are also protected under marine park declarations and include Pumicestone Passage, the Narrows north of Gladstone and the Hinchinbrook Channel. They are unique formations of incredible importance for conservation, recreation and scenic amenity. They contain some of the most important habitats for migratory seabirds, dugongs, turtles and fishery production. The environmental values of southern Moreton Bay Marine Park are in fact recognised as an internationally significant wetland under the Ramsar convention. The environment of southern Moreton Bay Marine Park, like the rest of Moreton Bay Marine Park, is a busy area which is also valued and used by many different people for many different purposes. In addition, south-east Queensland is the fastest growing area in Australia and much of this growth is focused on the Gold Coast. Adjacent coastal development and use of the waterways of southern Moreton Bay have resulted in declining environmental quality. There is, for example, increased seagrass dieback and incidence of disease in turtles. Credit should be given to the former Goss Labor government in coming to grips with the hard planning issues related to Moreton Bay when it approved the Moreton Bay strategic plan in 1993. This plan designated the areas from Coomera Island to Peel Island as habitat conservation with minimal infrastructure development. The strategic plan placed a similar zoning over the Moreton Banks and Pumicestone Passage. The declaration of Moreton Bay Marine Park also occurred the same year. For the past 10 years, this marine park has served a vital role in providing for the protection and management of southern Moreton Bay. Research undertaken recently by PhD candidate Suzanne Pillans, for example, indicates the benefits provided by the highly protected areas of Moreton Bay Marine Park. Initial results from the Willes Island area in southern Moreton Bay indicate that 10 times as many legal size mud crabs occur inside the protection zone compared to outside the zone. Catch rates of yellowfin bream were also five times higher in the highly protected area than outside. This is in line with the findings elsewhere that species are larger and more abundant within highly protected areas. I am disappointed that the member for Burnett has left the chamber while I am raising these very important statistics. The declaration of the marine park provides hands-on local management to secure long-term viability of the slowly degrading areas and provides a balance between areas of private and commercial development and areas set aside primarily for conservation and recreation. Like the rest of the marine park, however, the conservation of the marine environment relies on the proper planning and management of adjacent areas. Therefore under the Marine Parks Bill, the purpose of the bill is to be achieved by a strategy that involves, amongst other things, the cooperative involvement of public authorities, other interested groups and persons as well as a coordinated and integrated approach with other legislation. This bill also recognises that since the introduction of the Marine Parks Act 1982 sound conservation principles have been adopted under other legislation operating in the marine environment such as fisheries management plans, coastal management plans and waterways management plans. The bill therefore puts in place mechanisms to adopt or recognise instruments made under other legislation. It would be hard to find a better practice demonstration of the value of multiple use marine parks than southern Moreton Bay. The term 'multiple use' means that most areas in a marine park can be used for fishing, shipping, tourism, ports, aquaculture, extractive industry, marina development and so on. The marine park areas in southern Moreton Bay have had negligible impacts on recreation or commercial fishing but have achieved much through the EPA quietly working behind the scenes with other agencies on issues such as waterways development, dredging, sustainable fisheries, control of coastal development and improving water control. This bill's development and introduction are a significant step in delivering the government's commitment to review and strengthening the state's regulatory protection of marine parks. I know that the staff who work for government agencies such as the EPA, QPWS and Boating and Fisheries are 2768 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 passionate about their work and the environment in which they work. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all of them for the work that they do. I also want to particularly mention the research officers and the volunteers who assist them in many ways to promote the protection of our precious environment and its wildlife. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (3.59 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Marine Parks Bill 2004. The opposition believes that the implementation of this bill by this government will be detrimental to the entire Queensland commercial and recreational fishing industry. According to a study undertaken by the University of Queensland this year, the plans that are currently being put in place by the government will be responsible not only for the loss of 150 jobs but will also cost the industry over $6 million in lost revenue each year. The consequences of this bill will be drastic for the mainstream seafood consumer. Under the plan to be enacted as a result of this legislation, the areas designated for restriction are responsible for producing 80 per cent of Queensland's mud crab and barramundi catches. This legislation is being held to ridicule by the Queensland public who are witness not only to the loss of mud crab and barramundi from their dinner plates but also their local fish shops, which will go under through lack of supply. The general public has been left reeling from the Beattie government's arrogance on a number of issues, but one cannot fathom the level that it has stooped to on the complementary closures issue. The lack of public consultation on this matter was unsurprising, but the level of response by the commercial fishing industry within the limited period provided should have made the government realise the effects that its plan would have on an already regulated industry. The government has not even felt compelled to prepare any social impact studies on the effects of its legislation, because we note that there is an absence of a social impact study within the Marine Parks Bill. Given the publicity that federal Treasurer Peter Costello was able to generate on Mark Latham's recent gaffe in not providing any social impact information for the tax plan that he presented to the Treasury Department, that is an interesting oversight. This lack of public consultation will only be further compounded by the drafting of the bill presented to the House today. I note that clause 31(4) and clause 36 of this bill provide the government with the ability to rush through decisions without full consideration by the general public or the parliament. This bill should not be commended to the House for this fact alone. The lack of public consultation has been evidenced by the government's rush to put into legislation its plan for complementary zoning for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park when the mean low-tide mark, which dictates the beginning of state jurisdiction, is not clearly defined. Industry insiders have indicated that the mean low-tide mark takes up to 14 years to determine, yet the government is going to introduce its legislation with what it deems to be the appropriate line in the sand. One would think that, without a proper boundary, a government would not be in such a rush to implement a zoning plan that will harm so many. There is no doubt that the loss of inshore fishing along the vast majority of Queensland's coastline will be seen as a real win for conservation groups, but it could signal the beginning of the end for the Beattie government. This bill does not relate to fish stocks. This bill does not relate to environmental harm. This bill relates to an opportunity that the government will take with both hands. With the federal government putting in place its representative area programs legislation under the auspices of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Queensland government saw a chance to close off Queensland's coastline. To the disgust of the majority of Queenslanders and a majority of its own membership, could I say, the Queensland Labor Party has forgone science to please the environmental lobby. The effect that this bill will have on the state will not be fully realised until there is a Queensland seafood import market so large that we will not be able to see over it. Given the problems that the commercial fishing industry will have with supply, countries such as Taiwan, Thailand, China and Vietnam will be rushing to flood the Queensland market with their produce. A government member interjected. Mrs MENKENS: Yes, we need them. The loser in this situation will once again be the consumer, who will not only have to put up with supplementing the incomes of foreign countries but will also be purchasing an inferior product from an industry that is devoid of Australia's regulation on explosives and poisons. Put simply, this bill defeats its own purpose. When it was introduced in August, the minister said that the purpose of the bill was to provide for the conservation of the marine environment. He explained that the term ‘conservation' was defined to mean protection and maintenance of the environment while allowing for sustainable use. This is a contradiction. In all the discussions that have taken place since the announcement of complementary zoning, commercial fishermen have stated that there is only one option for survival following the introduction of this legislation and that would be to fish the rivers and creeks that were once the sanctuary of recreational fishermen. These same rivers and creeks were abundant with fish stocks due to the restrictions enforced by an industry realisation of biodiversity and self-regulation, which meant that Queensland's fish stocks were never detrimentally harmed. What will happen now? We could be about to see an environmental disaster brought about by this legislation as 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2769 amateurs and professionals crowd together and fish out the breeding grounds for the fish stocks that the government is trying to protect. The mood in the community is of anger—anger stemming from recreational fishermen being locked out of fishing off beaches and small boats and in inshore areas, of commercial fishing grounds being shut down leading to jobs losses, and the reduction in the ability to catch mud crabs and barramundi and the mighty mullet, which has a high content of the omega-3 fatty acids that all doctors and nutritionists recommend as part of a healthy diet. As most dieticians have stated, omega-3 fatty acids benefit the hearts of healthy people and those at high risk of, or who have, cardiovascular disease. It seems that the state government does not care about these people, with the benefits of omega-3 not given the time of day and its legislation actively helping to remove mullet from the seafood market. Dietitians recommend eating fish, particularly oily fish like mullet, at least two times a week. Mullet is a good source of protein and does not have the high saturated fat that fatty meat products have. It is high in two kinds of omega-3 fatty acids: eicosapentaenoic acid, known as EPA, and docosahexaenoic acid, known as DHA. As has already been stated, the commercial fishing industry will be forced into the creeks and rivers to fulfil its quota. One of the rules required in these fishing grounds is that nets can be no smaller than six inches. Mullet are a fish high in omega-3, because they are bottom-feeder fish feeding on the tiny organisms at the bottom of their habitat, making them hard to be caught in these nets. This type of feeding has given the mullet its generic name of sucker. The fish sucks up the food, which is strained through its gill rakers before being passed to the throat. With the exception of what is eaten off the bottom of their habitat, the diet of the mullet includes mussels, insect larvae, plankton, worms, snails and other crustaceans. It is these unique properties that provide mullet with the omega-3 fatty acids and, thanks to the proposed implementation of the plan attached to this bill, that part of Queenslanders' diet will shortly be lacking. In conversations with a number of organisations, there has not been one person who has been able to scientifically prove that the closure of state waters and the bill that has been put before the House are in the best interests of fish stocks. This government decision to close beaches and foreshores to force fishing effort into the fish spawning grounds and nurseries is senseless. Just yesterday in the Townsville Bulletin Queensland Seafood Industry Association senior vice-president and Burdekin commercial fisherman Neil Green was quoted as saying that the introduction of this legislation would be the death knell of the commercial fishing industry and the end of his livelihood. In describing the introduction of the complementary zones as unnecessary, Mr Green explained that they were developed without proper consultation and would force commercial fishermen into creeks and rivers where they will disrupt recreational anglers. One wonders what my opponents were thinking about when they hear these statements. Mr Green said that he is yet to hear a reason why the RAP yellow zones had to be complemented and he said that his livelihood was being destroyed for the benefit of environmental groups. He said that the environmental lobby had been behind the government's decision to close key fishing areas, including Cape Cleveland and Bowling Green Bay, which both happen to be in the Burdekin electorate and which are both carefully managed by the commercial fishing industry and the fisheries patrol officers. However, as I mentioned in the House last week, there are insufficient fisheries patrol officers in Bowling Green Bay. What point is there in introducing stringent new guidelines when there is no-one there to enforce them? There is a desperate need for more fisheries patrol officers in the Burdekin. Furthermore, in an indication that the concerns of the commercial fishing industry do not enter the thoughts of the Beattie government, the apparent lack of compensation for its proposal is beyond belief. Clearly, my Labor colleagues are hell-bent on destroying Queensland's commercial fishing families. In the past, all we have heard is that the Commonwealth should pay, when there is a clear obligation on the government to pay compensation given it is Queensland waters it is trying to close and the decision to do so was made by the Queensland government alone. It is totally noticeable that this bill contains no provisions for compensation. Logic is not prevailing here. Earlier this year parliament was warned about the effects on my electorate of Burdekin of closing down 600 kilometres of foreshore between the high- and low-tide marks. Warnings came from people in the QSIA, for example Neil Green in the Townsville Bulletin. In fact, the QSIA collected signatures from petitioners right down the Queensland coast. In the Burdekin area alone 1,400 people signed petitions over the period of about two days—an astonishing number considering the size of the population. What about the Burdekin community's only two seafood shops, which are already struggling to keep up with supply? The Burdekin deserves better than to see its two main sources of fresh local seafood closed, benefiting the multinational Coles and Woolworths supermarkets, which display imported seafood and frozen fillets of fish. The Burdekin's local seafood industry and local consumers should fare better. The Burdekin is a coastal electorate and is home to some of Queensland's most abundant fishing grounds. Each constituent should be allowed to serve fresh fish and seafood as a meal option. 2770 Ministerial Statement 06 Oct 2004

