PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 10 October 2007

PETITIONS ...... 3321 TABLED PAPERS ...... 3321 MINISTERIAL PAPER ...... 3321 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3321 Afghanistan, Death of Trooper David Pearce ...... 3321 Traveston Crossing Dam, Freshwater Species Conservation Centre ...... 3322 Tabled paper: Details of the scientists providing independent advice to the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre...... 3322 Queensland Rail, Rolling Stock ...... 3323 Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal Distribution Committee ...... 3323 Tabled paper: Report by the Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal Distribution Committee dated August 2007...... 3323 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3324 Photographing in Chamber ...... 3324 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3324 Water Grid ...... 3324 South-East Queensland Councils, Compensation ...... 3325 Ergon Energy ...... 3325 Alliance Contracts, Busways ...... 3326 Equine Influenza ...... 3326 Dangerous Sexual Offenders ...... 3327 FIFA Women’s World Cup ...... 3327 Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Commemorative Service ...... 3328 Department of Child Safety ...... 3328 Blueprint for the Bush ...... 3329 Tabled paper: Report by AgForce Queensland titled ‘Blueprint for the Bush, a year of progress, annual report 2006-07’...... 3329 Patel, Dr J ...... 3329 Skilling Solutions Queensland, Mobile Service ...... 3329 Healthy Food Access Basket Survey ...... 3330

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Wednesday, 10 October 2007

Business and Industry Transformation Incentives ...... 3331 Pest Management, Carnarvon National Park ...... 3331 Queensland Multicultural Festival ...... 3332 Social Housing ...... 3332 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 3332 Transport Infrastructure ...... 3332 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3333 Local Government Reform ...... 3333 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3333 Rail Infrastructure ...... 3334 Needle and Syringe Program ...... 3335 Tabled paper: Photograph displaying syringes at the needle syringe prevention program office...... 3335 Schools, Infrastructure ...... 3336 Transport Infrastructure ...... 3337 Water Supply ...... 3337 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 September 2007, from Mr Peter Jacob, Managing Director Marsden Jacob Associates to Mr Richard Priman, Queensland Water Commission, relating to the Traveston Crossing and Wyaralong Dams EIS...... 3338 Health System ...... 3338 WorkChoices ...... 3339 Wesley Radiation Oncology ...... 3339 Skilled Workers Shortage ...... 3340 Mandatory Sentencing ...... 3340 Stradbroke Island, Alcohol Confiscation ...... 3341 Equine Influenza ...... 3342 Public Hospitals ...... 3343 Oil Vulnerability Task Force ...... 3343 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3344 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3344 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3344 Local Government Reform ...... 3344 Townsville Showgrounds ...... 3345 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to proposed relocation of the Townsville Showgrounds...... 3345 CRIMINAL CODE (ASSAULTS AGAINST POLICE AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3345 First Reading ...... 3345 Second Reading ...... 3345 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3346 Kallangur Electorate, New Police Stations ...... 3346 Needle and Syringe Program ...... 3346 Tabled paper: Copy of a flyer headed ‘Live and Aware’...... 3346 Autism Funding ...... 3347 Water Infrastructure ...... 3347 Federal Election ...... 3348 Phillips, Mr D ...... 3348 Blueprint for the Bush Ministerial Community Forum ...... 3349 Property Resumptions ...... 3349 Equine Influenza ...... 3350 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to global warming...... 3350 Yabulu South to Ingham Transmission Line ...... 3350 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to high voltage powerlines...... 3350 Redland Bay, Police Resources ...... 3351 Queensland Health ...... 3351 Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, dated 27 September 2007, from Mr Elmes to the Minister for Health (Hon. Robertson MP) relating to Nambour Hospital...... 3351 Infrastructure Projects ...... 3352 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3352 Second Reading ...... 3352 Consideration in Detail ...... 3359 Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 3359 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 3360 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 3361 Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to...... 3361 Third Reading ...... 3361 Long Title ...... 3361 RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3361 Second Reading ...... 3361 Tabled paper: Copy of an article by Melissa Sweet titled ‘Beware the stem cell hard sell’...... 3387 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 10 October 2007

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 3389 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 3399 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3399 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 3399 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3399 TERRORISM, ORGANISED CRIME AND ANTI-CORRUPTION SURVEILLANCE BILL ...... 3399 Second Reading ...... 3399 Tabled paper: Copy of Crime and Misconduct Commission publication, Crime Bulletin Series, Number 6, September 2004, titled ‘Organised crime markets in Queensland: A strategic assessment’...... 3407 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 3408 Resolved in the negative...... 3408 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3408 RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3408 Second Reading ...... 3408 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3422 National Stroke Awareness Week ...... 3422 Acacia Ridge, SkillsTech ...... 3423 Local Government Reform ...... 3423 Oxley Quarry ...... 3424 Kuranda Range Road ...... 3424 Mental Health Week; Mirikai ...... 3425 Equine Influenza ...... 3425 Mount St Michael’s College Action Day ...... 3426 Victim Liaison Officers ...... 3427 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation ...... 3427 ATTENDANCE ...... 3428 10 Oct 2007 Legislative Assembly 3321 WEDNESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2007

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am. Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Local Government Reform Mr Elmes, from 30 petitioners, requesting the House to pro-rogue/dissolve the Government of Queensland over the matter of the abolition of local Shire Councils, and to repeal the recent Act that covers the forced amalgamation of local councils.

Intercountry Adoption Mrs Stuckey, from 31 petitioners, requesting the House to abandon the increase in the cost of inter country adoption assessments.

Needle Exchange Program Mr Langbroek, from 574 petitioners, requesting the House to relocate the Needle Exchange Program which recently opened in Burleigh Heads.

Public Hospitals, GPs and Nurses Ms Lee Long, from 3,196 petitioners, requesting the House to allow a patient’s own GP to attend to them in public hospital, re- introduce ward based training for nurses and re-introduce the position of Matron.

Traveston Dam Mr Foley, from 526 petitioners, requesting the House to abandon plans for the dam at Traveston and consider other options.

One-Teacher Schools Mr Pearce, from 346 petitioners, requesting the House to implement an alternative staffing model to one-teacher schools in Queensland so that teacher–student ratio reflects the demand of younger students on teacher time.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt)— • Response from the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition (804-07) presented by Mr Wellington from 237 petitioners requesting a pedestrian crossing on the Nambour-Mapleton Road Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation (Mr McNamara)–– • Report for the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to section 56A(4) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, in relation to the Nature Conservation (Problem Crocodiles) Conservation Plan 1995

MINISTERIAL PAPER

The following ministerial paper was tabled— Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland (Mr Wallace)— • Administration of the Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988, Annual Report 2006–07

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Afghanistan, Death of Trooper David Pearce Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.33 am): The tragic death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan yesterday has hit close to home. Trooper David Pearce was from the Enoggera based 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment. He was serving in Afghanistan as part of the Reconstruction Taskforce. He is survived by his wife and, as members will have seen this morning, two very young children. It is a tragic reminder of the ever-present risk faced by the brave men and women in combat. Again today our thoughts are with his family, his friends and his colleagues. 3322 Ministerial Statements 10 Oct 2007