Due to the ignorance of the Queensland government, this is all soon to change. As was outlined in June, the power base of the fishing lobby is growing. Its message is clear: 'I fish and I vote'. If it does and it does it in the numbers expected by Sunfish and QSIA, then maybe—just maybe—my opponents might begin to understand the need to review this legislation because of the power that it gives the government to implement plans such as are now under consideration in north Queensland. As the member for Burdekin, I am incredibly disappointed by the statistics which are presented to me on the real pain this legislation will force on the area and an industry providing over $800 million in retail value to Queensland. The coastal communities of Bowen, Cungulla, Alva, Alva Beach, Guthalungra and Cape Upstart—they are all coastal areas within my electorate—will feel the full effects of this marine parks legislation. The areas will suffer not only from the closures of the shoreline but also from the lack of fishers coming to the area. Just last week the Townsville Bulletin indicated that the numbers of recreational fishermen on the water are down significantly due to the impacts and associated impacts of Commonwealth and proposed state closures to waterways. This spells disaster for these areas that rely on the fishing trade to boost their economies. It is not just the fish shops and commercial fishermen who will be severely impacted by this legislation; tackle shops, charter boats, fishing related industry and state revenue, such as from boat registrations, will all be reduced due to this detrimental bill. The general intent of the Marine Parks Bill before the House today is quite commendable. It does acknowledge the real need for protection of our magnificent marine environment, and it does make provision for methods for doing this. However, the disturbing feature of this bill we are debating is that it is overriding legislation that will give the government extraordinary powers that can impact very significantly on the community and that can be enacted without the necessary scientific research and proof to support these decisions. For these reasons and for the people of Queensland who are looking at their parliamentary representatives to provide some leadership and commonsense, I cannot wholeheartedly support a bill that will allow for a marine park covering over 600 kilometres of coastline when public consultation has not been carried out and when the impacts on the state and the commercial fishing industry are harmful. Debate, on motion of Mr Lee, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Highlands Gas Project Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (4.14 p.m.), by leave: The proponents of the Highlands gas project, which includes a gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea to Queensland, have today announced a decision that they will be proceeding to the front end engineering and design, or FEED, stage of their project. This is a very significant announcement by the project proponents—ExxonMobil, Oil Search Limited, Nippon Oil and MRDC, a PNG landowner company. I table for the information of the House media releases from ExxonMobil and Oil Search Limited. The decision commits the proponents to significant expense over the next 12 to 18 months to prove up the commercial viability of the Highlands gas project. Apart from the downstream 3,000- kilometre dry gas export pipeline from PNG to central Queensland, the Highlands gas project includes an upstream section in Papua New Guinea involving the development of the Hides gas field and the conversion of the existing Kutubu oil fields to gas production, the integration of a gas processing facility with the existing Kutubu oil production facilities, and the installation of a wet gas pipeline to a liquefied petroleum gas facility. I should say that both the Minister for State Development and I have visited Kutubu in past years. The total cost of the Highlands gas project is said to be between $6 billion and $7 billion. The decision to proceed to FEED is not a decision to construct the project. Rather, FEED is an engineering and design and feasibility process that will cost the proponents between $US80 million and $US100 million—$A114 million to $A145 million—over the next 12 to 18 months and will enable the proponents to make a decision about whether to proceed with the project in late 2005 or the first half of 2006. As I understand it, the proponents have a significant amount of work ahead of them over this period to prove up the commercial viability of their project, including securing sufficient gas sale contracts on commercial terms by the end of the FEED process to make the whole project bankable on a commercial basis. To get to today's FEED decision the proponents have signed up a number of conditional gas sales agreements and term sheets, including Energex in relation to the Comalco Alumina Refinery and others, Western Mining Corporation in relation to Olympic Dam in South Australia, and more recently CS Energy and the Queensland Alumina Limited refinery at Gladstone. I understand that the project will require a significantly greater commitment to be in place by late 2005 or early 2006. Nevertheless, the 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2771 proponents are confident of achieving this target during the course of the FEED process, which will also settle the pipeline route and other matters. The conditional contracts involve the government owned corporations Energex and CS Energy. These are commercial arrangements and in this regard the normal government approval process will be required. In other words, approval is needed from the shareholding ministers and hence the government. The Queensland Alumina Limited contract was, I understand, one of the last to be signed. In early July the Commonwealth Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP, approached both QAL and the Highlands gas project proponents and offered some $25 million to $30 million to assist QAL with the significant cost of converting its coal fired boilers to gas fired operation. Whilst the Queensland government agreed to a request it received from Mr Macfarlane for a significant matching contribution by the Queensland government, including a direct link to the Highlands project, Mr Macfarlane later dropped the Commonwealth offer to $10 million, which surprised the state. The Minister for State Development and Innovation, the Hon. Tony McGrady MP, engaged in direct negotiations with QAL in order to secure QAL's commitment. The state government has a firm agreement in place with Joel Fitzgibbon, the federal opposition spokesperson. The Queensland arrangement remains, however, conditional on Commonwealth assistance and overall need. I thank the Minister for State Development and Innovation, Tony McGrady, for negotiating these matters on behalf of the government with my full approval. If the Highlands gas project is proven to be commercially viable as a result of the FEED process and sufficient gas sales are achieved for the project to ultimately proceed to construction some time after late 2005, this achievement will represent a significant boost to the gas-on-gas competition which the government has been seeking to introduce since before the PNG gas project was first mooted in 1996. The government's efforts in promoting gas-on-gas competition have seen the development of the coal seam methane gas industry as a viable supplier in Queensland. The development of the Highlands gas project, if it proceeds, will deliver a significant new infrastructure capability to Queensland, opening up the potential for gas applications requiring the higher volumes and level of reliability that a large capital project like the Highlands gas project can provide. Ultimately, however, the Highlands gas project needs to be able to demonstrate viability on a purely commercial basis to potential investors and financiers in order to survive. This means its gas prices must be competitive for the volumes and level of reliability offered. The Queensland government will continue with its longstanding efforts to promote gas-on-gas competition in the upstream market and also to promote the greater use of gas overall. We know from our energy policy that the gas component will apply from 1 July 2005, and that includes 13 per cent gas and two per cent renewables—and they will be real renewables. The Queensland government welcomes today's announcement by the proponents of the Highlands gas project of their decision to undertake front-end engineering and design for the project as a significant vote of confidence in their belief in the commercial viability of their project. More importantly, this is a vote of confidence in the Queensland economy. The project proponents can take this decision knowing that the growing Queensland economy will provide significant new industrial development opportunities. This project, together with the $2 billion that has been invested in CSM, provides real gas-on-gas competition for the first time in Queensland. Gas wholesale prices are much lower than they were two years ago, comparable to the best prices in Australia and internationally, and this will flow through to the competitiveness of Queensland industry. In a greenhouse focused world, this is really positioning Queensland well in terms of both coal and gas. Gas fired base load power stations become a real competitive possibility, particularly if an emissions trading regime is in place. I conclude my ministerial statement by again thanking the Minister for State Development and Innovation. I look forward to working with him and the Minister for Energy to do what we can within the terms and qualifications that I have put in my statement to see this project become a reality.

MARINE PARKS BILL Resumed from p.2770. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Before calling the honourable member for Indooroopilly, I remind members to read the bill before the House before they speak today. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (4.22 p.m.): This is an important piece of legislation which will provide for the protection and maintenance of Queensland's marine environment while allowing for ecologically sustainable use. The bill promotes the conservation of the use of the marine environment and the principles of sustainable use. It recognises cooperative agreements between the 2772 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

Commonwealth and the state of Queensland, and it provides for increased avenues for involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as well as members of the wider community in marine park planning. All the significant stakeholders support this legislation, which I think is sensible and workable. That being the case, it is probably little wonder that the Nationals do not support it. In speaking in support of the Marine Parks Bill 2004, I want to say that the member for Lockyer's assertion that the Queensland Nationals have a proud environmental record is perhaps the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard in this place. During my time in this House I have known the Nationals to be far and away the least environmentally friendly party in Queensland. However, I have a lot of sympathy for the member for Lockyer. It must be an incredibly difficult job being the National Party's Environment spokesman. I can only imagine the meeting where he was selected. He would have had Lawrence standing up the front, lining them all up, saying: 'I want my new Environment spokesperson to step forward,' as everyone else is stepping back. I have a lot of sympathy for him. I imagine it is a pretty tough job. However, I want to say this: there is a lot more about having a proud environmental record than saying, 'At one point in my life I listened to a Redgum LP.' There is a lot more about having a proud environmental record than saying, 'At one point in my life I didn't change the radio when Peter Garrett and Midnight Oil came on.' The last Queensland state election provided a very clear example of the National Party's environmental failings. The five key policy issues assessed by the Wilderness Society were: ending broadscale land clearing, protecting the Cape York Peninsula, protecting the state's wild rivers, reforming the leasehold system and supporting indigenous rights and title. The National Party was assessed as having a policy that would 'damage or fail to protect the environment or no policy' on every count, not just one. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition described the Labor promise to end large scale land clearing of mature bushland as 'an absolutely disgraceful stunt'. At the last state election the National Party appeared to have no policy for protecting the cape and no policy for protecting the state's wild rivers. Any assertion that the Nationals have anything other than a terrible environmental record in this state is absolute rubbish. The Beattie government, on the other hand, has a proud environmental record, the key plank of which, I believe, is legislation to outlaw broadscale tree clearing here in Queensland. This legislation before the House today continues Labor's fine environmental tradition. It implements the Labor Party's election commitment to protect the reef. It is a major advance. It provides Queensland with legislation that provides for the protection and balanced use of our estuaries and coastal waters. Unlike the Nationals, I think one of the bill's most useful provisions involves the flexibility which it provides to achieve compliance, including the opportunity for third parties to seek an enforcement order in relation to matters which have been explicitly prohibited in a marine park. The examples of this which the minister provided in the second reading speech were illegal reclamation works or unlawful environmental harm. In short, if people are not breaking the law, they have very little to be worried about. The aggression with which the National Party has so far opposed this legislation is genuinely pathetic—it is scaremongering. I want to address the member for Toowoomba South's suggestion that Mark Latham's Tasmanian forest policy was antiworker. What a load of rubbish! Mark Latham's announcement will possibly result in one of the greatest environmental achievements in this nation's history. When Mark Latham is elected Prime Minister this Saturday, he is going to protect Tasmania's tall forests like they have never been protected before. I have to say that it is a policy announcement that was not without a commitment of $800 million to provide new employment opportunities in Tasmania. Unlike the Liberals and the Nationals, especially the federal government, their commitment to ending land clearing ran about as deep as saying that they would do it but they would not spend any money on it. They welshed on a deal with the state government. That is a key environmental difference between Labor and the opposition. We see the environment as having a value that we are prepared to allocate money towards protecting. The Nationals just want to know how to make money out of it. I am delighted to support this bill. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.24 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Marine Parks Bill 2004. This bill has been presented as an update. My electorate is not a coastal one. However, there are in the order of 4,000 boats registered within its boundaries, and a significant number of commercial operators are resident on the tablelands. So this bill is significant to many tablelanders and all those in the Tablelands electorate. In his second reading speech in discussing the provisions the previous minister for the environment said that the existing Marine Parks Act predated the establishment of fundamental legislative provisions as described in the Legislative Standards Act 1992. I have spoken in this place before about the ease with which this government appears to trample over these basic principles. I was looking forward to considering a bill where these principles were honoured. However, the explanatory notes make it clear that unfortunately this is not the case. There are eight separate subject areas identified in the notes as including situations where 'a balanced interpretation of the principles rather than their literal application has been considered necessary'. They 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2773 include vital issues such as whether there is sufficient regard for the institution of parliament, whether there has been sufficient regard for the rights and liberties of individuals, the granting of power to an inspector to enter premises, the ability to search for and seize property without consent or a warrant, and yet again a reversal of the onus of proof. My issue here is that these fundamental principles are being breached time and time again. In each instance there may even be something of an argument for supporting the breach, but the rights and liberties of ordinary Queenslanders are dying a death of a thousand cuts under the Beattie government. Broadly, this bill espouses the protection and maintenance of the marine environment while allowing for its sustainable use and the desire to base this result—this sustainable conservation— on a multiple use ecosystem cooperative and participatory management approach. It sounds good in theory but its practical application is questionable. The explanatory notes indicate more than 150 stakeholders were consulted and they all support this bill. I also have an issue with the description in the explanatory notes of the need to increase penalty levels. The reason apparently is that they have not kept pace with other offences of a similar character and therefore no longer offer much of a deterrent. As much as this government might want to brag about its supposed financial skill and its wonderful economic performance, I do not believe the average fisherman, commercial or recreational, has seen their personal financial position improve by the same amount as these increases in penalties. The introduction of penalties of up to 3,000 penalty units is a massive increase over the old act where the maximum was 100 penalty units. It is a 30-fold increase. I think our fisherfolk have not seen their income increase by anything like that, even here in the so-called Smart State. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (4.29 p.m.): I rise today to commend to the House the Marine Parks Bill 2004. The policy objective of the legislation is stated as providing for 'the protection and maintenance of the environment while allowing for its ecologically sustainable use'. This objective clearly outlines the commitment this government has for Queensland's marine parks and, as previously stated, this is another 2001 election campaign promise fulfilled. This bill is essential in addressing the modern changes our marine environment is experiencing. The current bill does not adequately promote modern, accepted standards for the management of marine parks and marine environment generally which are based on a multiple use, ecosystem, cooperative and participatory management approach. I congratulate the minister on the bill and draw members' attention to several key features of the bill. The bill formally recognises the cooperative arrangements between the Queensland and Commonwealth governments in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is one of Queensland's greatest treasures, and everyone who lives near the reef—myself included—knows how important it is to have the federal and state governments working together to ensure the seamless management of the reef. Working together will provide certainty and consistency for users and, as far as practicably possible, will simplify the complex legislative environment created by uncertain boundaries and jurisdictions. The Great Barrier Reef is an important part of tourism in Queensland, especially north Queensland. Tourism is the largest commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef region. In 2004 there are approximately 730 permitted tourism operators and 1,500 vessels and aircraft that are permitted to operate in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In Townsville many reefs like Kelso Reef, located on the outer of the Great Barrier Reef, are very popular with tourists. It is home to 1,500 species of colourful fish and 500 species of hard and soft corals. It is vital for the local and state economy for the reef to be protected and maintained. Through this amendment we are showing our commitment to working with the government for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. However, it is also up to the federal government to reciprocate. The previous bill did not have sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Island custom in marine parks. As a government which created a new department dedicated to the policy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland, it is essential that increased involvement be given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the general community in marine park planning and management. This bill now allows this. The bill also updates the requirements regarding reclamations. The assessment and management of reclamation in marine parks will be clarified involving early consideration of the potential impacts resulting from both the reclamation and excision of reclaimed areas, public scrutiny and, where these requirements are met, a non-parliamentary excision process for general use and habitat protection zones. This change is particularly relevant in Townsville. As members may recall, in 2001 the then Environment Minister sought and obtained a resolution of parliament for the revocation of an area of marine park at Nelly Bay on Magnetic Island. Reclamation has also been permitted in marine parks in a number of situations such as marina developments associated with tourism projects at Nelly Bay, Daydream Island in the Whitsundays and Laguna Quays north of Mackay. Queensland has the highest proportion of marine parks in Australia, and the Marine Parks Bill 2004 is showing our commitment to their protection. I commend the bill to the House. 2774 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (4.33 p.m.). I rise to speak on the Marine Parks Bill. I would like to indicate to the parliament that, as most members would know, my electorate covers a very substantial and significant area on the Queensland coast from just north of Yeppoon in the Shoalwater Bay area right through to just south of Mackay and out to the outer Barrier Reef. It is a very significant and pristine marine area in my electorate. It is worth while to consider that even though it is probably about 400 kilometres as the crow flies, it would be many thousands of kilometres as people follow the high-water mark around that area of the coast. If members look at a map of Queensland, the Shoalwater Bay area is a magnificent area in terms of the coastline. This is particularly so if members look at the intertidal zone between the high and low water. There is a very, very big area of land that is covered by the intertidal zone. Most people would realise that that area is very significant in terms of the crabbing industry in Queensland and all over Australia. There are many fishermen who work professionally in that area. I will talk about that a little later on. It is important to realise that this bill is an enhancement of the bill that was enacted by the National Party many years ago and it certainly builds on that. From all perspectives, and from the concern that is being raised on the other side of the House, indications are that the bill is enforcing closures. Of course that is not the case. What this bill does is allow closures and representative areas to be put in place without direct reference back to the parliament. It can be done by regulation. The only way that this can actually be debated in this House is with a disallowance motion. What we are actually talking about in pure politics is that the bill, in its own right, does not put in the closures in representative areas, but it certainly allows it to happen without the full disclosure and without significant consultation with the general public. It is very interesting that members on the other side of the House are trying to make the distinction that this is not about the closures or excluding people from fishing areas, but I challenge them to go out in the general public and actually try and make that distinction. It is very interesting, from my perspective as a National Party person and supposedly antienvironment and all the rest of it—we have heard ratbaggery notions coming from the other side of the House—that the reality is that people are very concerned about what is happening in this case. I understand the reasoning behind it and I understand that, in a sensitive manner, these closures can be done properly, but there has been no significant consultation with the fishermen or the general public all the way up and down the coast. The only consultation that did take place was at GBRMPA meetings. As my colleague from Hinchinbrook mentioned, when GBRMPA put the changes together it consulted a number of times up and down the coast. In the background at odd times we did happen to see some of the state representatives from fisheries listening in and taking notes. But at no time have they had direct consultation with the general public or the fishermen on the Queensland coast, particularly the areas we are talking about from just north of Bundaberg through to Cape York. I think it is also very important to realise that the area we are talking about—the intertidal zone— is a significant fishery for those people who cannot or do not want to buy a boat in which they can move onto the offshore areas. It is more about mum and dad taking kids fishing and throwing a line into the surf or having a small tinnie with a little outboard on it and just puttering around the coastline. As a fisherman before I came into this House, with a nice boat sitting in the shed which I have not used for the 10 years I have been here, I realise the significance in terms of being able to identify the neap low- water tide mark. Obviously there are significant fines in place for those people who would be caught inside that zone. Without GPS pinpoints or way points, it is going to be very difficult for the average fisherman to be able to pick up whether he is fishing legally or illegally. At the end of the day, with the level of fines we have which have been talked about in this bill, that is going to be a significant deterrent for those people who have a hobby in terms of taking their kids fishing, particularly when members think about places in the southern area of my electorate where the intertidal zone could cover many kilometres. When the tide goes out, it could be five, six or eight kilometres from the high-water mark. I am not sure that people really understand that. In reality—in my electorate, anyway—a lot of the people who have contacted me at my office—and there have been quite a few of them—are basically Labor Party supporters. I have had to try to satisfy their concerns and it is not very easy. I understand that this process can be undertaken more sensitively and certainly with consultation but, unfortunately, that does not seem to be occurring. We need to move on that area, if we can. I would like to detail some areas of significance in my electorate. I think it is important that I talk about them. The Ince Bay area and the creeks adjacent to the bay are important to the trawl industry. In the circumstances we are talking about, I guess they will not necessarily be impacted. I am not sure, but the trawl industry may be closed down in the creeks. The Ince Bay area is regularly worked by three professional fishers. It is an important supplier of prawns and bait for general domestic consumption. The north Westhill Island area is an important local fin fish ground. Up to 10 operators work that area regularly. It supplies barramundi, blue salmon and mullet. The majority, if not all, of the green zone is inside state waters. The closure will occur adjacent to the recreational reserve. Mirrored zoning will push commercial fishers into the recreational reserve. The north Westhill Island area—and I have fished 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2775 in that area—is important for crabbing in the creeks on either side of the closure. It has no significant dugong or sea grass protection areas. The Clairview area is also a very significant intertidal zone. When the tide goes out, it probably goes out five kilometres or even more in some places. It is an important fishing ground for salmon, barramundi and mud crabs. It is regularly worked by up to 10 operators. It is an existing DPA 'B' zone. The nets have already been modified to minimise the potential for interaction with protected species. The adjacent creeks are very important crabbing areas. The Broad Sound area is a critical crab and net fishing ground. It is regularly worked by up to 10 operators. It is not considered an important dugong ground. The creeks flowing into Broad Sound are critical fishing grounds, for example, Herbert Creek and Styx River. I am sure that many members do not realise that Styx River is one of the most significant bore areas in Australia and certainly in the Southern Hemisphere. At certain times of the tide, water will flow in at about a metre and a half and flow quickly up the river. That can happen a number of times a year. As I said, it is one of the most significant bore areas in Australia and possibly in the Southern Hemisphere. The Broad Sound is a key source of community income. Shoalwater Bay provides 15 per cent of the state's mud crab production. It also contains extensive areas of intertidal flats. Netting and crabbing occurs within the intertidal zones. Mirrored zoning will displace significant fishing efforts and will require significant adjustment funding. There is no other commercial activity in that area. Residents of the small township of Stanage Bay—and I was down there just the other day—rely totally on fishing for their livelihood. There is accommodation there, with a little restaurant, where people who travel to Stanage Bay can stay. Mostly, those people are fishermen or amateurs who are interested in fishing. It is a nice little holiday spot. Shoalwater Bay and Townsend Island are also very significant crabbing grounds for the state. Together with Broad Sound, they support about 15 per cent of the state's mud crab production. Throughout that area there is very significant production of seafood. There are two issues. From a professional fisherman's point of view, if they are excluded from the areas I have referred to, it will certainly have an impact on their fishing ability. More importantly, if they are forced into recreational areas, it will impact on recreational fishers and on the environment. There will be overfishing in some areas and no fishing at all in other areas. From an environmental outcome point of view, I am not sure that is the way we need to be heading. In terms of recreational fishing, an important thing members need to realise is that families are a very important part of our civilisation, and the ability for mums and dads to take their kids fishing is a very important aspect of family life. In my electorate, hundreds, if not thousands, of people do that every weekend. If they are concerned that they might be caught out by some sneaky regulation that they are not aware of, they will be restricted in their ability to do that. I have to say that I would be dead scared to put a boat in the water right now unless I had done about three weeks study to find out the exact requirements under the fishing legislation, for example, in relation to exclusion zones. I think there are nine days over the next three months during which there is a moratorium on taking fin fish, et cetera. As I said, the fines are very significant and would be absolutely unaffordable for the average battler. With those few words, I do not support this legislation. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (4.47 p.m.): I rise today to support the Marine Parks Bill 2004. In doing so, I wish to congratulate the former minister for the environment, John Mickel, and his staff for the work they did when the bill was introduced into the House. I also wish to congratulate the current minister, the Hon. Desley Boyle, and her staff for their continuation of that good work. I have lived on Bribie Island for the past 20 years. One cannot live in a place like Bribie Island for that long without developing a passion and great interest in marine parks. Bribie Island is an integral part of Moreton Bay and is separated from the mainland by the Pumicestone Passage. Both waterways are considered pristine. They are used constantly by all types of recreational and commercial users. Families, fishermen—although professional fishermen have been banned from fishing in the Pumicestone Passage since 1994—tourism operators, scientists and other marine operators all contribute to generating income and providing job opportunities for the area. Economics and job opportunities are important for any area. However, they are certainly not the only reasons why pristine areas such as Moreton Bay and Pumicestone Passage should warrant extra protection. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking the step to strengthen the Marine Parks Act 1982. This bill is an important advancement in providing the state with forward-looking legislation to protect and sustain our waterways for future generations. Foresight is something which the opposition simply does not understand. They want to live in the past, they want to bring back the past—which they prefer to call the 'good old days'; they cannot move forward and they do not believe in change. They think that because people have been doing something for generations they should be allowed to 2776 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 continue to do it. Everyone knows that the world does not stand still. In fact, it is moving so fast that a lot of us are racing to catch up. I am disappointed that the opposition is not supporting this bill. This shows that they cannot move on. They do not want to see the Marine Park Act 1982 changed to reflect what is happening in 2004. In his speech today the member for Toowoomba South talked about fisheries management reform in Queensland under his government. He did not mention the fact that at this year's state election the National Party promised no changes to the fisheries management reforms introduced by this government. That means if a Springborg government had been elected it would have kept the east coast trawl management plan, the coral reef fin fish management plan, the grey nurse shark protected areas and a number of others. The member for Toowoomba South has the gall to criticise the Beattie government for introducing the much-needed coral reef fin fish management plan. On 2 July this year Mr Horan issued a media statement on the coral plan under the headline ‘Nats' fishing policy adopted by Labor'. He claims this government needs to fight for people working in rural and regional Queensland. We are. But where is the National Party? Let me digress and take a brief look at the federal election where there is a stark contrast between the Liberal federal government and federal Labor in that only Labor believes Australians earning less than $52,000 per year deserve a tax cut. An opposition member interjected. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: Do not worry; it is relevant. Just wait. A federal government report released last month entitled Social profile of public employed in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries was drawn to my attention by the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Henry Palaszczuk. The summary of the report stated— Over 25% of households where one or more members employed in AFF received a combined weekly household income $1,200 or greater in 2001. Perhaps the National Party can explain why approximately three-quarters of households where people are working in agriculture, forestry and fishing in this country—the people who feed our nation— did not deserve a tax cut under the Howard government? My challenge to those in the opposition is to upgrade, broaden their knowledge and learn that diversification is not a dirty word. Catch up with the times. I urge those opposite to turn the corner into the 21st century and support this bill. I place on record the gratitude of my constituents of the recent decision by the Coordinator- General to refuse the application of fish cages in Moreton Bay. I, along with members in this House, have spoken on a number of occasions about the concerns of my constituents which I shared. As the deputy chair of the Ministerial Aquaculture Advisory Committee, MAAC, I had the rare opportunity to visit sea and land based aquaculture facilities. It certainly gave me an insight and first- hand knowledge into the drawbacks of intensive and unnatural caged fish farming. One of the major drawbacks of having fish in these cages is that they are carnivorous. They are fed usually in the form of pellets. There is a concern that the wild stock of those fish being caught for fish farms will decrease. An example of that is the thousands of kilos of pilchards which are imported from Chile to feed the caged tuna in South Australia. This is simply not sustainable. I have read that the production of a single pound of fish-eating species such as salmon or tuna or cod demands two kilos of wild-caught fish that is processed into meal and oil for feeds. Caged fish are fed much more often than are fish in the wild. This gives them an insatiable appetite. When they escape, which is inevitable for some—for example, nets may be torn, predators may be attracted, cages have to be shifted—they hang around and eat everything in sight, including all the native species of the area. Atlantic salmon are even fed colouring agents to reflect the pink hue which they get naturally in the wild by eating the pink shrimp. They are fed pesticides to kill the lice that go hand in hand with industrial feedlots. I have read that some overseas pellets have been found to be too high in dioxins. The salmon farms we visited in Tasmania and Brunie Island were prone to amoebic gill disease. It is not so common in the wild but it is very prevalent in farmed fish. It is so contagious that once one fish has it the whole cage has to be treated with a freshwater bath. That sounds rather relaxing but saltwater fish suffer tremendously. Some suffer so much that they die. What is a few fish when a cage can house up to 50,000 fish? As they grow they come into constant contact with each other and the sides of the pen rub off their scales and flesh. Because of this close contact they also become less wary. So if they do escape they are less likely to survive and become easy prey. Can members imagine the mess underneath the cages—50,000 fish eating and defecating constantly? We were shown photographs of sea cages—and these cages used an antifouling agent based on copper sulphate—in Kettering. Tasmania. After 12 months there was not even a stick growing on the ocean floor. I take this opportunity to congratulate the government on this decision. I commend the bill to the House. 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2777