Traveston Crossing Dam, Freshwater Species Conservation Centre Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.34 am): The Queensland government continues in its resolve to deliver water security to the 2.2 million residents of south-east Queensland. As part of that work, today I can advise the House that this week the environmental impact statement for the Traveston Crossing Dam has been provided to the Coordinator-General to confirm it addresses the terms of reference. Subject to his confirmation that it does address the terms of reference, it is expected that the EIS will be publicly released as early as next week. After six weeks of public consultation, the Coordinator-General will then consider the response. If he approves the EIS, it will then be placed before the federal Minister for the Environment—whoever that may be—early in 2008. Based on a recent assessment by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation or SMEC, I am confident that this project meets the highest technical and engineering standards. That said, we also acknowledge that any dam of the scale of the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam has the potential to create impacts that must be addressed, which is exactly why we have an environmental impact statement process. Concern has been raised about the potential impact on the Queensland lungfish, the Mary River turtle and the Mary River cod. They are extraordinary creatures that are already under stress with their populations in decline, and they deserve protection. The project proponent, Queensland Water Infrastructure, proposes a number of measures to address these concerns. Today I can announce that it is proposed that a $35 million Freshwater Species Conservation Centre be built near Gympie, adjacent to the Bruce Highway on the eastern shores of the dam, upstream of the dam wall. The funding will be sourced from the $1.7 billion Traveston Crossing Dam project. Its prime goal will be to ensure the survival and improve the status of the lungfish, the Mary River cod and the Mary River turtle. This proposal is about learning more about those species and ensuring that they just don’t survive, but that they thrive. The conservation centre will be run in partnership with the University of Queensland and will be overseen by Australia’s leading science agency, CSIRO. The world’s leading experts in the research of this field will be involved to provide independent advice. The scientific panel consists of Professor Jean Joss of Macquarie University, Professor Gordon Grigg of the University of Queensland and Dr Col Limpus of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. I thank those people for their willingness to serve on this panel. I table brief CVs for the scientists. Tabled paper: Details of the scientists providing independent advice to the Freshwater Species Conservation Centre. I place on record my thanks to Professors Joss and Grigg for their personal efforts to ensure that I and the government understood the unique and precious features of the lungfish, and the Mary River cod and turtle. Professors Joss and Grigg have made clear their opposition to the construction of the Traveston Crossing Dam. I have no doubt that their opinions remain unchanged, but I thank them for supporting this project which is intended to achieve just one thing, that is, the protection and sustainability of those three very important species. In April this year I visited Professor Joss’s research laboratory at Macquarie University in Sydney. I understand her passion and commitment to this extraordinary fish. The time I spent with Jean and her fish was a revelation. The facilities proposed for the new centre include breeding tanks, fish and turtle ponds, research laboratories and researchers’ accommodation. It is proposed that the centre will have 14 staff and provide an education and awareness focus for the species. The centre will provide Queensland’s first opportunity to show off this ‘living fossil’, which is said to be more than 110 million years old. It is expected to attract visitors, students and scientists from all over Australia and overseas. As I said, when I visited the facility at Macquarie University, as a Queenslander it struck me how little I knew about this species and how little most Queenslanders know about the species. This is an opportunity to have an interpretative centre where people, including schoolchildren and other visitors, can understand how unique it is to Queensland and how important it is in understanding our own evolution. It will make a very significant contribution, particularly to the local area. The $35 million funding package includes resources for operational and research funding for the next 10 years, along with funding for the implementation of research findings. This is a world-class initiative. It will be the only centre of its type that we know of. I am reassured by the support of world- class scientists from the University of Queensland and the CSIRO. The work that Jean Joss has dedicated her life to was at risk of coming to an end as she moves towards her own retirement. For us to pick up the ball and move her research to Queensland is not only an important part of preserving this species, it is a scientific coup for Queensland. Subject to the Commonwealth giving the dam final approval, it is expected that detailed planning of the centre will commence by mid next year with the first sod being turned by mid 2009. I look forward to the centre becoming a focus for international research and attention. This project is an important step in the protection of some of the most unique creatures on our planet and it is a legacy that we can all be very proud of leaving to our children. 10 Oct 2007 Ministerial Statements 3323

Queensland Rail, Rolling Stock Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 am): I am very pleased today to announce that the Queensland government, through Queensland Rail, has approved a significant new investment of $654 million for the purchase of rolling stock and infrastructure for Queensland’s coal export system. This is one of the largest rolling stock orders ever made in Queensland’s history. It comprises $221 million for 25 electric locomotives, $102 million for 15 diesel electric locomotives, $271 million for 1,190 wagons and $60 million for the construction of track related infrastructure. The state government has also approved in principle a second stage of rolling stock investment of $216 million for an additional 920 wagons which could be necessary to meet demand in 2010-11. As I said, this is one of the largest rolling stock orders ever made in QR’s history and is in addition to the existing five-year $1.4 billion program for the coal industry. Along with the existing program, and the $113 million investment by QR in 510 new coal wagons that was announced in July by the then minister for transport, my colleague the Deputy Premier, this brings the total rolling stock investment to be made in forward years to $2.05 billion—just over $2 billion. This massive investment has the potential to directly sustain around 2,000 person years of employment in the Queensland rolling stock construction industry over the life of stage 1 of the project. It supports employment in the coalmining industry, which includes more than 23,000 people in Queensland. It also supports one of the key recommendations of the O’Donnell review into the performance of the Goonyella coal supply chain. Stephen O’Donnell recommended that QR National immediately commence a process to acquire additional train sets to allow it to meet projected future volumes. Both stages of this new investment will allow QR to transport volumes of 261 million tonnes per annum by 2010-11. This represents by 2010- 11—just four years away—a 59 per cent increase on volumes railed from this financial year. So in just four to five years we will see this investment deliver an increase in the amount of volume we can rail out to port of 59 per cent. Coal exports are vital to the Queensland economy. It is vital to the future development of our regions and the employment of the people who move here. This massive infrastructure investment by our government will ensure the continued growth of our booming coal market. I promised when I became Premier of Queensland that I would do everything in my power to ensure that we stayed ahead of the game and stayed ahead of growth and today’s announcement is a good example of that commitment in action. Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal Distribution Committee Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.43 am): I am pleased to advise the House that the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal Distribution Committee has finalised the disbursement of the appeal fund. The committee chair, the Hon. Terry Mackenroth, has presented me with the committee’s final report on disbursement. I table a copy of the committee’s report and I would encourage people to have a look at it when it is distributed. Tabled paper: Report by the Tropical Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal Distribution Committee dated August 2007. The appeal fund reached $23.044 million consisting of $21.814 million in donations and $1.23 million in accrued interest. The appeal demonstrated the great generosity of the Australian public and the business community when fellow Australians find themselves in difficulty. Contributions to the appeal fund came from all sectors of the community, including individuals—mums, dads and children were donating; large corporate donors; and a donation of $1.1 million each from the Queensland and Australian governments. The committee’s report provides a very valuable reference document for future disaster recovery appeals, demonstrating a measured and responsible approach to disbursing the donations. Payments from the appeal fund were staged over four funding rounds targeting displaced persons, structural damage to owner occupied homes, community facilities of non-profit groups and individual continuing hardship. The funds were distributed equitably throughout the cyclone affected community with payments spread between insured and uninsured residents. The report also highlights the controlled distribution of the appeal fund, addressing the greatest need within the community while adopting sensible safeguards to protect the donated funds. While the work of the distribution committee prioritised the rebuilding of homes, it also directed assistance to non-profit community facilities. These facilities are the backbone of every community and their repair is an important symbol of recovery. Of particular note, the Babinda RSL Memorial Hall and the Queensland Country Women’s Association Hall in Millaa Millaa were destroyed and will both be completely rebuilt. A complete list of all assisted non-profit community facilities is provided in the report. The costs associated with the administration of the appeal fund were met from the operating budget of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to ensure that all the donated funds were applied directly to their intended purpose of assisting cyclone victims. The report notes that the committee has allocated all the donated funds and the majority of the accrued interest. Any residual funds will be directed to benefit the victims of future disasters when the trust fund is wound up. 3324 Ministerial Statements 10 Oct 2007