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (4.55 p.m.): The Liberal Party will always support legislation that enhances and improves the protection of our marine parks in a responsible way. We judge this bill as such a piece of legislation and therefore will be supporting it. The Marine Parks Act 1982 is right for updating. That is the principal reason behind the bill in the House today. In Queensland, we have a wonderful network of marine parks used for recreational and commercial activities. Therefore, it is important that our estuaries and coastal waters are protected by balanced legislation. Then all Queenslanders can be confident that the wonderful natural assets of today can be enjoyed by our children well into the future. We have some of the most significant marine parks in Australia, if not the world. They deserve to be managed in a balanced way under comprehensive legislation reflecting the wishes of the people of Queensland. Over the years we have seen examples of developments entangled in red tape leading to frustration by both the proponents of those developments and opponents. The bill should provide some more certainty to those considering such developments in the future. We have only to look at the fish farm proposal put forward for Moreton Bay over the last 12 to 18 months. It was a fiasco both in terms of the time and money wasted by the proponents and the way in which the government was probably forced to handle the situation because of the conflicting and sometimes misleading pieces of legislation that the proponents were forced to operate under. This bill will wipe away all of that. In the future, when people come to Queensland and look at putting in place developments within the marine parks of Queensland they will be certain that they will not be wasting their time and money as they have done in the past. That is one great aspect of this particular piece of legislation. It finally brings all other pieces of legislation together in a coordinated way so that proponents of developments in the future will not be wasting their time and money, the government's time and the government's money and frustrating other people who wish to oppose or support the developments. That is a great advance in providing certainty under which marine parks can be managed throughout Queensland. Another important feature is to ensure that the Queensland legislation is coordinated with Commonwealth legislation so that all of the Great Barrier Reef is responsibly managed. We will be supporting the legislation. We do have some reservations. We do not agree with a third-party entitlement to seek enforcement orders. We have opposed that in the past. When considering the clauses we will make our views known about that more solidly and will oppose it. By and large, the legislation updates the Marine Parks Act 1982. Quite rightly, it needed to be updated. There were inconsistencies and, quite frankly, time had marched on and the legislation had not kept pace with recent developments in Queensland. This bill will bring more certainty to everyone who operates in our marine parks and help protect those marine parks well into the future. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (4.58 p.m.): I rise this afternoon to support the Marine Parks Bill 2004. This is a bill which will replace the Marine Parks Act 1982, as many speakers have said. It will update the legislation to promote modern standards for the conservation of Queensland's marine environment. This bill is all about conservation. It is about the protection and maintenance of the environment while still allowing for sustainable use and still allowing people to utilise it as they need to. Much of this bill simply comprises existing provisions for the zoning, management, planning, permits and similar matters to be redrafted and updated to meet current standards. It has not been reviewed since 1982 and it is out of date. The term 'conservation' is the focus of this bill, but it also reinforces the multiple use philosophy that underpins our entire approach to how we deal with marine parks. This bill specifically sets out elements of the strategic approach to be adopted in achieving these results, including declaring marine parks which may be separated into zones, designated areas and highly protected areas; cooperating with other agencies, traditional owners and stakeholders; cooperating in the implementation of our international, national and intergovernmental agreements such as the World Heritage convention; and recognising the cultural, economic, ecological and social relationships between marine parks and adjacent areas. Labor members on this side of the House have spoken about the balance between the marine parks and the adjacent areas. As a hinterland resident, I fully understand this. Everything that we do in the hinterland eventually impacts on our waterways all the way through to the coast. It is very important that everything we do is well managed and well cared for. There are any number of groups in my area such as Waterwatch groups and Landcare groups doing their part to make sure that our catchment is well looked after and that sustainable production and sustainable uses across all areas of our community do not impact poorly on our coastline, and I thank them for the voluntary work that they do and also thank the officers of the various departments who are very committed to that process as well. The Goss Labor government and the Beattie Labor government have a strong environmental record. For example, in 1994 we changed the zoning of the Pumicestone Passage so that only recreational fishers used it. That has made a tremendous difference to the fish stocks in the Pumicestone Passage, but they are still recovering. One can throw a line in almost anywhere and still 2778 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004 not catch fish because of the poor record until 1994 in protecting fish stocks. Labor governments have passed legislation protecting the grey nurse shark and promoting healthy waterways projects and coastal management plans, which have received much support. Funding for our Waterwatch groups, catchment care groups and Landcare groups has also been vital. It is these types of environmental policies that the Labor Party has put into practice which are making all of the difference in our environment today. This bill has other aspects to it, and one of those is that it provides more flexible powers to achieve compliance and, where applicable, stronger penalties will be applied. It allows for a compliance notice to be issued as an alternative to prosecution. It allows the chief executive to seek enforcement orders. The bill also allows third parties to seek an enforcement order in relation to matters which have been explicitly prohibited in a marine park and also in relation to matters of unlawful serious environmental harm, and it certainly toughens up the penalties in that regard. I have been listening to National Party members and their supposed environmental credentials and have been quite surprised to hear the types of things they are talking about. They have an irresponsible approach to vegetation management. They have not supported our end to broadscale land clearing. They have not been there when the environment has been calling them, and our communities know that and have not trusted them with all of their wild and outrageous promises that they know will never come to fruition. It is the same in this place today. There is scaremongering in this House that Labor will not be able to fulfil its environmental commitments and that somehow it is turning its back on a vast number of people for no apparent reason. That is just not true. We have a strong environmental record. We are willing to back it up with legislation and willing to put the penalties in place to ensure the environment is protected, and that is what this is all about. For example, as a government we rejected the SunAqua proposal to put fish farms in Moreton Bay. It was an outrageous proposal that would have caused a large amount of environmental harm. So we do follow through with what we promise and we are there to protect the environment. I heard the member for Toowoomba South say that if we do good things people will join in enthusiastically. He got that right, because we are doing good things in the environment. When we talk to people in the communities, they are enthusiastic about the environment. They are enthusiastic about supporting the government's proposals and supporting our legislation. When we talk about the consultation that went on for this bill, the EPA certainly had extensive consultation with over 150 stakeholders up and down the coast from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Environment Australia, local government, conservation groups, indigenous groups, tourism groups, commercial and recreational fisher men and women, industry and science. They all got a chance to comment on these particular proposals. We have a proper consultation process in place. We make sure that everyone has a chance to have their say and they can feed into the process so that we end up with good legislation which, as I have said, protects the environment. I congratulate the current minister and the previous minister, John Mickel, for all of their hard work and thank their ministerial and departmental staff for making sure that this legislation came before the House today. It is a significant step in the delivery of environmental reforms from this government, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (5.05 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Marine Parks Bill. I also want to commend the previous minister, the Hon. John Mickel, and the current minister and her ministerial staff for the assistance that they have provided to me in relation to the implications of this particular bill. The bill updates the act to reflect the current needs of society and builds on our good record as set out by the member for Glass House. There is a Slim Dusty song which starts, 'Well, I've listened with patience to all your sad tales,' and I must say that the National Party does have some sad tales but even those tales are not true. Mr Hopper: Sing it for us! Mr HOOLIHAN: It is called The Pub with No Beer. For the benefit of those ill-informed people on the other side of the House, I have to say that I do not fully agree with certain comments of previous speakers in relation to the record of the National Party government on marine parks, although the current crop does not do very well, because the original Marine Parks Act 1982 was introduced by a National Party government to give effect to the offshore constitutional settlement of 1979 which was entered into with the then Fraser government. For the information of those on the other side of the House who have previously spoken, this is known as the Emerald agreement. They can find the details of that in the issues paper from the National Oceans Office, which is run by the federal government. I will give members the web site address if they need it. The Emerald agreement in actual fact set out the need for collaboration between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments in management of the Great Barrier Reef and offshore waters. The original act—the Seas and Submerged Lands Act—established Commonwealth jurisdiction over the seabed below low water, and that act was constitutionally valid and was the basis for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to come into effect. The state retained responsibility for all islands other than a small number owned by the Commonwealth within the outer boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef 06 Oct 2004 Marine Parks Bill 2779 region as well as for tidal lands and tidal waters of Queensland along the coastline and surrounding the islands. The arrangements for sharing of powers and complementary management had their genesis in the Emerald agreement, which was entered into by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland on 14 June 1979, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. This agreement provided for both governments to continue to manage the islands, reefs and waters of the Great Barrier Reef in a cooperative and complementary way. More specifically, it provided for day-to-day management of the marine park to be carried out by Queensland agencies. There were actually three documents which make up the formal agreement. The basis of agreement endorsed on 1 August 1980 was the original document setting out the arrangements and responsibilities under which the day-to-day management has operated since 1980. Then there was the main agreement signed on 10 May 1988—a time still under the rule of a National Party government. This document formalises the intentions of both governments and the authority and formally applies the basis of agreement to all sections of the park. It reiterates the basic principles in the basis of agreement and clarifies financial arrangements and the responsibility of the authority for establishing policies. This document was not intended to be legally enforceable. But then we get to the deed of agreement, which was also signed on 10 May 1988. This document provides for the use, management and disposal of assets created by funding under the basis of agreement and the main agreement. In addition, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Queensland fisheries management agencies entered into a memorandum of understanding in July 1988—still under the rule of a National Party government. The memorandum of understanding provides guidelines for the management of fishing and collecting within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Many people in my electorate have made submissions in relation to the complementary zones that were mentioned by the National Party speakers earlier. Those submissions will ultimately form part of the present plan for the Great Barrier Reef when they have been considered by the department. One of the difficulties that arises was set out by the then minister in his second reading speech, when he stated that, if the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is enforcing rules for the ocean, then we cannot have two sets of rules for one body of water. I have listened to the members for Toowoomba South and Burnett and other speakers wrongly claim that Queensland was free to go its own way with complementary zoning and really should do nothing. But they obviously know nothing about environmental matters. The debate is not even entirely about complementary zoning. There are many other areas of the marine park and the ocean that are covered by the amendments to the act. I have a copy of the letter that was read out by the member for Toowoomba South. It shows that the federal government does not have very much knowledge about its own processes or obligations. Although those processes may allow complementary legislation to be introduced in Queensland—and as I said, this bill relates to many more issues than that—it ensures that the Beattie Labor government lives up to its obligations under all of its agreements with the Commonwealth and its obligations to the people of this state to protect the environment. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (5.11 p.m.): What can I say but that Redlands leads the way again? For many years now, the Moreton Bay Marine Park has highlighted the multi-use model of the modern marine park. There is a body of water just off my lovely electorate called Moreton Bay. Within that body of water, I believe that there is an area of high importance to the entire community. It has extremely high conservation values. However, within that body of water, there are some areas that have extremely high levels of conservation value and areas where pre-existing activities need to be allowed to continue. When the Moreton Bay Marine Park was established, that facet was recognised. The Moreton Bay Marine Park was broken into various designated zones. Areas of high value were areas such as the seagrass bed in a range of locations—areas where dugong breed and are known to inhabit. It is important that all activity be excluded from those areas. We cannot have boats racing in there hitting dugong. We cannot have people in there pumping for worms and ripping up seagrass. At the same time, there are areas of Moreton Bay that people have fished in for years—both recreational and commercial fishermen. Those activities were assessed and were allowed to continue, as long as they happened within certain areas and were using certain mechanisms to ensure the survival of the fisheries. There was no reason for those activities to be banned. This multi-use model that was established in the Moreton Bay Marine Park is now being extended to many other marine parks. I would like to compliment the minister and her team on taking an approach that many people can relate to. Also in our terrestrial parks, there are areas that need to be locked up because of their high value. But there are areas of crown land that are degraded to such an extent that some activities can and should be allowed to take place in them. I am a keen dirt bike rider. I encourage some areas of crown land to be opened up for dirt bike riding, for mountain bike riding and for other recreational uses. People understand that not all areas of water are the same. This government has been extremely aggressive in trying to improve the quality of Moreton Bay. We are spending millions of dollars in supporting councils to upgrade their sewage treatment facilities to try to minimise nutrient output, to try to improve the quality of the water in Moreton Bay and its estuaries. Our attempts to improve the 2780 Marine Parks Bill 06 Oct 2004

Moreton Bay Marine Park and secure and protect Moreton Bay are multifaceted. I think that the expansion of the multi-use model across the state is certainly to be commended because the public can understand the science and the commonsense behind this model. Some members of the opposition, in their contributions, commented that the National Party was the only party in parliament to take a stand against SunAqua. I should have jumped up and pointed out that they were actually misleading the House, but I decided to let it go. The facts are that what the National Party was calling for is what the the National Party often calls for: a return to corruption. Unlike the National Party, the Labor government is about the rule of law; it is not about endorsing, condoning or encouraging corruption. There is a legal process that companies such as SunAqua must go through. We set up independent criminal courts. Personally, sometimes I agree with the decisions that certain judges make and certain juries make and sometimes I disagree with them. But my God, I have faith in the independence of the system. The fact that the system sometimes does not make decisions that I agree with is disappointing for me personally, but I trust the integrity of the independent system. I am glad that the independent assessment of the SunAqua proposal found that it was incompatible or inconsistent with what the government was trying to achieve in the Moreton Bay Marine Park. I am really, really glad about that outcome and I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about that. I know that the member for Capalaba and the member for Cleveland are also passionate about this issue and both of them also appreciated this outcome. However, the issue is about due process. It is about following the law. It is not about political interference in the legal process. It is not about short- cutting decisions. There is an independent system in place and, just like when I watch court cases, I keep my fingers crossed and hope that the court will make a decision that I can agree with. Sometimes the independent system makes a decision that I disagree with, but again, I do not attempt to politically interfere in this independent processes. You do so at your peril. I am lucky enough to have five islands in my electorate: the beautiful Coochiemudlo Island, Russell Island, Karragarra Island, Lamb Island and, of course, Macleay Island. In fact, we are going to debate some legislation specifically about those islands in the future, but I will not refer to that legislation. I know that, from having islands in my electorate, commuter facilities to and from those islands are extremely important to my constituents—both the residents of the islands and people on the mainland who wish to travel to those islands and enjoy the beautiful experiences that are to be had there—as well as tourists wishing to travel to the islands. There is a growing tourist industry on the islands. If members really want to travel to a beautiful sandy beach during summer to have a nice quick dip in an environment that is extremely friendly for children, I could not recommend Coochiemudlo Island any higher. It is very, very close to Brisbane. I urge members to get across and enjoy the beauty that is Coochiemudlo. We have had problems in relation to commuters, particularly from Redland Bay to the southern bay islands. I know that the Redland Shire Council submitted an application to the government to reclaim part of Moreton Bay Marine Park to build an all-weather, wheelchair friendly commuter facility for the ferries. The process for reclaiming part of a marine park is extremely confusing and extremely lengthy. I believe that it took eight or nine years for that commuter facility to finally come about. Amendments contained in this bill will clarify the process for reclaiming marine parks. Members should not get me wrong: I am not condoning reclamation of marine parks willy-nilly. Just as in the assessment of SunAqua, I want there to be a clear and transparent process. At the moment we have the department saying that the process is confusing. This bill is about seeking to clarify the application process. I know that the residents of the southern bay islands appreciate the new commuter facility at Wynnum Creek. I know that many disabled and elderly people who live on the four southern bay islands also appreciate the increased access. The Minister for Transport is not in the chamber at the moment, but I have mentioned to him what a great facility the council built at Redland Bay on Wynnum Creek. There is a problem at Victoria Point in that at the moment we still have steps. I would love a floating pontoon at Victoria Point. There need to be processes in place for going about reclaiming marine parks. Those applications do need to be assessed in light of environmental considerations. I am not asking for them to be short- circuited, but the process needs to be clear and transparent. I am sure that these amendments will achieve that. In conclusion, I thank the minister. I ask her to pass on my thanks to her department for all of their hard work in bringing this bill before the House. I readily commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.22 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Marine Parks Bill 2004. I certainly do not intend to go over matters raised by other members of the House. The minister stated in the second reading speech— Queensland's waterways are among our most wonderful natural assets. We also have some wonderful forest areas in Queensland. The minister also stated— They are used by families for recreation, by commercial and recreational fishers, indigenous peoples, divers, nature lovers, tourists and tourism operators, coastal developers, shipping and mining interests, scientists and the aquaculture industry, providing job opportunities and generating income for coastal communities. 06 Oct 2004 Child Sex Offenders 2781

That statement relates just as much to our forest areas as it does to our marine parks. I refer in particular to Mapleton forest, by way of an example. As I read the second reading speech and the bill and explanatory notes, and when I look at how the minister deals with marine parks in this bill, I wonder how she will deal with our wonderful forest areas on the Sunshine Coast. The second reading speech states of the bill— It seeks to build upon the multiple use models used in Moreton Bay and elsewhere... I certainly hope that the minister can use similar models for Mapleton forest and the forest areas on the Sunshine Coast. The second reading speech also states— Marine national park zones are set aside for complete protection as no-take areas. We in the electorate of Nicklin can certainly relate to that. We certainly understand that there will be no-go areas in the Mapleton national park. We hope that we will be able to see a similarity in the way the minister will deal with parts of Mapleton forest and the way she is dealing with marine parks. The second reading speech states— The purpose of the bill is clearly stated as providing for the conservation of the marine environment. The term ‘conservation' is defined to mean protection and maintenance of the environment whilst allowing for sustainable use. We certainly can understand and relate to those statements. The speech then states— This reinforces the multiple use philosophy which underpins the Queensland approach to marine parks. We hope that the minister will use a similar philosophy when she considers the issues of the Mapleton national park and the forest areas on the Sunshine Coast. The second reading speech states— However, it does not allow revocation of national park or conservation park zones without a resolution of Parliament. In relation to Mapleton national park, we understand the importance of that. We really hope that the parliament can get it right for the present residents of the Sunshine Coast and also for future residents, just as the minister has considered the issues of the marine parks. The speech also states— This process will not apply to highly protected areas such as national park or conservation park zones. We certainly understand the reasons for that. We are certainly looking to the minister to show great compassion for the forest areas of the Sunshine Coast, as the minister has indicated in the second reading speech on the Marine Parks Bill. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the minister's answers to some of the issues raised by the opposition and other members. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (5.25 p.m.): I rise in support of the Marine Parks Bill 2004. Living in the Redlands, with its close proximity to Moreton Bay, I am fully aware of the importance of the amendments contained in this bill to protect our environment. I concur with the honourable member for Redlands in relation to the importance of Moreton Bay to the constituents of my electorate and his. This legislation creates contemporary standards for the conservation of Queensland's marine environment. It provides for the protection and maintenance of the marine environment while allowing for its ecologically sustainable use. The key words are 'sustainable use'. I understand that jobs are important. Nothing pleases me more than that we are able to create jobs for Queenslanders, but at what cost? We must not allow our marine parks to be damaged in the name of providing jobs for a few. The Marine Parks Bill 2004 will replace the Marine Parks Act 1982. The Marine Parks Act 1982 does not reflect current knowledge, community expectation or best practice management with respect to the conservation of the marine environment. It does not provide a clear statement of purpose to guide decisions and action taken under the act. It does not adequately promote modern acceptable standards for the management of marine parks and the marine environment generally, which are based on a multiple-use, ecosystem, cooperative and participatory management approach. The objectives of this bill will promote the conservation of the marine environment and the principle of ecologically sustainable use, which is extremely important to the people of Queensland. It will provide a balanced approach to the assessment and management of reclamation in marine parks involving early consideration of the Marine Parks Bill 2004. It is important to the people of Capalaba, and I commend this bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Ms Bligh, adjourned.