For their service to the community I wish to express my sincere thanks to all of the committee members: Terry Mackenroth, the chair of the committee, who did an extraordinary job and really applied himself with a great sense of dedication; the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government, Warren Pitt, who as a local was a very important part of the fund’s activities; the Queensland chair of the Australian Red Cross, Alan Clayton; former mayor of the Johnstone Shire Council, Neil Clarke; the area manager of Centrelink, Peter Searston; and the regional director of the Department of Housing, Brian Sheehan. These committee members volunteered their services without any fee or any reward, acting in a spirit of goodwill that has been the cornerstone of the entire recovery effort from this terrible cyclone. I commend Terry Mackenroth and his colleagues for putting together such a comprehensive report. When people do respond financially to these sorts of crises they wonder what happened to the money. All of that is on the record and the public can have absolute confidence that the donations they made did actually go to people who were most in need. I encourage people to have a look at the report. Interruption.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Photographing in Chamber Mr SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have given permission for a Courier-Mail photographer to be present in the chamber this morning operating under the approved guidelines.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Resumed.

Water Grid Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (9.47 am): Another section of the Queensland government’s $9 billion drought-proofing water grid is about to fall into place. It is proof that we are delivering the water security the south-east needs to maintain lifestyle, jobs and our state’s robust economy. Pipe laying will be underway by the end of the month to mark the start of stage 1 of the northern pipeline interconnector. This water superhighway forms the backbone of the Sunshine Coast’s connection to the grid and, from 2011, the vehicle for transporting precious drinking water from the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam to the rest of the booming south-east. Stage 1 of the northern pipeline interconnector will run 47 kilometres from the Lander’s Shute Water Treatment Plant in the Sunshine Coast hinterland to the Morayfield reservoirs and into the greater Brisbane supply. Stage 1 is expected to cost around $300 million. Costs are currently being finalised. This vital component of the water grid has been given the green light to proceed by the Coordinator-General. He has been stringent in his evaluation of the environmental impact statement for stage 1 and made 15 recommendations aimed at minimising the pipeline’s social and environmental impact. The recommendations relate to land use, soil erosion, vegetation clearing, air quality and waste management. Proceeding to this next section of the grid follows extensive geotechnical investigations and community consultation which form the basis of the project’s world’s best practice environmental impact statement. When finished in December 2008, stage 1 of the northern pipeline interconnector will have the capacity to deliver 65 megalitres of fresh drinking water a day into the region’s kitchens, bathrooms and laundry taps. Construction of the pipeline by the state government owned LinkWater will require just two property resumptions. One is a vacant block of land, the other a house. Most of the northern interconnector will be buried under easements on 294 properties. Of these properties, 216 already have existing easements, largely for powerlines. It goes without saying that all property owners will be compensated. The assessors are already on site. A new water treatment plant is also under construction at Ewen Maddock Dam. Its primary job is to quench the demands of the growing suburbs of Maroochy and Caloundra. This is additional water that will be used locally to offset the surplus water sourced from Baroon Pocket Dam for the northern pipeline interconnector. Ultimately, the northern pipeline will stretch 100 kilometres, with planning already underway to link Landers Shute with Noosa. Make no mistake, the south-east water grid is no pipedream. We are getting on with the job of building it, not only for Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast but also to bolster water security for the millions of people who live here. 10 Oct 2007 Ministerial Statements 3325

South-East Queensland Councils, Compensation

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (9.49 am): This government is committed to paying a fair level of compensation to south-east Queensland councils for the bulk assets as part of the institutional reforms of urban water supply for the region. Just as it is committed to delivering fair compensation, the government is determined to deliver a 21st century system for managing the region’s water supplies. In delivering fair compensation, Queensland Treasury will calculate the compensation to be paid to the councils based upon the in principle agreement reached between the state government and the Brisbane City Council through the lord mayor on June 13. This in principle agreement includes compensation to be based on foregone earnings from the assets transferred in accordance with current council pricing and regulatory principles. The South East Queensland Council of Mayors has agreed to adopt a collaborative regional approach and has committed to partnering with the government to ensure the institutional reforms are achieved. I take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge their willingness to work constructively on achieving this sensible reform. Councils are seeking to reassure ratepayers that they will receive best value, just as the state government is. Last Friday I wrote to the Brisbane Lord Mayor, as the Chair of the South East Queensland Council of Mayors, assuring him of the government’s commitment to a cooperative approach and also to open discussion. The state will consider providing financial support to assist the smaller councils in south-east Queensland meet the administrative costs of completing the reforms on an as needs basis. The Treasury’s South East Queensland Water Reform Transaction Unit has been established and is currently undertaking due diligence on council assets, and the amount to be paid will be determined through this process. The level of compensation is expected to be finalised later this year or early next year. I can inform the House that the figure is likely to be closer to the higher estimate of previous indications by the state—that is, in the order of $2 billion. I take the opportunity to assure the mayors of south-east Queensland councils that the compensation arrangements will be fair and equitable. They will take account of future revenue needs of councils and, equally, take account of past investment by the state. In the end, ratepayers are taxpayers and the asset arrangements between different levels of government must not concentrate on accounting constructs but must ensure that the ownership and management of those assets are focused on a secure water supply. The Premier has made a commitment to councils that they will be fairly compensated. In return, south-east Queenslanders will receive a modern and efficient water management system to replace the 25 different water entities which currently manage water supply in the south-east corner. It is a transaction that remains firmly in the best interests of the residents of south-east Queensland.

Ergon Energy

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.52 am): I am delighted to inform the House of changes in Ergon Energy that will see the organisation return to its roots in regional Queensland. The head office will relocate to Townsville. That move involves the majority of Ergon’s senior executive team including the CEO. When Anna Bligh became Premier, she made it known that the government’s attention would focus on the needs of regional Queensland, and it is a move in the right direction. The shift in Ergon Energy’s senior executive ranks demonstrates the Bligh government’s commitment to regional Queensland. It is an exciting time for Ergon: it is a chance for renewal and it is also in the long-term interests of the organisation to focus its attention on its customer base in regional Queensland. There are also exciting developments there. In August I joined the then Premier in opening Ergon’s two new $60 million control centres, one in Townsville and one in Rockhampton. These world-class centres will revolutionise the way Ergon Energy responds to emergencies in regional Queensland. For the first time, control centre operators in Townsville and Rockhampton will have control of almost all of the regional electricity network. That is no mean feat when you consider a supply network of around a million power poles, 150,000 kilometres of powerlines and more than 300 substations. The new centres will be the network’s nerve centres and either one will be able to take over in an emergency. They will be backed by facilities in Cairns, Maryborough, Mackay and Toowoomba, with crews on 24-hour duty at depots across Ergon’s entire electricity network. Among these changes, Ergon Energy’s CEO, Tony Bellas, will leave the organisation at the end of the month. Mr Bellas is one of the electricity industry’s longest serving executives. He has had a long involvement in Queensland’s government owned corporations. He has steered Ergon through a period of great change in the energy sector in Queensland. Ergon’s chief operating officer will act in the role until a permanent appointment is made. This regional shift will help Ergon build on its already strong reputation in regional Queensland. Who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of a better network? Ergon’s 600,000 customers from Bamaga to Birdsville and everywhere in between. 3326 Ministerial Statements 10 Oct 2007

Alliance Contracts, Busways

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (9.54 am): I would like to inform the House of the benefits we are receiving by using alliance contracts between government and private enterprise to build busway projects worth more than $2 billion. Busways are a key component in relieving traffic congestion, as each bus takes 40 cars off the road. Busway construction in urban areas is extremely complex work that would be difficult to implement using conventional delivery methods.