CHILD SEX OFFENDERS Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.28 p.m.): I move— That as one-third of persons convicted in Queensland of child sex crimes escape prison sentences, this parliament directs that the government legislate for mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment for persons convicted of child sex crimes, including the possession, production and distribution of child pornography. On 1 October the Premier said— If anyone is involved in under-aged activities, illegal activities, paedophilia with children, they go to jail. 2782 Child Sex Offenders 06 Oct 2004

This is what the Premier said on 1 October this year. I will repeat it for the benefit of members in this place tonight. He said— If anyone is involved in under-aged activities, illegal activities, paedophilia with children, they go to jail. The simple reality is this: what the Premier said on 1 October this year is wrong. He has misled the people of Queensland. He asserted that three to four years ago on his web site. There was a section on the web site saying, ‘If you want to come to Queensland and you want to offend against children, you go to jail.' He kept that mistruth alive on 1 October this year when he said exactly the same thing. The reality is this: since 1998 there have been 645 people convicted for indecently dealing with children in Queensland. However, one-third of these—217—have not gone to jail for as much as one night. If the Premier believes in those sentiments which he relayed not only to the media and the people of Queensland about four or five days ago but also to anyone who wanted to click onto his web site some three or four years ago, and if he is true to his belief and his assertion that persons who sexually offend against children in Queensland should go to jail, then he should join the Nationals tonight in supporting this motion that we are moving in parliament. We would like to see the Premier give effect to what he is saying. We do not want to see him mislead the people of Queensland into believing that if a person is convicted of a child sex offence in Queensland then they go to jail when in actual fact they do not. Let us look at some of the figures from 1998 to 2003. Of the 645 people convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16, 217 escaped a jail sentence. Of the 92 convicted of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16, 42 escaped a jail sentence. Of the 59 convicted of unlawful sodomy, eight escaped a jail sentence. The figures have not improved. The results from July 2002 to March 2003 show that, of the 142 convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16, 46 escaped a jail sentence and that, of the 21 convicted of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16, 12 escaped a jail sentence. So, as I have demonstrated, these predators, these pieces of scum, just are not going to jail. One-third of them are escaping jail. What we saw from the Premier last week was his standing up in front of the media first of all saying that the laws in Queensland are strong enough. Then on Monday cabinet turned around and said that it would change the laws and make the laws in Queensland more stringent, particularly when it comes to the issue of child pornography. On 31 July 2000 I put out a press release stating, 'Weak child pornography laws defended by Mr Foley.' I indicated at that stage that we had an anomaly in the law in Queensland where, if a person distributed electronic images for free, that person was not caught under the Criminal Code. Basically, there was no law that applied. Mr Foley then said, 'Child pornography exchange remains illegal, despite opposition claims.' So he was saying that we were wrong. Lo and behold, a couple of months later he came into this parliament with miscellaneous legislation and he introduced some new amendments. He did not mention it in his second reading speech but he went and changed the law—section 228 of the Criminal Code, in fact—to ensure that there was an offence for these obscene publications published by electronic means. A brand new section 228 of the Criminal Code was brought into being. So this government has been lagging all the way along. He was caught out at that stage, and he had to come into this place and try to sneak an amendment through the parliament. We have a government which has not been serious. It has mouthed all the right rhetoric, and I commend it for being prepared to at least say the right things, but there is a difference between saying what you believe in and actually doing what you say you believe in. If this government were fair dinkum, quite frankly, it would support the Nationals' motion tonight. How can any member opposite or anyone in Queensland argue that if people sexually offend against a child and they are convicted they should not go to jail? It is a heinous crime. It is a dreadful crime. We have mandatory sentences in other cases in Queensland. For example, for murder there is a mandatory sentence. Three-time drink drive offenders go to jail in Queensland. All we are saying here tonight is that if someone offends against children they should go to jail. How can anyone stand here and say that there needs to be some discretion? We have not put in this motion any prescribed minimum. What we are seeking to do here tonight is to lead Australia; to agree with the principle that if people sexually offend against children they should go to jail. What is the government's aversion to that? The Premier and the government are approaching this the wrong way. They are saying that they will double the maximum sentences. That might appear to be laudable on the surface, but unless we address the one-third of sexual offenders who do not go to jail then, frankly, increasing the maximum is virtually meaningless. The other day across Australia 200 people were charged with the possession, distribution and manufacture of child pornography. That is an absolutely dreadful, heinous crime. Fifty- eight of those people were in Queensland. It is still to be determined how many of those people will be convicted and ultimately will go to jail. Any law which we passed in this parliament would not have retrospective application. Nobody argues that. What we are saying is that we should be sending a very strong message for the future. Government members interjected. 06 Oct 2004 Child Sex Offenders 2783

Mr SPRINGBORG: To those members opposite who interjected that the matter should be left to the courts, I ask: why did the Premier say on 1 October, ‘If anyone is involved in underage activities, illegal activities, paedophilia with children, they go to jail'? What are those opposite saying about that? That is what the Premier said. We would agree with those sentiments. Let us do what the Premier is saying. The other day I turned on the news to hear the New South Wales Police Minister talking about the need to beef up the laws in New South Wales. The police were reporting that, of those people charged in child pornography raids across Australia, there were numerous people who had prior convictions. Their cases are to be decided by the courts, but of those people who have been charged quite a lot have had prior convictions. The law that exists does not act as a deterrent. If people knew that there would be not only a higher maximum penalty but also no chance whatsoever of escaping jail, then they would be less likely to be involved in this absolutely disgusting activity of the distribution of child pornography or any other sexual offences against children. We also know that the manufacture, production, distribution and possession of child pornography is a place where many people start in their offences against children. That is known; that is talked about. Child psychologists know that. People who study these people know that. Everyone knows that. What we are doing with this motion is sending out a very strong signal. I simply say to members in this place tonight: support this motion. It establishes an important principle, which is this: if you sexually offend against children in any way whatsoever, then you go to jail. What is wrong with that principle? No-one disagrees with it. Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (5.38 p.m.): I rise to second this motion, which moves, 'That as one-third of persons convicted in Queensland of child sex crimes escape prison sentences, this parliament directs that the government legislate for mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment for persons convicted of child sex crimes, including the possession, production and distribution of child pornography.' Something is terribly wrong with our system of justice if one-third of convicted child sex offenders do not serve any time in jail. For goodness sake, where are our priorities when fine defaulters can end up in jail but one-third of convicted child sex offenders do not go to jail? It is time that the system was changed. That is what this motion is about. While the extension of maximum sentences is one issue, this is really about whether people go to jail in the first place. It is also about what effective monitoring is undertaken when people are released from jail, and I will come back to that in a moment. If people are going to jail for relatively minor offences, why aren't people who have committed these absolutely horrendous crimes against some of the most vulnerable in our community ever facing the threat of a jail sentence, ever facing the punishment of a jail sentence? While I know there will be some bleeding hearts who will say that people should not be sent to jail as punishment, that is just a lot of rot because many times these young children have been committed to a lifetime of great distress and brokenness, which flows right through our mental health system. It flows right through even to children becoming offenders themselves later in life. It is a cycle which has to be broken, but it is one which has left many shattered lives within our community. Government data reveals that between 1988 and 2003, of the 645 persons convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16, 217 escaped a jail sentence. Of the 92 convicted of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16, 42 escaped a jail sentence. Of the 59 convicted of unlawful sodomy, eight escaped a jail sentence. The figures did not improve between July 2002 and March 2003, where of the 142 convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16, 46 escaped a jail sentence. Of the 21 convicted of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16, 12 escaped a jail sentence. These figures are damnable. These figures demand that there be a change. These figures demand that a jail sentence at least be mandatory as a means of protection, as a means of deterrence and as a means of saying as a society that it is just not good enough that the people who commit these terrible crimes are allowed to go free. With regard to child pornography, there is a saying that what you feed breeds. This is one of those crimes where people who are accessing child pornography are feeding an addiction. They are feeding on something and they always have an insatiable appetite for more. But, more than that, they are supporting an industry of abuse. When they look at that pornography—even if that is in private—they are supporting an industry of abuse. They are supporting people who are abusing children, who are putting them onto the Internet and so on. There needs to be a crackdown on that. I know that all members are against child abuse and pornography, but what is being queried here is the fact that the system does not do enough to address these issues. While there are supervision orders for monitoring offenders after their release from jail, I am calling on the government to review the effectiveness of these supervision orders and to look at new ways of providing adequate, ongoing and lifetime monitoring of people who have committed child sex abuse. Some of the figures show that repeat 2784 Child Sex Offenders 06 Oct 2004 sex offenders are some of the worst recidivist offenders; they repeat their offences against children. I call on the government to review the effectiveness of supervision orders and to look at lifetime supervision and more effective means of providing that supervision of those people. Time expired. Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.43 p.m.): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘That’ are omitted and the following words inserted— ‘this parliament notes the government's determination to protect children and the steps taken in this regard, including: • being the first jurisdiction in Australia to allow the indefinite detention of dangerous prisoners; • being the first jurisdiction in Australia to screen people working with children; • increasing the penalties for indecent treatment of children; • introduction of new rules to protect child witnesses in court; • removing the principle that prison should be a last resort for child sex offences; • creation of a new offence to deal with paedophiles who are using the Internet to lure children; • the commitment to participate in the national child sex offender register; and • the recently announced commitment to increase penalties for possession and production of child pornography and procurement of a child for child pornography.’ My government is unaware of any evidence from any jurisdiction anywhere in the world to show that mandatory sentencing acts as a deterrent. If the Opposition Leader has any evidence of mandatory sentencing cutting crimes, I ask that he place it before us in this debate. This simplistic suggestion flies in the face of research world wide. It is a bit like suggesting that we should bring back the death sentence to stop people from committing murders. When we had the death sentence it did not deter murderers. Many states in the United States have the death sentence. They also still have a high murder rate. Mandatory sentencing would treat every offender the same way by imposing a minimum jail term no matter what the circumstances of the offence. It means that the punishment does not always necessarily fit the crime. We want paedophiles to experience the appropriate justice and the full force of the law. It would mean that the wrong people could go to jail. If people were sent, for example, spam email containing photographs deemed to comprise child pornography and they failed to delete them from their computer, they would go to prison under the Opposition Leader's mandatory sentencing. It would be quite easy for that to happen. Someone might be appalled at the spam email, but just as they were about to delete it there could be a knock on the door. The person might be sidetracked for several hours and never get around to deleting the offending email. We all get emails we do not want, nor ask for and are often offended by. In this case someone is in possession of child pornography and under the Leader of the Opposition's mandatory jail terms they would go to jail, even though they were innocent. Quite apart from sending innocent people to jail, this legislation does not encourage offenders to undertake rehabilitation because there is no prospect of any early release. It does not deal with post- release issues such as attempted contact with victims. Let us talk about a more effective way to do it, and this is the approach taken by our government. We have demonstrated the toughest approach of any state in Australia against paedophiles and sex offenders. We have done this through wide-ranging reforms to our laws. We introduced the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, unique in Australia, which was last week given the tick by the High Court 6-1. Even earlier than that, in 2002, we introduced legislation that removed the principle that prison should be a last resort for sex offenders. That means our courts must consider a jail term for sex offenders. We created a specific new offence to deal with paedophiles who are using the Internet to lure children. We increased penalties for indecent dealing, the most common of sexual offences dealt with by our courts. We introduced new reporting provisions to give judges the power to ensure that sex offenders, even after they are released from custody, report regularly and in person to the police. This week we signalled a plan to double maximum penalties for procuring children for pornography and for producing pornography to 10 years jail, and we will more than double the maximum penalty for possessing child pornography from two years to five years. The opposition claims that sex offenders in Queensland get lenient treatment from our courts. An ABS report states—and this is all offences, no matter how small or large—that 69 per cent of people convicted of a sexual assault or related offence in Queensland—that covers everything—received a custodial sentence; in other words, went to jail. That is from the minor through to the serious offence; 69 per cent go to jail. Imprisonment rates for those offences in other states are 67 per cent for Victoria, so tougher than Victoria; 66 per cent for South Australia—tougher than South Australia; 65 per cent for Western Australia—tougher than Western Australia; 67 per cent for Tasmania—tougher than Tasmania; and only New South Wales was over 70 per cent. In other words, we are closest to the most severe, and we beat all states except New South Wales, where we are almost the same. 06 Oct 2004 Child Sex Offenders 2785

I announced yesterday that I have allocated $1 million from my own department to the Task Force Argos forensic computer examination unit. It will gain upgraded IT equipment, additional research into encryption of data and extra forensic computer experts. Last year we passed laws to give the CMC the power to bug computers. We lead Australia in tackling paedophiles and tackling those people who are abusing our children, which is why when those figures were released about that national operation more people were caught in Queensland per head than any other state in Australia. Why? Because we have better equipped our Police Service, we have provided bugging powers that do not exist elsewhere and we have brought in the toughest possible penalties. I would have thought that this was a matter where we could have received some bipartisan support instead of some silly nonsense designed to get a cheap political trick. I just say to the opposition: think of the children, forget the politics. Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (5.48 p.m.): I rise to second the amendment moved by the Premier. Isn't it fascinating, the way that the opposition conveniently leaves out relevant information in order to try to mount an argument? The Leader of the Opposition is the master of the half truth. Let me take the opportunity to set the record straight. In March 2003, in response to question on notice No. 250, Mr Springborg was provided by the Attorney-General with information in regard to court sentences for offences against children. This is the information he is now using for this motion and in a number of the public statements that he has made. One would think, from the way the Leader of the Opposition uses this data, that Queensland is experiencing some sort of critical failure in its justice system; that there is something terribly wrong with the way the Queensland judiciary is sentencing these sorts of offenders. Only someone trying to mislead would suggest that the figures provided in that question lead to that conclusion or show in any way that Queensland is soft on paedophiles. In fact, the imprisonment rate for sex offenders in Queensland is in line with the rest of Australia. That is not my opinion; that is according to the Australia Bureau of Statistics. According to the ABS report, Sexual assault in Australia: A statistical overview in 2002-03, Queensland's incarceration rate for these offences was not just in line with most other states, it was ahead of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania for custodial sentences for sex offences against children. The ABS report indicates that during that period 68.9 per cent of people convicted of sexual assault or related offences in Queensland received custodial sentences—and I stress 'related offences'. The opposition failed to include the imprisonment rates in other states for those offences. In Victoria's case, it was 67 per cent, it was 66 per cent in South Australia, 65 per cent in Western Australia and, yes, in New South Wales it was 78 per cent. Queensland is second in the country for its incarceration rate for these offences. In other words, if one looks at statistics for that period, Queensland was in line with other states or, in the overwhelming majority of cases, ahead of other states. After getting the facts wrong, what does the opposition do? It trots out its tired old mantra that mandatory sentencing is the answer. The Leader of the Opposition said that the opposition is not proposing any minimum; they do not want to take away the discretion from the courts so they are not proposing a minimum. Mr Springborg: No, I didn't say that at all. Ms BLIGH: However, they are proposing a minimum—the minimum is a jail sentence. Mr Springborg: I did not say that at all. Ms BLIGH: Any suggestion that the member is not proposing a minimum is rubbish. Mr Springborg: You are misleading, Anna. Ms BLIGH: I read the motion. Mr Springborg interjected. Ms BLIGH: I read the motion and it is clear that a minimum jail sentence is mandatory under the opposition's proposal. Mr Springborg: Read my speech. Ms BLIGH: As the Premier outlined, far from there being any evidence that this approach is effective, there is, in fact, evidence that it inevitably leads to nonsense outcomes. There is a recent example in Australian judicial history of an experiment with mandatory sentencing. Who can forget what the Northern Territory went through when it experimented with mandatory sentencing. I cannot think of a more failed judicial experiment. Mr Springborg: That was juveniles. Ms BLIGH: It may have been well-intentioned but it divided that community and people ended up with jail sentences in ridiculous and bizarre circumstances. It brought our entire country into disrepute with the international community. It has been abandoned by the Territory—and rightly so. 2786 Child Sex Offenders 06 Oct 2004