Alliance contracts encourage all parties to share risks and rewards, decide what is best for a project, encourage innovative thinking with a commitment to provide outstanding results and ensure all financial transactions are fully transparent. As the design and construction of busways is specialised, alliances permit the resources from designs, construction, maintainers and operators to work together. This enables a better quality, more functional busway to be delivered. For example, on the Inner Northern Busway the alliance has worked closely with its stakeholders, such as the Brisbane City Council, Albert Street traders, Queensland Rail and Brisbane Transit Centre, to construct a complex inner-city busway with minimal impact on the community.

The alliance has also formed relationships with key subcontractors in areas such as piling, electrical and mechanical which have produced innovative solutions and achieved cost savings. The $333 million Inner Northern Busway is on budget and due for completion by mid-2008, six months ahead of schedule. On the Boggo Road busway, the alliance has incorporated significant value for money initiatives such as innovative construction of a cut and cover tunnel while keeping the southern suburban train lines open. The partners listened to the local community and included their requirements in the project, which is also, I am advised, on time and on budget.

The partners have been able to work closely with Queensland Rail to improve the track geometry for the Beenleigh and Cleveland rail lines to enhance rail operations and reduce the length of the busway tunnel. The inner northern and Boggo Road busways are two examples of the successes of alliances, where all participants are working together to deliver outstanding outcomes for the commuters and the taxpayers of Queensland.

Equine Influenza

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (9.56 am): The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries is very conscious of keeping the public aware of our equine influenza response. The equine influenza control group, which is chaired by my director- general and includes representatives from various government agencies, meets every Monday to update industry on the current situation and to receive feedback. Organisations involved include the Queensland Horse Council, Queensland Racing, Queensland Harness Racing, the Australian Veterinary Association, the Local Government Association of Queensland and AgForce.

Six community resource centres have been established in Brisbane, the western suburbs, Warwick, Goondiwindi, Tamborine, Rosewood and Minden to assist communities where infected properties are located. These are open seven days a week. The Department of Communities has also opened one-stop shops on the Gold Coast, Toowoomba and Hamilton to administer personal and financial support. Mobile units are also on the road.

The DPI has attended local community meetings including last Saturday’s forum at Ipswich, show events and organised daily shopping centre displays. Letterbox drops have been held around infected properties and more are planned. Posters and fact sheets have been distributed to local produce agents, service stations and shops. The call centre has answered more than 28,000 calls. There have been more than 132,000 hits on the EI dedicated section on the DPI web site. There have been ads, some full page and in colour, in major metropolitan and regional newspapers. There have been hundreds of radio ads and community service announcements. There have also been media releases, press conferences and numerous television, radio and newspaper reports.

I have also written to the federal agriculture minister, Peter McGauran, and spoken personally to him about the Commonwealth devoting some of the air time being used for its pre-election campaign advertising for educating the public on equine influenza. I know that the member for Toowoomba South also supports that approach.

The Queensland government and the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and Biosecurity Queensland have been tirelessly implementing the nationally approved strategy to tackle EI. While we have not been perfect, we have received far more bouquets than brickbats for our response. 10 Oct 2007 Ministerial Statements 3327

Dangerous Sexual Offenders

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (9.59 am): Understandably there is public concern about the management of sex offenders in the community. This is not helped by the opposition’s fear campaign. Today, let me outline for the House exactly what we are doing to keep the community safe when dangerous sex offenders are released by the courts, against our advice. This year we provided funding of $2.6 million to manage these offenders in the community and we have committed $3.5 million over four years for the provision of electronic monitoring. We currently have 30 sex offenders living in the community who are each subject to strict supervision orders under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act. Four of these offenders are subject to electronically monitored curfews. Up to 20 people can be involved in the day-to-day supervision and management of these offenders. They include individual case managers, regional intelligence officers, surveillance officers, electronic monitoring compliance officers, treating psychologists or psychiatrists, Queensland police, ANCOR representatives, drug and alcohol counsellors, reintegration support officers and members of the Sex Offender and Dangerous Offender Unit. This Sex Offender and Dangerous Offender Unit receives $1.86 million in recurrent funding specifically for the management of these offenders. It is worth noting that we are the only state in Australia to have intelligence officers working in our probation and parole offices, monitoring the movements of these offenders and reviewing their cases on a daily basis. While the supervision of an average offender on probation or parole costs around $12 a day, the supervision and management of a DPSOA offender can cost over $170 a day. This is more than it would cost to keep them in prison. But this is a cost that this government is prepared to pay to keep the community safe. And we will not stop there. In recent cases where Corrective Services have suspected a breach of an order we have put in place intensive 24-hour surveillance involving Queensland police, increased random home visits by surveillance officers and conducted targeted drug and alcohol testing. In certain cases, officers have undertaken room-by-room investigations to uncover any suspicious material that could suggest an offender is likely to breach their order. As a result of these intensive measures that this government has put in place I can report that no offender monitored under the DPSOA legislation has been detected committing further offences of a sexual nature. Even the most minor breaches of their stringent supervision orders are treated very seriously, with an increasing number of cases returning to the courts. There are currently five DPSOA offenders who have been returned to custody for further breaches of their supervision orders. We will continue to watch these people like hawks. Our legislation is the toughest in this country and it keeps getting tougher. The most recent amendments to the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act makes it even easier for us to bring offenders back in front of the courts for breaching their supervision orders. In the past if a sex offender was found to have been contravening their orders the Attorney-General had to apply to the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings. This process was lengthy and meant that the offender continued to remain in the community before the matter could be heard by the court. Now, as a result of the amendment to that act, a person who contravenes a DPSOA order can be arrested immediately and brought before the courts. We will continue to look at every option available to ensure the protection of Queenslanders from these dangerous predators. While the opposition continues to harp on about unreliable GPS tracking devices and the implementation of public sex offender registers—which have been labelled as dangerous and irresponsible by experts around the globe—we continue to put in place sound measures that are actually keeping the community safe.

FIFA Women’s World Cup

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (10.03 am): Three of our state’s finest athletes recently travelled to the 2007 FIFA Women’s World Cup held in China as part of the only Matildas squad to ever make it to the quarter finals. I am sure all members join me in congratulating Queensland’s star footballers—Kate McShea, Alicia Ferguson and Clare Polkinghorne—who are all members of the Queensland Academy of Sport women’s football squad which trains at the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre at Nathan. Today I will be attending the launch of three new Football Queensland initiatives aimed at further developing the sport of football in Queensland. This is yet another project advancing the position of this state as a leader in sport and recreation. 3328 Ministerial Statements 10 Oct 2007

Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Commemorative Service Hon. N ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.04 am): The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has a proud history of serving the people of this state. Sadly, 46 firefighters in Queensland have paid the ultimate price whilst performing their duties. Commemorative services will be held across Queensland today in recognition of their sacrifice. A sad part of services today will be the recognition of station officer Michael Gundry who passed away in June this year. His name will be added to the honour roll. I offer my condolences to the officer’s family, friends and colleagues. This day, the 10th day of the 10th month, is the national day of remembrance for firefighters. Flags at fire stations throughout Queensland will be flown at half-mast throughout the day. This day of remembrance also serves to remind everyone about the very real dangers of fire operations. One of the highest risks for firefighters is entering premises to help people trapped inside. One way we have helped minimise this risk is the legislation passed earlier this year to make smoke alarms compulsory so that people can escape before it is too late. The introduction of the laws has been followed by an extensive public awareness campaign. Last month the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service resurveyed a sample of Queenslanders who did not have smoke alarms in February this year. This group made up about 10 per cent of households surveyed. The results of this latest survey showed that almost 50 per cent of this group have since installed a smoke alarm. Of those who lived in rented properties, almost 60 per cent had smoke alarms installed by landlords or agents in the past six months. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service will continue to work with the community to raise awareness of the importance of smoke alarms. However, deliberate and flagrant breaches of these new requirements will be penalised. Prosecutions have already been initiated. A maximum fine of $375 per infringement can be imposed. Research shows the risk of death from fire in a home is up to three times higher in homes without smoke alarms. In Queensland, nearly 80 per cent of all home fire deaths occur in homes were smoke alarms are not present. With these new laws the government has demonstrated that it is committed to improving fire safety for all Queenslanders, including for the men and women of the Fire and Rescue Service. Department of Child Safety Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (10.06 am): Honourable members may be aware of the recent death of a two-year-old Margate boy. The death of any child is an absolute tragedy and my heart goes out to all those suffering as a result of this terrible incident. A man has been charged and the case is before the courts. That means I am limited in what I am able to say about this issue. What I can confirm is that the child was known to the Department of Child Safety. There will be a two-step, independent review of the department’s actions in this case. It starts with a mandatory department review which is conducted by outside experts. In this case, an independent reviewer with 10 years experience conducting sensitive investigations has been appointed and the department is collecting any files and other material related to its involvement with the child. That independent review, as well as any proposed departmental response to its recommendations, is then looked at by the external Child Death Case Review Committee which is chaired by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian and includes the police commissioner and senior health experts. That committee can make further recommendations and any recommendations from the review will be made public. If there are any recommendations out of this review for doing things differently or better I have given a commitment that they will be carefully considered by the department and implemented. The investigation following a tragedy is not about apportioning blame. It is about retracing the steps we took in dealing with the case, determining whether those steps were appropriate in the circumstances, whether we could have done things better and whether we should do things better in the future. The Department of Child Safety has gone through major reform over the past three years and the period of improvement will continue. The department now has a budget of more than half a billion dollars, an increase of $48 million on last year and more than triple that of four years ago. This budget increase, along with the implementation of all 110 CMC recommendations, shows a clear commitment by this government to protecting Queensland children. When travelling around Queensland and visiting many of the departmental officers can I say how impressed I am by the people who work at the front line to protect Queensland’s most vulnerable children. I recognise that their work is challenging. It is very difficult and very demanding work. On behalf of the Bligh government, I thank them for the very important work they do and thank them for protecting Queensland’s most vulnerable children. 10 Oct 2007 Ministerial Statements 3329

Blueprint for the Bush Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.09 am): The groundbreaking Blueprint for the Bush has reached another major milestone with the release of the first annual report on this 10-year initiative. I launched the report at the B4B ministerial community forum in Mareeba which finished last Saturday. This high-level forum was well attended and included my ministerial colleagues Tim Mulherin and Craig Wallace, parliamentary secretary Jan Jarratt and MPs Betty Kiernan, Steve Wettenhall and Rosa Lee Long. It is a clear indication of the government’s commitment to B4B and rural and regional Queensland. I was also pleased to see a large contingent from AgForce, our executive partner for the blueprint, including President Peter Kenny and CEO Brett de Hayr. During the three-day forum, delegates reported that the blueprint is making considerable progress towards improving sustainability, livability and prosperity in rural Queensland. We also discussed what we can do to improve the blueprint to deliver even more outcomes and support to rural and remote communities. The Queensland government has already allocated $153.4 million in new funding for the first three to four years for a range of Blueprint for the Bush initiatives. The annual report details the wide range of projects that have been implemented in the blueprint’s first year, and I seek leave to table that report. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Report by AgForce Queensland titled ‘Blueprint for the Bush, a year of progress, annual report 2006-07’. Mr PITT: For example, to build the capacity of our communities, we provided $1 million for community transport schemes and provided $1.3 million for the Our Place, Our Future initiative. We committed $5.4 million over three years to establish rural multitenant service centres in Lockhart River, Longreach, Burdekin, Charters Towers and Dalby. Through the Reclaim the Bush pest offensive, we approved 48 projects valued at $8.5 million to reduce weeds and pest animals. We approved assistance worth $11 million to 1,035 landholders adversely affected by changes to vegetation management legislation. During 2006-07, 26 bores were rehabilitated as part of the Great Artesian Basin sustainability initiative. These projects are just a snapshot of the many gains we are making for rural Queenslanders through Blueprint for the Bush. I expect that we will make further progress during the next 12 months and be able to report even greater gains at the next annual forum in Charters Towers. I look forward to the active involvement of Mr Knuth, the member for Charters Towers, as we go about the business of building strong, sustainable, livable and prosperous communities. Patel, Dr J Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.11 am): I want to take this opportunity to update the House on the progress of the extradition of Jayant Patel. The independent Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that her office has completed its role in the extradition process. I am advised that the final signed affidavits are now with the federal justice department. This was the result of many months of close consultation with Commonwealth officials to prepare the best possible case for extraditing Patel. I want to acknowledge the level of cooperation that has occurred between the Queensland ODPP and the Commonwealth in progressing this matter. The extradition application itself is a Commonwealth responsibility, and I look forward to the federal minister for justice giving consideration to the matter in the near future. I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of the steps from here. Extradition proceedings, especially those related to overseas jurisdictions, are extremely complex. The federal minister for justice will consider the application and if he is satisfied that the application is appropriate the extradition request will then go to the federal Attorney-General. The federal Attorney-General may then deliver an extradition request to the appropriate United States of America authority seeking extradition of Patel to Australia to face criminal charges. A US court will ultimately decide whether extradition will be granted. Of course, Queensland prosecutors will continue to work closely with the Commonwealth authorities should anything further be required. It remains critically important that neither I nor anyone else makes any further comments that may prejudice this process in any way. Skilling Solutions Queensland, Mobile Service Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.13 am): Giving Queenslanders the skills and qualifications they need to meet the skills shortages of our state is a key priority of our government. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, there is far too much audible conversation in the House this morning. Can I ask you to please tone it down a bit. I call the minister for education. Mr Lingard interjected. 3330 Ministerial Statements 10 Oct 2007