Our government has taken a very strong approach to this issue. We have focused, firstly, on prevention. What have we done in that regard? We were the first state in the country to introduce a compulsory screening system that requires every person who works with children to have a blue card. We should not underestimate the impact that that is having on keeping the wrong kind of people out of working with our children. Mr Beattie: Hear, hear! Ms BLIGH: We have introduced a number of new offences and we have increased the maximum penalties in relation to important offences. We have introduced new reporting provisions which give judges the power to ensure that sex offenders who are released from custody report regularly and in person to the police. All we have tonight is the same old, same old, same old! In the last sitting we were debating mandatory sentencing for children in schools; tonight we are debating mandatory sentencing in another context. I look forward to a time when we have an opposition that contributes in a constructive way to an intelligent and informed debate that brings forward ideas that the government can look at in an open way. I think that time is in a long-distant future. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (5.53 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Paedophilia and child pornography are a distasteful but, unfortunately, growing concern—growing in terms of arrest and growing in terms of access. The community can only be thankful that more individuals who participate in this type of activity are being investigated and arrested. However, the Queensland Nationals are very concerned that these arrests are not translating into custodial sentences. There is a high level of expectation in the general community towards the proper care of its children. Letting convicted child sex offenders go free is not meeting those expectations. In 2004, few public issues rival child pornography in their capacity to arouse public indignation. Although it has been been around for some time, only recently with the development of the Internet has this problem become more prominent in western industrial societies. This issue has become a systemic problem in our society and it could not be argued that premature sexual activity does not have lasting harmful effects on a child. With this in mind, it is extremely disappointing that on 30 September, less than one week ago, 57 Queenslanders were arrested on child pornography offences. This is an alarming statistic which the government should take notice of. It is related to a number of factors, but there can be no argument that the development of the world wide web has created this massive headache. The Internet has added a new quality to the production and dissemination of child pornography by paedophiles, with the computer the perfect medium for these types of people. According to American FBI cult expert Kenneth Lanning, paedophiles generally are extremely ordered and meticulous record keepers, allowing their computer to provide for organisation, validation and souvenir records to find victims. Paedophiles are able to use computers to communicate with each other, to locate individuals with similar interests, to find children to abuse, to transfer and create child pornography and to generate profit. With this in mind, it is time for the Queensland government to stand up and ensure that the general community is fully aware that this behaviour is totally unacceptable, distasteful and illegal. In order to ensure that this point is hammered home to those considering behaviour of this kind, mandatory sentencing must be introduced. Don Huyke, one of the world's foremost authorities on child pornography and the senior supervising special agent for the United States customs service, told a police seminar held in Melbourne in 1995 that computer bulletin boards and other online services have become the new frontier for paedophiles. He stressed that governments and police needed to react swiftly to the growing threat of the electronic transfer of images of child sex by enacting new legislation and increasing their technical capabilities. That was in 1995. Despite the fact that in Queensland since 1998, 645 people have been convicted for indecently dealing with children and 92 people have been found guilty of carnal knowledge with a child under the age of 16, only two-thirds of these offenders have received custodial sentences. As these statistics are outlined, it is especially important to acknowledge the roles the Queensland police are playing in trying to combat these problems. Whilst it is certainly an unenviable task, the police have worked hard to develop a base from which they can start to identify and capture those paedophiles carrying out such depraved acts. It is simply unbelievable that at a time when the government has had to bite the bullet and put in place new departments following the demise of the Department of Families, due to the systemic levels of child abuse and paedophilia in Queensland, this same government could be responsible for slashing the budget of Task Force Argos, the very same police unit charged with investigating paedophilia and child abuse. Surely, along with the serious consideration of mandatory sentencing, as each argument is put forward here today, the Beattie Labor government should give considerable thought to boosting the finances of this most important police unit. The statistics relating to Queensland child sex offences, including child pornography, are quite alarming. Even more disturbing is the fact that many get off scot-free. In the belief that we as a parliament must send a message to perpetrators of child sex offences and possessors, producers and distributors of child pornography, we must introduce mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment in 06 Oct 2004 Child Sex Offenders 2787

Queensland. For the benefit of our children, for the benefit of our society, we must ensure that this happens. I wholeheartedly support the opposition's motion. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (5.58 p.m.): I support the amendment moved by the Premier. Edmund Burke once observed that your representative owes you not just their industry but their judgment and they betray you instead of serve you if they sacrifice it to your opinion. Of course, the members here today, who are sometimes mistakenly referred to as conservatives, owe nothing at all to the thinking of earlier liberal philosophers such as Burke. They are, in fact, slaves to base populism, whose policy positions tend to emanate from talkback radio shock jocks. Paedophilia is abhorrent; everyone knows that. Child sexual offences and procuring children for child pornography is evil. Those who support this vile trade deserve criminal sanctions. That is a no brainer. That is why there are Criminal Code offences that provide that judges can impose lengthy prison sentences, amongst the other sentencing options they have before them. But minimum mandatory sentencing laws do not just attack this sort of criminal behaviour. They are an attack on one of the pillars of our free society—the independence of the judiciary. The motion moved by the opposition tonight is an attack on the independence of the judiciary, the authority and the integrity of judiciary. Judges have sentencing discretions for a reason. We rely on them to make wise and reasonable decisions on a case-by-case basis after listening to all the evidence, observing the witnesses and the defendant and considering the law. The motion moved by the opposition tonight is a zero tolerance motion—zero tolerance on judicial independence, zero tolerance on the rule of law and zero tolerance on judicial decision making. Mandatory sentencing says that we here tonight once and for all can, without considering any facts in any case in the future, fit an appropriate penalty to the crime. That is an absurd notion. This motion is a vote of no confidence in our highly trained, honest and deeply committed judiciary. It is being proposed by a group of people who, by and large, have never set foot inside a court room—certainly not on a paid basis. As a lawyer who practised largely in the criminal jurisdiction for 15 years before coming into this place, I can assure the House that every magistrate and judge I ever appeared before took their sentencing obligations very seriously. They weighed up the damage done to the victims against the other important considerations like cooperation with the police, mental capacity, youth, the advantages of an early plea before then considering what sentence to impose. We cannot throw these considerations out. The advantage of an early plea of guilty means that a child complainant does not have to go through the trauma of giving evidence. A circumstance where everybody is assured of a prison term means everybody would run a trial. It would mean every child complainant would face cross-examination, face the trauma of further questioning of their story. The unintended consequence of this motion is further trauma for child sexual offence victims. I never saw a judge who was afraid to slot a defendant when the circumstances required it. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are wrong and they have had tragic and unjust outcomes in other jurisdictions where they have been tried. Eric Sterling, the former congressional lawyer who wrote the mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the United States in 1986, says now that he regrets his actions deeply. He stated— Of all the things I was involved in during my nine years on the House Judiciary Committee, my role in the creation of the mandatory minimums was absolutely the worst, the most counterproductive, the most unjust. Sterling went on to say that the laws were passed without hearings, without consideration by the federal judges, without input from the Bureau of Prisons. Those concerns are before us tonight. Where is the input from the judges? Where are the calls from the judiciary for this line? Have we had any consideration of what this means in our prisons? This is the worst sort of knee-jerk motion which is designed to produce an outcome which will undoubtedly have severe consequences. US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently criticised mandatory sentencing laws on several occasions, remarking that mandatory minimums are a good example of the law of unintended consequences because they impose unduly harsh punishment for first time offenders. In the USA judges are resigning because of mandatory sentencing laws which they consider to be cruel and rigid. Tough conservative judges with reputations for stern and harsh sentences are resigning their commissions over these sorts of laws. The opposition has moved this motion tonight for the worst of all reasons—base populism and attempting to squeeze votes out of children who have been subjected to the worst treatment. Mandatory sentencing says that we here tonight have some role to play in determining the sentences of cases as yet unheard. Mandatory sentencing rules are wrong. Time expired. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (6.05 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Southern Downs and Leader of the Opposition that this parliament directs that the Labor government legislate for mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment for persons convicted of child sex crimes, including the possession, production and distribution of child pornography. 2788 Child Sex Offenders 06 Oct 2004

The relevant facts show that the system is broke. For the benefit of the members opposite, who might like to clean the wax out, they are worth repeating and considering. From 1988 to 2003 of the 654 people convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16, 217 escaped a jail sentence. Around a third of those convicted escaped jail sentences. Of the 92 convicted of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16 years of age, 42 escaped a jail sentence. That is about 45 per cent. Of the 59 convicted of unlawful sodomy, eight escaped a jail sentence. After being informed of those facts, how could anyone successfully argue that the system is working. It is broke, and we need to fix it. We need to better protect our children from these perverted sexual predators. The motion moved by the member for Southern Downs will be part of the solution to the problem of child sexual assault and also for the possession, production and distribution of child pornography. Once again I draw the attention of the House to the statistics which show that this state has a problem. From July 2002 to March 2003 of the 142 people convicted of the indecent treatment of children under 16, 46 escaped a jail sentence. Of the 21 convicted of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16, 12 escaped a jail sentence. I note that the Premier says that we cannot have the mandatory sentencing of child sex offenders because it has not happened anywhere else in the world. Well, here is a newsflash Premier—let us do the first experiment on mandatory sentencing in the world in Queensland. After all, we are the Smart State. We have mandatory sentencing for murderers. Why not have it for child sex offenders? We have got police officers and sexual assault workers who want to do the job. We have parents and teachers who are willing to carry out the experiment. The only thing we do not have is the Labor politicians with the political guts to try it. Let us do some leading R&D work in Queensland that will be really useful for the people of Queensland. Let us do the experiment for the next 50 years or so and have convicted child sexual assault offenders serve jail time and then the rest of the world can come and see how it worked out. I would like to acknowledge the sterling efforts of the Queensland police force. That group of people are highly motivated and love nothing more than to catch these grubs and stop their disgusting activities. After doing the hard police investigations, which must take a considerable toll on them and their families personally, they must feel an understandable sense of frustration and anger when statistics about convicted sexual assault offenders make their way into the light of public scrutiny. I thought through this debate that it might be an ideal time to acknowledge some of the people who work very hard to undo the damage, if that is possible, that these grubs do to the innocents. The Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service is an invaluable service to the Bundaberg and Burnett communities. The Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service is a community based and managed charitable organisation which services an area north from Bundaberg to 1770, west to Theodore and south to Eidsvold. The Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service offers a comprehensive, integrated service which provides a safe and supportive program for children and young people who have been sexually and/or physically abused and also provides support for nonoffending family members. This service that they provide for young people already has nine students in the class. There is a waiting list of around 40 people. It is disgusting that these sorts of statistics are around. I would like to refer back to the Premier who said that people stumbling across child sex sites would be convicted. This is not correct. Time expired. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (6.10 p.m.): Once again the member for Burnett has confirmed the suspicion of everyone in the House that he got into the gene pool when the lifeguard was not looking. I support the amendment. At the outset I say that the original motion is further evidence, if it was needed, that the National Party is on the slide. Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order. I am offended by that statement. I would like it withdrawn. Mr LAWLOR: I withdraw. The National Party is on the slide. It is prepared to jump on any bandwagon. It gets its ideas and policies from the local media and crickey.com. It is struggling for relevance and verging on extinction. The present sentencing regime in Queensland for child sex offenders is amongst the strongest in the country. Over the last six years, maximum sentences have been considerably increased to ensure that the judiciary has available to it substantial terms of imprisonment should the circumstances of the particular case require it. The Court of Appeal, which provides the most significant guidance concerning appropriate sentencing levels to the judiciary, has made it abundantly clear over a number of decisions that, in the absence of some exceptional or compelling circumstances, those who commit sexual offences against children ought to be imprisoned. That is the fundamental sentencing principle that is applied in every case of this nature throughout the state. The precise level of sentence is then governed by a variety of circumstances, which include the nature and duration of the misconduct, whether there 06 Oct 2004 Child Sex Offenders 2789 was violence or threats used, the extent of any breach of trust, whether there was a plea of guilty or other factors relating to the perpetrator. By their very nature mandatory sentences do not reflect the circumstances that surround the commission of the offence. What is to be made of a 17-year-old youth who maintains a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl? It certainly cannot be condoned, but should there be a mandatory term of imprisonment? Surely that is vastly different to a situation where, say, a 50-year-old man maintains a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. That is why the judiciary must retain its discretion as far as sentencing is concerned. This government has taken substantial steps to ensure the protection of our children. It has done so by reforming the laws of evidence in relation to how and when children need to give evidence and by increasing maximum penalties in relation to certain offences, when that has been considered necessary, by properly resourcing the arms of the criminal justice system by ensuring there is education about abuse in the community and that support groups are available, and by leaving to the judiciary the task of determining an appropriate sentence in an individual case. This is not the easy solution to these matters, but it is the best solution. It is a solution far more attune to the principles of justice and fairness than that provided under the jackboot of mandatory sentencing regimes. Yet again the opposition has been loose with the facts in trying to mount an argument for its draconian proposal of mandatory sentencing. The Premier and the Leader of the House have gone through the selective statistics already provided by the National Party. In other words, if one wants to look at statistics for this period, Queensland was in line with other states in terms of the way its courts deal with sex offenders. It is not unusual for the opposition to propose an argument based on misleading and selective information. In this case it uses that misleading information to claim that mandatory sentencing is the answer. This flies in the face of research world wide. Mandatory sentencing is such a simplistic approach. There is no evidence from any jurisdiction anywhere to show that it acts as a deterrent. The member for Hervey Bay mentioned that there are judges in the United States actually resigning over the issue. There are various forms of mandatory sentences in the USA, which has the highest percentage of its citizens incarcerated but still has a high level of violent crime. Mandatory sentencing treats every offender the same way by imposing a minimum jail term no matter how serious the offence is. It does not ensure that the punishment fits the crime. It does not encourage offenders to undertake rehabilitation because there is no prospect of an early release. It does not deal with post-release issues such as attempted contact with victims. A more effective approach is the one taken by our government. We have demonstrated the toughest approach of any state against paedophiles and sex offenders through wide-ranging reforms of our laws. As the opposition well knows, the concept of mandatory sentencing taking away the right of the judiciary to ensure that punishment fits the crime, as I said, has never been effective anywhere in the world. What we are seeing today is an opposition devoid of ideas, trotting out the same old tired policies that are one dimensional and do nothing to respond to the issue in a modern and effective way. Time expired. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.15 p.m.): When we are elected to this place we have a great responsibility to try to make the world a better place. In particular, we have a responsibility to look after those in our community who are vulnerable and need the protection of the law. Tonight I have watched with fascination as the members of the government squirmed their way through this debate. Their hearts are not in it because they do not believe in what they are saying. While they want to give us learned legal opinions from Labor lawyers, what they should do is go and talk to the real people. They should not tell us what the judges want or what they want; they should tell us what the people want. They need to talk to the people. Can any members opposite walk out of here tonight, after hearing the statistics that we heard before of how many people have not gone to jail—have not had a custodial sentence—for unlawful carnal knowledge, indecent dealings with underage people or sodomy with underage people, without shaking their heads and wondering how those people came to walk free and not go to jail? One of the issues raised tonight was mandatory sentencing. People on the other side of the House have said that it is not a deterrent. I can tell the House that it is a deterrent. There are two aspects to sentencing: one is punishment and the other is deterrence and rehabilitation. Punishment is as important as deterrence and rehabilitation. Members should ask some victims of crime about that, because in many instances it is the only way that victims of crime can come to grips with what has happened to them, even though they see inadequate punishments being handed down. We should always bear that in mind when we talk about sentencing and the way that it is handed down. There are two sides to the argument, and we need to think about the victims. We have mandatory sentencing for murder. In Queensland every murderer gets life imprisonment. That is mandatory. It is not right if members opposite reckon that it is not a deterrent. We have mandatory life sentencing for murder— A government member: Does it stop murders? 2790 Child Sex Offenders 06 Oct 2004