Mr WELFORD: You wouldn’t, would you? Mr Lingard: We wouldn’t. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members! I call the Minister for Education and Training. Mr WELFORD: Bonjour, Monsieur! Members may have heard of the $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan— A government member: Even in France! Mr WELFORD: Yes, and all the way from here to France they have been singing the success of this amazing plan to give us an opportunity to address the skills shortage in Queensland. An important component of the plan is Skilling Solutions Queensland. It is an innovative service that provides tailored information about training and career opportunities for Queenslanders. We now have 16 of these customer service centres around the state providing job seekers with information about starting a new career, training or receiving recognition of skills. Between March 2005 and June this year, customer service advisers at these centres responded to nearly 24,000 inquiries, nearly 19,000 of which were face-to-face interviews. During the same period they referred more than 6,400 people to training organisations for recognition of their prior learning and gap training towards formal qualifications. Nearly 1,400 Queenslanders have gained a qualification thanks to Skilling Solutions Queensland. This year’s state budget allocated $13.4 million to the centres to ensure that the service continues to help Queenslanders to find jobs and help industry and business to find skilled workers, and now we are expanding the service to rural communities in the south-west of the state. Later today I will be pleased to launch our first mobile Skilling Solutions Queensland customer service centre. Based in Toowoomba, this van will travel to communities on the Darling Downs and other parts of the west and south-west. It will provide exactly the same service as the existing customer service centres at fixed locations throughout the state. The difference for the van is that we are taking the service out to communities where it is needed and where it can be easily accessed by people who otherwise would not have the opportunity to use the service. The van is fitted out with the latest computer and wireless internet technology and staffed with trained consultants. If this pilot project is successful, members may see other vans on the road throughout the state in due course. The van will be in the front of Parliament House if members would like to check it out at 1 pm today, and I encourage all members of the House to take a look at this impressive vehicle that will travel throughout the west of the state to help people get the jobs they need.

Healthy Food Access Basket Survey

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.17 am): The cost of food is something that affects us all. There is no doubt that rising petrol prices and the drought are having a major impact on food costs. Just how much more we are paying for basic healthy foodstuffs may surprise many Queenslanders. Queensland Health conducts a regular survey of food prices using a standard basket of breads and cereals, meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy products and other staples that would feed a family of six for two weeks. The latest 2006 healthy food access basket survey compares current food prices to what we paid in the year 2000. It reveals that Queensland families are paying an average $149 more for the same basket of food than they paid in 2000—a 49 per cent increase. In 2000 the sample basket cost an average $304 to feed a family of six. Today that same basket costs an average $453. The survey also shows that families living in very remote areas of Queensland are paying up to $113 more than families in Brisbane for the same food basket and food prices have risen by up to 54 per cent in some regional Queensland communities since 2000. The survey of 47 food stores charted the rise in food prices between 2000 and 2006 and found that the average cost of the basket rose from $299 to $443, a 48 per cent increase, in major cities including Brisbane, Toowoomba, Ipswich and the Gold and Sunshine coasts; $310 to $463, a 49 per cent increase, in inner regional areas including Rockhampton, Mackay, Maryborough, Dalby and Bundaberg; $309 to $478, a 54 per cent increase, in outer regional areas including Cairns, Townsville, Bowen, Emerald and Goondiwindi; and $347 to $481, a 38 per cent increase, in remote areas including Charleville, Cooktown, Mount Isa, St George and Roma. In 2000 the ACCC predicted that the cost of fresh food, including fruit and vegetables, would drop by 1.1 per cent during the first six months after the introduction of the GST. But between May 2000 and February 2001 it actually increased by 10.3 per cent and it has been soaring above the CPI ever since. Rising food prices is a national issue demanding a national response. That is why I am calling on the Prime Minister today to authorise the ACCC to conduct a formal inquiry into food prices in Australia. 10 Oct 2007 Ministerial Statements 3331

Business and Industry Transformation Incentives

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry) (10.19 am): Today I am pleased to announce a new financial incentives scheme that will help drive the future growth of Queensland. Business and Industry Transformation Incentives will replace a number of existing business grants, including the Queensland Industry Development Scheme, known as QIDS. These new incentives will target small to medium enterprises operating within Queensland’s priority industry sectors. They will be geared towards funding projects that have the potential to be transformational. That means projects that assist the business receiving the incentive to grow in size or diversity. Preferred projects may also have a flow-on or spill-over impact on other businesses. For example, a fruit processing company may introduce technology that helps sort fruit faster and with better accuracy. Consequently, handling and packaging times would be reduced. The fruit supplier would benefit through getting more accurate feedback on the quality and mix of their product. At the same time the retailer may benefit through receiving consistency in the quality of the product.

Projects that build strength in regional industries, lead to greater innovation, productivity and exports or raise the competitiveness of an industry will be considered transformative. With regard to this new scheme, business has been consulted. In fact, throughout the reform process the new BITI guidelines have been endorsed by an advisory group of business and industry leaders chaired by Dr David Watson. The minimum incentive under the new scheme is lifted from $5,000 to $30,000 and the maximum from $50,000 to $250,000. However, just because we are lifting the amount available does not change our focus. It is still on small to medium enterprises. That has already been happening. Over the past three years nearly 90 per cent of firms that received a QIDS grant larger than $30,000 were small to medium enterprises.

Another difference with these new grants is the use of funding rounds to boost competition and ensure greater returns for Queensland taxpayers. A pilot round for BITI is now open and will close in early November. We expect to be able to announce some transformational projects by the end of this year. There will be up to five rounds scheduled for 2008. I encourage interested businesses to contact their local state development centre.

Pest Management, Carnarvon National Park

Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (10.22 am): This month the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service completed the first phase of an ongoing program to control pest animals causing serious damage to Carnarvon National Park near Roma. The long-term aim of the program is to significantly reduce the number of feral horses, pigs, goats, foxes, cats and wild dogs that are damaging the park’s natural and cultural resources.

Feral horses in particular are causing serious erosion, spreading weeds, destroying freshwater springs and other watercourses, damaging Aboriginal cultural sites, competing with native wildlife for feed and destroying habitat. An aerial survey of the Carnarvon region in February 2006 returned a population estimate of 12,600 feral horses with more than 4,300 on the national park. Neighbours and conservation groups have been calling for action on the problem for some time.

The control program has been carefully planned over more than a year in consultation with the park neighbours, conservation groups, AgForce, the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the RSPCA. The program is not about the eradication of feral horses, but rather ensuring that the population is kept at a manageable level in consideration of the welfare of both the horses and the native wildlife in the park. For the first phase of the program, all options were investigated and shooting was considered the most humane solution in this part of the park. Accordingly, I can advise the House that 3,981 feral horses and 141 feral pigs were killed in this first phase of the operation.

We have worked particularly closely with the DPIF and the RSPCA to ensure that the program was done humanely and met best practice animal welfare standards, and they are satisfied that this has been achieved. I take this opportunity to congratulate the departmental staff and the contractors for doing a very difficult job so well.

More than $4.5 million is being spent in the 2007-08 financial year as part of an ongoing commitment to managing pests on the QPWS estate. Feral animals and weeds are second only to vegetation clearing as a threat to our wildlife. The Carnarvon National Park is home to at least 15 rare and threatened species and is a landscape of great significance to Aboriginal people and all Queenslanders. To allow this unacceptable situation to continue unabated is environmental vandalism involving the destruction of habitat and cultural heritage sites. 3332 Notice of Motion 10 Oct 2007

Queensland Multicultural Festival Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Seniors and Youth) (10.25 am): Today is National Fiji Day—a day when Queenslanders of Fijian heritage celebrate their culture and achievements. That excitement is set to grow in coming days in the lead-up to the impressive 2007 Queensland Multicultural Festival to be held this Sunday at Roma Street Parkland. This is a really important festival that promotes understanding, acceptance and appreciation of the Smart State’s rich cultural diversity and the many benefits that are offered to the wider community. This year’s events have been organised by Multicultural Affairs Queensland, which has moved to the Department of Communities since the machinery of government changes. To date, the festival has attracted over 120,000 people since it was first held in 2004. It stands today as Queensland’s largest single-day community event. It is jam-packed and it is free, with activities showcasing a broad range of art and culture. There is music, dance, literature, traditional and contemporary cultural activities, food and much more. To expand the festival’s scope even further, there is a series of satellite events surrounding the main event this year. They include a radio talk show this week, film showings, a football match, Shakespearean theatre and also a youth concert. With this year’s theme of Discovering Diversity, there is no doubt that the festival will go a long way to giving even more Queenslanders a chance to enjoy and appreciate our rich cultural diversity. I am delighted that headline acts this weekend include Deborah Conway, Willy Zygier and Bobby Flynn. There are also popular local groups and Fijian performers among an impressive long list of talented performers. The 2007 Multicultural Festival is an opportunity, as a community of proud Queenslanders, for people to come together and share our culture, goodwill and fellowship. I would like to invite all of my parliamentary colleagues to join me on Sunday to celebrate our cultural diversity and enjoy a fun-filled family day.

Social Housing Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.27 am): Queensland’s rapidly expanding population is putting ever-increasing pressure on the supply of social housing in our state. Currently, the Department of Housing has more than 35,000 applications for social housing, many from people who have been forced out of the private rental market by skyrocketing rents. The Queensland government has responded by committing to spend a record $719 million during the 2007-08 financial year to assist those in greatest housing need. We have had to do that because the Howard government has simply walked away from Queenslanders in housing crisis, as I explained to the House yesterday. Already this financial year more than 148,000 households have been assisted by the department in one way or another. More than 1,100 households have moved into social housing, taking the total number of households currently living in department managed social housing to more than 57,000. Around 8,000 households have been assisted through community managed social housing, of which 2,800 are new client households, and a massive 78,000 households have taken advantage of private housing assistance offered by the department, including bond loans, rental grants, the Home Assist Secure service, the Home and Community Care home modification program and the Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service (Queensland). It is expected that by 30 June next year more than 250,000 Queensland households will have been assisted by the Department of Housing. The department is also continuing to grow its stock of social housing for the future. During the 2007-08 financial year the department will carry out a $379 million capital works program to start the construction of 462 dwellings, complete the construction of 502 dwellings and purchase 259 existing dwellings for social housing clients. So far the Department of Housing has already expended $68 million from its capital works budget towards this goal. The construction of 143 dwellings has started, the construction of 89 dwellings has finished and 89 existing dwellings have been purchased.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Transport Infrastructure Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (10.29 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this Parliament acknowledges the failure of the Queensland Labor Government to adequately plan for and provide in a timely manner both public transport infrastructure and services in south east Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling question time, I welcome to the public gallery today teachers and students from the Morayfield East State School in the electorate of Kallangur, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Ken Hayward. 10 Oct 2007 Questions Without Notice 3333

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Local Government Reform Mr SEENEY (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the advertisement in the Courier-Mail this morning, which I hope the Premier read, in which Queensland communities are pleading with her to have some compassion and asking her not to destroy their towns. I ask the Premier why on her recent tour of regional Queensland she did not visit even one of these communities that will be destroyed by her government’s forced council amalgamations? Why is the Premier so determined to maintain a cold and heartless approach to Queensland communities? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. His basic premise is not correct. During my recent tour of regional Queensland, firstly, I visited Cairns where I had a separate meeting with the mayor of Douglas shire and not just another member of his council but two representatives of the community action group. Nobody who has been watching this debate could say that the Douglas shire has been anything other than at the forefront of opposition to the government’s policy on this issue. Secondly, I visited Toowoomba last week, as one of the members of the opposition would know. Mr Hobbs interjected. Ms BLIGH: What are you laughing at Toowoomba for? Mr Hobbs: Go to Millmerran. Go to Pittsworth. Mr Seeney: What about Noosa? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will make the Leader of the Opposition and his local government spokesman aware of this: you have asked this question, which is of interest to both of you, so let the Premier answer it. Ms BLIGH: I visited Toowoomba at the request of the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce and addressed a lunch. At that lunch I think there were representatives from every single one of the shires in that area that are being amalgamated. This is the largest amalgamation that is happening in Queensland. Again, as members know, a number of those shires are in opposition to this matter. They were given an open forum in which they could raise any question and any criticism with me in a very public audience with media present, and they took that opportunity. If the opposition leader asked his colleague, the member for Toowoomba South, he would know that I answered questions for close to an hour—some 45 minutes, I think. Any suggestion that I have shied away from answering difficult questions from people who are upset about this issue is simply without foundation. In relation to the advertisement in this morning’s paper, I can say that, yes, of course I have seen it and I have read it. I repeat what I have said in this place before. I do understand how difficult these sorts of changes are. We are talking about communities that are not only facing this change but in many cases have had many other changes imposed on them by different levels of government at different times in the last couple of decades. They are experiencing demographic shifts because of changes to their local economy and they are seeing things that they are genuinely and legitimately concerned about. I do not for one minute dismiss those concerns. What I am committing myself to is doing everything in our power—and I have had a number of discussions about this with my minister for local government—to ensure that the transition process implements these reforms in a way that is sensitive to the needs of communities, that looks after people who work for these councils as best we can and that delivers a long-term outcome that helps secure the future of these communities in a way that was not happening before this amalgamation. I know that members on the opposite side do not agree with this policy. I supported this policy when it came to cabinet and I supported this policy when it came to this House because I believe it is about the future of these communities, not the past. Queensland Ambulance Service Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. The Premier and her Minister for Emergency Services have made many claims about the Queensland Ambulance Service since she became the Premier. How does the Premier respond to Queenslanders like 60-year-old Geoff Silcock, a small businessman from Mount Gravatt who told me that he was a subscriber to the Ambulance Service for many years and never had any complaints about the service under the old system. But now that he pays the ambulance tax four times, when he needed an ambulance last month after a fall he could not get one and his wife had to take him to the Mater Hospital for surgery. The government promised Queenslanders a world-class Ambulance Service. How many times do Queensland small business owners have to pay the ambulance tax before they can get any ambulance service at all? 3334 Questions Without Notice 10 Oct 2007