Mr HORAN: Are government members going to get rid of it then? They should get rid of it if they do not agree with it. I had the privilege of meeting with a constituent of mine who was a victim of Neerkol. One of the most heart-rending experiences I have ever had was when he told me about what had happened to him. The thing that hurt him so much when he was young was that when he went to people for help he did not get the support and the protection that he needed. That is what tonight's debate is about. This parliament makes the laws. The judiciary pass sentences based on the laws made in this House. I heard the Leader of the House say that we are in line with other states and that she is quite happy with 69 per cent or 70 per cent; she thinks that that is okay. Why cannot Queensland have the greatest deterrent? Why cannot Queensland have the strongest punishment for the vilest of crimes? What is wrong with that? Do members opposite want to be second class? When an idea comes forward they will not accept it simply because it comes from the opposition. I do not believe that too many of those opposite will walk out of this House tonight believing in their hearts that they have done the right thing in voting against this motion, because what they are voting against is the ultimate in protection for children in this state. No matter what we do there will always be vile and evil people who will commit crimes, but if we have mandatory sentencing, stronger punishment and greater deterrence and if we can reduce the percentage of people who commit these crimes, surely we have done something worth while for the young people and families of our community and of Queensland. This is a most important debate tonight. We have only talked about the issue of mandatory sentencing. The technicalities of the minimum part of mandatory sentencing could be worked out by sensible people, provided we agreed to the principle of having mandatory sentencing and the principle that nothing in our society is as evil as those people who sexually assault young children. The scars that those young children bear stay for life. The protection that we give them must be the absolute ultimate, and not the 69 per cent or 70 per cent as glibly quoted by members opposite. Let us have the absolute ultimate in protection. This parliament has the chance to once and for all stand up and show a bit of ticker. We can show a bit of care and compassion. We can put aside all the legalistic arguments and do what the mothers, fathers and families of Queensland would want to protect our children in the most absolute way possible. A government member: Sit down! Mr HORAN: In this most important debate, I can hear a government member saying, ‘Sit down!' That shows how much he cares about the protection of children. He should be ashamed of himself. Time expired. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (6.19 p.m.): Believe it or not, the opposition and the government are in some respects in heated agreement in this debate about child sexual offences. All of us here in this chamber find them reprehensible, abhorrent and horrendous. We are all outraged by them and we are all indignant. But that is where the level of agreement finishes and thereafter, on this issue of mandatory minimum sentencing, we could not be further apart in our approach. As a government in Queensland we demand that we have an objective approach to a public policy issue. We look for the facts and the evidence that might underpin a new public policy approach. We have a sober and considered approach to the evidence and nonetheless we seek to act with enormous compassion for the circumstances and the condition of the victims. The last speaker for the opposition showed just how far apart we are. We have been subjected to an hysterical screaming, shouting and hectoring approach by the opposition as if that were some reasonable basis for this proposition that it has put before the House tonight. Once again, the opposition has shown how bereft of ideas it is when it comes to the important debate about responses to sexual offences against children. Once again, it has demonstrated its lack of respect for the judiciary with the wording of the motion saying that one-third of those coming before the courts have escaped a prison sentence. The suggestion that people convicted of child sex crimes escape prison sentences shows a complete lack of understanding of our criminal justice system. Once again, the opposition is advocating that politicians—people like us and, frightfully, them—should act as judge and jury to determine the sentences. In advocating this approach the opposition shows its lack of respect for and lack of understanding of the separation of powers. One thing that is a consistent theme through the history of the National Party in Queensland is a failure to understand the fundamental principle in our democracy of the separation of powers. The Nationals' leader, Joh, was the exemplar advocate for putting them all together—'Forget about the separation of powers and we will run the state just as we like.' This government does not do that. We respect the judiciary and we respect the rule of law. We expect our courts to continue to deliver justice according to law in a way that parallels the very best of legal systems anywhere in the world. 06 Oct 2004 Adjournment 2791

There are no facts to support the opposition's claim that convicted sex offenders escape a jail term. If we could listen beyond the hectoring and hysteria of the members opposite to what they were actually saying, we would know that not one speaker opposite presented any facts or evidence of the sentencing options for those who did not actually serve imprisonment. There was no identification of the other sentencing options that the court, within its powers under the Penalties and Sentences Act, now has available to it and, in the exercise of the court's discretion, with the facts in evidence before it, the sentencing options that the court chose to apply in those particular cases. But we would not want evidence and facts to get in the road of an hysterical proposition that the opposition seeks to make political mileage out of with great disservice to the community in Queensland. Queensland expects an opposition to do the hard work, to do the research and to identify on a substantial basis new policy initiatives that will benefit Queenslanders. Tonight we did not hear one thing from the opposition to show that it was able to do that. We must have great concerns about its capacity to be a government in Queensland. It is the role of the judiciary to settle these issues; it is not the role of this parliament. Time expired. Question—That the Premier's amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 48—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E.Clark, L.Clark, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Scott, Shine, Stone, Struthers, C.Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 24—Copeland, E.Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E.Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Energex Hon. T.M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (6.32 p.m.), by leave: This morning the member for Callide raised an issue in relation to a statement I made yesterday about the board of Energex. I have checked, and I did say that a majority of members were appointed by the Borbidge government. I accept that it was only two. What I take exception to in relation to this is the assertion that the Energex board was appointed by me as Labor mates. I have continually said that I have appointed no new members to that board. They were all reappointments. I accept that that is only two members. If I have misled the House, I apologise.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (6.32 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Home Invasions; Student Nurses Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.33 p.m.): Tonight I will talk about two things. One outrages and saddens me and one gives me great hope in my heart for the young people of our state. First I speak about the attack on an elderly woman in her home. Her home was broken into and she was attacked. This woman rang me up very distressed and asked, 'Can you do something about it in parliament?' I am bringing it up because I think we have to continue to look at this matter seriously. This 66-year-old woman and her husband have been married for a long time. They have lived in their house, which is fairly handy to the CBD. They liked living there because of its convenience. Since the attack—she was bashed and had to go to the Toowoomba Base Hospital—she and her husband have decided to sell up and move out. They cannot stay there any longer. It is just awful to think of good people suffering like that. I think that we as members of parliament have to listen to what people are telling us. This woman has asked me what we can do about it. Bringing the matter up in parliament is the first step. I know that we on this side of the House have previously talked about mandatory sentencing for people who enter houses and particularly those who bash people. I think it is about time we started to look at this constructively. I intend to continue on with this matter for some time to see if we can get some help for people and try to prevent this dreadful crime of invading houses, particularly those of the 2792 Adjournment 06 Oct 2004 elderly, stealing purses or handbags, bashing the home's occupants, putting them in hospital and ruining the rest of their lives. I also want to speak about the Chronicle volunteer awards and two wonderful young women I met at the recent award announcement at Westpac in Toowoomba. These two young women are third-year USQ nursing students—Anna Lyons and Leona Glanville. They have done some prac work at Lifeline, for some two weeks in community primary health care. In a first for Australian nursing students, on 2 November these nursing students are going to Uganda for five weeks to undertake practical training. They will be nursing in a teaching hospital in rural Uganda, at a place called Kiwoko. They expect to rotate through the hospital to cover all aspects of surgical, paediatrics, maternity, and so on. They will also be going into the village to conduct immunisation clinics. They have self-funded this trip. They will be the first Australian student nurses to travel to Uganda for their prac work within their nursing course at the University of Southern Queensland. I send them great congratulations. They are a great example of the generosity and commitment of the young people of our state. What a wonderful shining example they are. If we could have more young people like this, I am sure that our communities would be all the richer for it. Their generosity of spirit in going to Uganda, at some risk and at their own expense, to help the people of Uganda is to be greatly commended.

Mobile Phone Towers Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (6.36 p.m.): When the Howard government first came to power, one of its early actions was to amend Australia's telecommunications legislation. Since the introduction of the federal Telecommunications Act 1997 we have seen a situation where local residents are virtually powerless before the telcos who want to erect ugly mobile phone towers in their communities. In short, the federal government has virtually overridden all local and state planning controls to give telcos the power to erect mobile phone towers where they wish. This has created a terrible situation where local residents often feel totally disempowered and where telecommunications companies are treating residents with an ever-increasing indifference. Last Saturday I attended a public meeting at Toowong College organised by the West Toowong Community Association. It was designed to give residents an opportunity to have their say about proposals by Telstra to erect a mobile phone tower at the west Toowong bowls club. This meeting was also attended by the member for Mount Coot-tha, Andrew Fraser. Both he and I were impressed at the way the community association made such a great effort to give local residents a real say about what was going on in their local community. This would have been a great opportunity for Telstra to listen to the views of the local community, but sadly this was not to be. I do not believe there was a Telstra representative formally present. This is another example of how the federal Liberal government's policy on mobile phone towers not only ignores the genuine concerns of local residents but does not even allow them the opportunity of a fair hearing. Labor has committed itself to a very sensible policy on mobile phone towers, one which allows local residents to have a real say as to whether their community is a suitable location for a mobile phone tower. Labor's policy gives local communities the opportunity to make sure that towers are located not just where it suits the telecommunications company but also where it suits the local community. Labor would also provide an exclusion zone around schools, hospitals and kindergartens— exactly what is expected on mainland Europe. This would mean that there would be no tower going ahead in west Toowong. It is proposed to be about 50 feet away from the local high school. The federal Liberal Minister for Communications, Helen Coonan, has criticised Labor's policy of providing local communities with the opportunity to reject mobile phone tower proposals, saying that it would 'increase the red tape associated with installing mobile phone coverage'. To this I say good! It is about time and it is just what is needed—a break on the installation of these towers to give residents a chance to have a real say. I will continue to work with the West Toowong Community Association, local residents, my colleague Andrew Fraser and the federal ALP to provide local residents with a real say in the placement of mobile phone towers and to make sure that we provide exclusion zones around schools, kindies and hospitals.

Feral Animals Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (6.39 p.m.): We read in the press recently about the tragic death of a teenage boy after an attack by some crossbreed dogs. My electorate of Moggill, which covers the outer acreage areas of Brisbane, has a very real problem with feral animals that are crossbred or were originally domestic. In particular, we have a large population of feral dogs. Under the current requirements, the control of these sorts of feral animals is really put back with the property owner. The difficulty we have in these urban areas is that the property owner's holdings are small. They do not have the right to use weapons of their own, and these dogs will range across a whole range of properties and in and out of some of the state lands like Brisbane Forest Park. They have been stalking people, they have wiped out some of the 06 Oct 2004 Adjournment 2793 remaining calves and stock that remain in the electorate, and pets have been torn apart. People will be attacked by these wild dogs. I have written to Minister Robertson, who I see is present for the debate, to alert him to this matter, and I want it on the record very clearly because there will be an attack on human beings by these dogs. Whilst some landowners have tried to control these dogs, they are not in a position on these small urban holdings to do so. The Brisbane City Council has been ineffective in controlling them and people really need to be protected. While I am speaking about feral animals, the other feral animal that we have in Moggill which is posing a problem is the deer. Deer frequently wander onto Moggill Road and destroy a lot of the environment around the creeks and so forth. We need these animals to be declared a pest species because currently they are not declared. Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Dr FLEGG: No, they have not been declared a pest species at all. There is nothing to control their numbers. For some reason the wild dogs kill everything but the deer. These are urban, residential areas, and the property owners need and deserve some assistance. So I place that on the record and I hope that the minister will take that on board and do something to help. This problem has been around for a long time. There has been a series of public meetings on it. People are getting very frustrated with all the talk and the lack of action. Caboolture East Community Renewal Launch Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (6.42 p.m.): On Saturday 25 September I had the pleasure of representing the Minister for Housing, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, at the launch of the state government's Caboolture east community renewal program. The launch was attended by Caboolture south community renewal staff and volunteers, and coincided with the Caboolture east family fun day run for the second year by the Kabultur Eastenders—a group of dedicated local volunteers who have sought to improve the area they live in for the benefit of all, which is also the aim of community renewal. Both groups organised a number of activities to encourage the community to participate in the day's events. Kabultur Eastenders—including John and Jeannette Helen, May Payne, Sharon Geeves, Donna Felshow, Craig and Astrid Kirk, Nigel and Verly Pitkin, Trevor Roberts, Judy Kennedy, Nisha Ahmed, Leon Gray, Elinor Davey, Dick McKean and Ben Fenwick, who also coordinated the Neighbourhood Watch stall—organised face painting, train rides, BMX riders, bouncy castle, Rasheeda's belly dancers and local band Maestoso, who both gave their time free, and a kite flying competition which Councillor John McNaught and I were asked to judge and sponsor along with Dick McKean while the PCYC ran a barbeque. The community renewal team of Jack Hill, Debra Koost and trainee Andrea Greaves, and volunteers Ross and Irene Murray, Cathy Kirkness, Ashleigh Walker and Gavin Schafferius, set up a series of displays which explained the objectives and benefits of community renewal, promoted a nutrition program and conducted a survey of people to ascertain the views and needs of the area. The QUT was represented by two student ambassadors—Clinton McIntyre and Peter Brown—who made available free information and helium balloons. It was a wonderful day and everyone appreciated the efforts of all those who had contributed to its success. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of a grateful community to thank the hardworking volunteers who made the day a truly memorable one. I would like to make special mention of the children and young adults who helped me pick fresh strawberries provided free by Sandra and Bill Trost from the Highway Strawberry Patch on Old Toorbul Point Road to give out on the day. Sisters Bronwyn and Dannielle Felshow, Shantelle and Jacky Howlett, Rebecca Shaw, Tamika Slade and Brett Presland had to work hard to pick several trays of delicious 'sugar babies' and then helped distribute them to the crowd at the fun day, which everyone appreciated. Community renewal was established by the Beattie state Labor government in 1998 and is delivered by the Department of Housing to improve the quality of life in Queensland communities. In July 2004, the government committed $75 million over the next five years to expand the program into nine neighbourhoods and continue in 10 existing areas. I am very fortunate to have an existing and well- run community renewal in Caboolture south which was inherited from the member for Kallangur, the Hon. Ken Hayward, when there was a redistribution of boundaries prior to the 2001 state election. The success of this program is evident, and the staff and community are very committed to providing the best outcomes for residents. I am very proud to work with everyone involved in this process, and I am certainly looking forward to doing the same in Caboolture east. What I particularly like about the program is that it has succeeded in bringing untapped talent and resources from an area to the fore because it gives residents the chance to have their say on what is needed most in their community. The success of the community renewal in Caboolture east— Time expired. 2794 Adjournment 06 Oct 2004

Western Queensland Livestock Spelling Facility Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Transport to the need to reassess the suitability and cost effectiveness of the current livestock spelling facility in western Queensland. Rail has for many years been the transport method of choice for the grazing industry, largely due to its assessability, its cost effectiveness and the great service provided by Queensland Rail. However, Queensland Rail and the state government need to acknowledge the huge drop in clientele and the consequential drop in income. They need to review the current system and make the necessary changes to ensure that rail livestock options are maintained for the benefit of not only the grazing industry but also Queensland Rail and the state government. For example, Charters Towers and the Dalrymple shire are the hub of the grazing industry, with more than 100,000 cattle going through the yards each year. Because there is no spelling facility in Charters Towers, the core users of this Queensland Rail service—graziers—are choosing to truck livestock and bypass areas like Charters Towers. This all means a huge decrease in revenue for Queensland Rail and the state government. It makes commonsense to locate a spelling facility in Charters Towers which has the support of the local shire council, which is committed to maintaining the cattle yards, assisting with the installation of the new NLIS and, to the best of my knowledge, which is willing to negotiate some other costs with Queensland Rail to ensure Charters Towers rail yards are fully utilised. If the current system is not meeting the needs of the clients, the system must be changed. We need to ensure that revenue is not being wasted because the best systems are not in place. Local graziers and the local shire council are of the belief that a spelling facility located at Charters Towers would bring significant benefits to the region and save massive costs for Queensland Rail. The cost savings for Queensland Rail would be having no liability towards the maintenance and upkeep of the yard and other infrastructure. All cost in this would be borne by the council as a facility provider, and human resources and operational costs would decrease as rail wagons would be stored at Charters Towers. As such, no requirement would exist for crews to truck wagons. I call on the Minister for Transport to look into this matter as it is an efficient and viable option, and it will bring great benefits to this region. Greenslopes Electorate Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (6.47 p.m.): Greenslopes is the place where it is all happening. Danielle Kelly, an Olympic gymnast, recently returned after being unable to compete in Athens due to a calf muscle injury. She unfortunately missed out but deserves great credit for her work in the lead-up to the games. She was given a great reception on her return, with the help of B105, which organised a ticker tape parade in the school grounds on Monday, 16 August. Four former Olympians attended and approximately 500 people turned up to show support. Well done to Danielle Kelly. Coorparoo State School has also shown some great achievements lately. In the mathematics team challenge involving the Mount Gravatt and bayside districts, Coorparoo State School placed first in 2004, third in 2002 and equal fourth in 2003. Sixty-three teams competed out of 37 primary schools. The school has also been placed first in the Mount Gravatt district science challenge for year 6. Thirty-six teams competed in the Mount Gravatt district, and the challenge involves students answering questions and solving specific problems. Also in the Optiminds challenge Coorparoo was placed first in the district final and will now compete in the state final at the University of Queensland on 12 September, which has already occurred. Well done to all of those students. The Greenslopes seniors bowling challenge—this is tenpin bowling—was also a great event on Tuesday, 17 August. Some $577 was received from the state government for Seniors Week 2004. They had a great day. Mr and Mrs Yow informed me that the day was extremely successful. Greenslopes has one of the famous bowling alleys left in Queensland. People within the local community enjoy tenpin bowling there, and it is great to see the seniors participating well in that particular activity. The Peter Doherty Awards also featured well in the local community recently with Marshall Road State School's Susan Kennedy Smith being awarded $5,000 for the Peter Doherty Outstanding Primary and Middle Phase of Learning Teacher of Science Award. She is a science coordinator at the school. This is a school which has had a great history in science. Well done to Marshall Road. Cavendish Road State High School also featured in these awards with $2,000 for the Peter Doherty Science Success School Award being received there in conjunction with Griffith University, which allows students to gain university level credits for biology and chemistry subjects. Holland Park State High School has also been doing a great job with its Art at the Park, which I attended on Wednesday, 4 August and had the pleasure of opening. Approximately 250 families attended, which was an increase of about 45 per cent on last year. Well done to Holland Park State High School again on a great achievement this year. Time expired. 06 Oct 2004 Adjournment 2795

Ambulance Levy Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (6.51 p.m.): I rise this evening to discuss the ambulance levy. Whilst I support all the exemptions aimed at ensuring that the model of collection is more equitable, there is still a long way to go before the burden of paying this levy is alleviated for those people and organisations such as local community halls and volunteer organisations, who are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their financial requirements in regards to this levy. The payment of the levy is still unreasonable, particularly for single people, who have to pay the same amount as a family of up to five pay. Whilst this is wonderful for families it cannot be justified for singles. I have been approached by couples who own their own businesses, have their home in town but who also have a weekender either at Tin Can Bay or Rainbow Beach who have to pay the levy three times. No-one could say this is fair. Why should people pay the levy multiple times to cover families? Surely paying once on one property covers themselves for any ambulance usage they may at some point require. Even though this government has promised an increase in staffing numbers, I am still being advised from ambulance officers that they are still experiencing understaffing at certain stations and problems arising from rostering issues. Ambulance staff complain that they are too often used as a glorified taxi service for non-urgent transfers. Ambulances should not be taken away from their primary role as that of emergency medical provider. The Beattie government now has an extra 19 vehicles it took off the ministers at the beginning of this term as a result of a few misusing their vehicle entitlement. There is no reason that the money saved could not be redirected to the Ambulance Service for extra vehicles for it. According to the Beattie government, the levy had to be introduced because it could not afford to run the service any other way. One would have thought we would no longer be experiencing the problems and delays now that the public was paying one more tax but, no, what we have are first-class, dedicated personnel who are being overworked and forced to cover for other stations, leading to delays of up to 40 minutes for other patients. The response times for ambulances within my electorate for code I emergencies see the average for Gympie at only 60 per cent, Cooloola Coast at 58 per cent, Pomona at 42 per cent and Cooroy with only a disappointing 38 per cent arriving within a 10-minute time frame. I have some very close friends in the Ambulance Service, and the amount of study and personal, physical and emotional commitment they give to the job is more than commendable. Ambulance officers are a special group of people, and they certainly deserve better conditions than they currently have. One other area with which I still have concerns includes that of defence force personnel who do not live in and who are being forced to pay the levy. Queensland is one of the only states where this is the case. The conditions of service for defence personnel are purposefully extremely good and have historically always included free ambulance cover for all serving members. I find it insulting that this government does not hold these Australians in enough stead to continue the practice of free ambulance cover. I urge the Treasurer to make the further amendments necessary to at least ensure that each individual is only paying for their own entitlement as opposed to the current unfair collection process. Pinefest Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (6.53 p.m.): On 2 October 2004 I was honoured to attend a dinner which recognised 10 special young people from the Capricorn Coast. From 24 September to 3 October our community celebrated the annual Pinefest celebration for the 36th year. It originally started as a one-day event but it now covers 10 days. It has become a major event in the central Queensland area over the years and was once again coordinated by Brian Dorey in conjunction with the Yeppoon Lions Club and the Yeppoon Lioness Club. It was a major success. From the opening on 24 September to the musical evening, silent movies, street festival, ambassador dinner and the closing beachside family day on 3 October, the people of Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast attended to make the whole 10 days a celebration of our community. The young people to whom I referred at the outset were the Pinefest Ambassador Quest entrants, who worked hard for six months to raise funds for their chosen charities and raised a total of $43,209 between themselves—not a bad record for a community of approximately 18,000. Mr Fenlon interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: They do not have the Pineapple Princess anymore. The Ambassador Quest, which is open to both male and female entrants, was coordinated by Mary Carroll, who is the face of tourism on the Capricorn Coast, and Amanda Mapes, who is the activities officer for Keppel Bay Sailing Club. WIN Television, which is a major supporter of many organisations in the Capricorn region, provided the compere for the night in Ryan Van Haalen, and the judges were Peter Scott, Ginny Gerlach and Janine Crute, who are all from local organisations, and they did not have an easy task. 2796 Adjournment 06 Oct 2004

The entrants and their chosen charities show the wide concerns held by our youth for those helping groups in our society. I have previously spoken in this House about the deep and caring youth who reside in Australia at present, and I will continue to support youth and youth causes because ultimately it provides us with a strong and proud community with a secure future. The entrants with their sponsors and charities were: Katie Banks, sponsored by Lure Cafe and Bar, supported the Yeppoon Meals on Wheels and BARPO; Lauren Ernst, sponsored by Keppel Bay Marina, supported the Yeppoon Hospital and Nursing Home; Chutima Haxell, sponsored by Capricorn Coast Mirror and Toi's Thai Noodle Bar, supported the Royal Flying Doctor Service; Jasmin Hinton, sponsored by Yeppoon Lions Club and Beachcombers Hair Studio, supported the Salvation Army; Codie McLennan, sponsored by Livingstone Shire Council, supported PAACSA; Michelle Neagle, sponsored by Keppel Bay Sailing Club, supported the Children's Cancer Institute Australia; Helen O'Farrell, sponsored by Yeppoon Surf Lifesaving Club and Yeppoon Auto and Sound, supported the Yeppoon Surf Lifesaving Club; Dominic Stower, sponsored by Northwind Real Estate, supported the Children's Leukaemia Foundation; Morgan Walker, sponsored by Rydges Capricorn Resort, supported the Capricorn Coast Branch of Queensland Cancer Fund; and Anna Waters, sponsored by the Lioness Club of Yeppoon, supported the Leukaemia Foundation. The 2004 Pinefest Ambassador is Codie McLennan and the Charity Ambassador is Michelle Neagle. Well done everybody who was involved with Pinefest. Time expired.

Milman School Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (6.56 p.m.): There was great celebration last Saturday night at the small school of Milman near The Caves just north of Rockhampton. It was the official turning on of the water. More than five years ago the bore at the school dried up and since that time, during the dry periods, the school had to have water carted for basic facilities such as toilets, et cetera. Indeed, students had to carry a bucket of water when they went to the toilet. With their small band of volunteers, particularly with the president of the P&C, Kevin Geddes, they decided that they were going to have water for the school. They ventured off the school grounds over into serpentine country about 1.5 kilometres away from the school, divined a bore, had it drilled, had power connected, put a pump in, built a pump shed, buried 1.5 kilometres of poly pipe and finally connected it up to the school. I would like to congratulate the principal, Greg Allen, Kevin Geddes and the P&C committee; Councillor John Smith from Livingstone Shire Council; Ron Lohse, the Education Queensland facilities area manager; Kevin Turner from Mitre 10, who I believe helped considerably with the acquisition of the pipeline, et cetera; Dave McCartney with bobcat hire, et cetera; Kevin Hinchliffe, Dave Shaw and quite a lot of other community members. Over $30,000 was required to put this in, plus one hell of a lot of volunteer work. It was gained from $10,000 from the gaming community fund and about $4,500 from the P&C. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Education, Anna Bligh, who saw the desperation of this school and allocated $16,000 towards the provision of water. The work that was done there was magnificent. On Saturday night it was recognised that it was a great community effort. It was well recognised in the area that it is a great benefit to the students who are going to the school, and it was heartening for me to go to the school and see that there was at least green grass there and that the tiles and concrete, et cetera, was able to be washed down. The school looked magnificent. I congratulate everybody in the community who worked together to make this happen. I have to say, if it were not for Kevin Geddes and the way in which he organised his group of volunteers to make it happen, it probably would not have happened. Congratulations also to Education Queensland for alleviating the hardship at this little school and making it an excellent place for learning. Of course, I must mention the perseverance of the principal, Greg Allen, who was the stalwart behind all that went on. It was a magnificent effort. It is encouraging to know that there are volunteers in our community who are willing to support their community in such a fashion and work hard to make sure that facilities are available everywhere that we recognise are normally available to those who live in bigger cities.

Lions Clubs Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (6.59 p.m.) I would like to advise the House of the wonderful gathering we had in Beerwah over the weekend. The Beerwah Lions Club were the hosts of the District Q3 Lions Convention. There are 101 Lions Clubs in the Q3 district with a combined membership of over 2000 Lions. That is a very loud roar. We are all very proud of the work that our local Lions do within our communities. 06 Oct 2004 Adjournment 2797

I was extremely honoured to be invited to welcome Lions, Lions ladies and their respective partners and friends to the Glasshouse area. It was especially pleasing to be able to welcome them not only as the state member for Glass House but also as the charter president of the Queensland Parliamentary Lions Club. Ms Carryn Sullivan: You do a fabulous job. Ms MALE: I thank the member. The Lions family spent a fun weekend getting to know each other, working together, learning new skills and promoting the goals of Lions world wide. I know that everyone enjoyed the march, the many activities that were organised, and the special Legends dinner on the Saturday night. The Beerwah Lions motto of 'Teamwork Builds Service Success' was definitely very evident over this weekend. Congratulations need to go to Lion Justin Neubecker and his team and, indeed, to all of the Beerwah Lions and supporters. It is a huge job to organise a convention of this size and type, and it all went along brilliantly. Also, congratulations to Una Robinson, who was the media officer for the convention. We all appreciated being kept up to date via her informative newsletters and news releases. While I am talking about Lions, I would like to comment briefly on the formation of the new Lions Club of the Queensland Parliament. The road to formation started smoothly enough with the immediate past district governor, Roley McAtee, speaking to the Premier in 2003 about forming a special interest club based at parliament. The Premier did not need any convincing about the intrinsic value that this would lend to the good work of Lions Clubs across Queensland. All members of parliament—be they Lions in their own districts or new to Lionism—were invited to join, as were parliamentary staff. I was very pleased to be elected as the charter president, along with Lion John English, Lion Julie Attwood and Lion Neil Laurie, who came on board as the executive in the roles of vice president, secretary and treasurer respectively. As we started the process of getting the club chartered, I must admit that our secret to a successful chartering was due to the help and advice provided by Roley McAtee. In fact, we would have been lost without Roley's constant involvement and encouragement. Mr Terry Sullivan: He did a great job. Ms MALE: He did. Roley, we owe you a big debt of gratitude and I am thrilled that you became a charter associate member of our club. The 2004 State Election got in the way of our charter a little bit, but with the February election safely out of the way, it was time to start planning in earnest. The biggest thank you in the world now goes to Lion Julie and Lion Neil for the magnificent planning which resulted in the very successful charter dinner. It was a superb night. Thanks to our Lions members and their guests from across Queensland for really getting into the swing of it. We had a great night. With the Premier and the Speaker of the House hosting the evening, I think everyone was impressed with the good fun, good fare and good fellowship. Our focus in the Queensland Parliamentary Lions Club is on supporting our fellow Lions throughout the state and raising funds for charity through an annual charity evening. Rather sadly, I hand the presidential reins over to Lion John English, the member for Redlands. However, I am looking forward to continuing to be part of this wonderful Lions family and ensuring that our focus is always on helping out our communities in every way we can. Long may we serve through our joint bonds of Lionism. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.