Ms BLIGH: Again, I thank the opposition leader for the question. As I outlined yesterday to the House, and I believe the member is actually very familiar with this, Queensland funds its ambulance system better per head—per every man, woman and child—than any other state in Australia. Obviously I am not familiar with the specific case that the opposition leader raised, and of course I will have those circumstances looked into. But any suggestion that these circumstances have arisen because of any lack of funding into this service is completely wrong. What we have is the best funded ambulance system in the world. Mr Seeney interjected. Ms BLIGH: I note the continual assertion from the opposition leader that attacks the good work that is being done by the Ambulance Service and the paramedics out there every single day. Mr Seeney interjected. Ms BLIGH: When members opposite come into this place—as the opposition leader just did when he said that our paramedics are running the worst service in the world— Mr SEENEY: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find that comment offensive. I said the service has got worse, and it has. Mr SPEAKER: Premier. Ms BLIGH: I do not think that was any point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, I did not quite hear that. Mr SEENEY: I find the Premier’s comments offensive. Mr SPEAKER: I have taken the point of order. Ms BLIGH: Sorry. I did not realise he asked for it to be withdrawn. Of course I withdraw. The reality is that before the ambulance levy was a part of the funding arrangements for the Queensland Ambulance Service it was funded at $253 million a year. That was what the subscription system and the then budget allocations delivered. It is now funded for the first time at more than $404 million a year. It is a 60 per cent increase in funding. Mr Hobbs interjected. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again say to the Leader of the Opposition—as you are the leader of the members on my left—that you have asked a question that you want an answer to so I think you should ask your own members to allow the Premier to decently answer it. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Warrego, who just asserted that more money does not make the service better. I will certainly be making sure that members of the Ambulance Service know his view on that. I can only again remind members opposite that if they honestly believe they have a plan to provide some better service to Queenslanders—whether it is in the ambulance or anything else—then they should go to the electorate and tell them the plan and put together a policy. I know that putting together a policy is a remarkable idea for those opposite, but they need to take it to the electorate. They should put a candidate in the field when there is a by-election. They should find a candidate, take a plan to the electorate and argue the point with the people who put us in this House. But the opposition will not do that because it does not have a candidate, it does not have a policy, it does not have a clue. Rail Infrastructure Ms JARRATT: My question is to the Premier. Could the Premier please advise what benefits regional Queensland can reap from the announcement this morning of record rail infrastructure by Queensland Rail? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As members would know, she is someone in this House who certainly understands what is happening in rail, particularly with our coal industry. Her region is one that is experiencing extraordinary growth as a result of demand for our coal resources. The decision by the government to make a more than $600 million investment in new rolling stock can only be described as a very, very big win for regional Queensland. This massive investment in infrastructure will be a catalyst for further development in the towns and cities all throughout central and western Queensland. It will be a boost for business and a boost for jobs. The figures are worth repeating: $221 million for 25 electric locomotives, $102 million for 15 diesel-electric locomotives, $271 million for 1,190 wagons and $60 million for the construction of track related infrastructure. 10 Oct 2007 Questions Without Notice 3335

On top of that $650 million, there is in-principle approval for a second stage worth another $216 million for an additional 920 wagons, should it be necessary for further demand. The Goonyella coal system will be the main beneficiary feeding into the ports of Mackay, Dalrymple Bay and Hay Point, and the port of Gladstone will be fed from the Blackwater coal system. This will create investment and job opportunities and flow-on benefits to communities from Bundaberg to Mackay. Obviously, an injection of these sorts of funds will be a significant driver for growth. In addition, contracts with Siemens and Downer EDI Rail for the rolling stock are expected to be signed soon. Mr Foley interjected. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Maryborough, because he understands better than anybody in this House how important that investment into EDI is. Of course, Downer EDI workshops are based in Maryborough. In fact, its work site is one of Australia’s original railway manufacturing facilities. I have toured those workshops and it does a terrific job. Putting in place this sort of order in that time not only secures those jobs long-term but also ensures that the needs of Queensland Rail are put ahead of any other potential contractor. From day one I have made it clear that I want my government to place a greater focus on regional development, and this is a good example of it. However, it is an even better example of staying one step ahead of growth. Infrastructure needs to stay one step ahead of growth and the investment that I announced this morning is the largest single investment in rolling stock in Queensland Rail’s history. It will make a massive difference to our coal industry. It will make a huge difference to the capacity of Queensland Rail to get coal to port in ever-increasing volumes to meet ever-increasing demand. Mr Johnson: What about the missing link? Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Gregory, because it will be this government that delivers the missing link. It will make a very big difference to the network. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Leader of the Liberal Party, I welcome to the gallery today seven students and a teacher from St Luke’s Anglican School in Bundaberg, represented in this House by the member for Bundaberg, Mr Jack Dempsey. Needle and Syringe Program Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Premier. I table a photograph that was taken at one of the government’s health clinics that is used for immunisations, mental health and dental patients, pregnant women, as well as drug addicted persons. The clinic waiting room has an easy-to-reach, easily accessible basket of 20-pack, non-retractable syringes that anyone can walk away with, regardless of need or use. Obviously under these circumstances there is no counselling, there is no education, there is no safe disposal guarantee, there is no encouragement to beat the habit and there is no disease testing. It is no wonder that our beaches and parks are littered with used syringes. Tabled paper: Photograph displaying syringes at the needle syringe prevention program office. Does the Premier condone this? Does her government know the difference between harm minimisation and simply encouraging and facilitating IV drug use? Ms BLIGH: Obviously I need to look at the photograph and get further advice on whether it is accurate. I am advised by the health minister that the needle and syringe program at this facility has not been left unattended at any time. The room is always in clear view of administrative staff, one of whom is a trained welfare officer. This issue is part of a concerted attack by the Liberal Party on a drug service on the Gold Coast. It is clear that the local member, the member for Currumbin, is determined to get this service relocated out of the area that it is currently in. What we have heard this morning is quite remarkable. This service is funded by the Commonwealth government as much as by the state government. Not for one minute do I support any service, whether it is a drug rehabilitation service or any other service, where non-government agencies receive government funds— Dr Flegg: Premier, we have these. Ms BLIGH: Here comes the stunt. Mrs Stuckey: Unattended the whole day. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Currumbin— Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Currumbin, I will deal with you accordingly if you continue to override what I am asking. I say to the member for Moggill, let us get the question answered. You have opportunity in this House to bring up what you are bringing up. Let us hear what the Premier has to say. 3336 Questions Without Notice 10 Oct 2007

Ms BLIGH: I do not support and nor does our government—and I would assume nor does the federal government—any service that receives government funds applying those funds in anything other than an appropriate way. If there are serious complaints that warrant investigation, they will be investigated. In relation to this program specifically, it has actually been providing needle and syringe services throughout the state for the past 20 years. The Minister for Health has already announced that an independent review will be held of the operation of the service. That has already gone to market looking for a tenderer to undertake that review and a successful tenderer has been chosen. This is a service that is already under review. I suggest that members should put their concerns to that review. I have to say how disappointing it is to hear a doctor from the Liberal Party coming in here and attacking harm minimisation as a strategy. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: What I heard from the member for Moggill was an attack on harm minimisation as a strategy. Harm minimisation is not an easy matter, but it has enjoyed the support of both sides of politics to the benefit of public health in Australia. I would caution against walking away from that now.

Schools, Infrastructure Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Premier. The growing population in our city areas means growing enrolments in our schools. Can the Premier advise the House of recent initiatives to meet this new enrolment demand? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I represent an inner-city seat and during that time I have seen a number of schools in my electorate go from being schools whose future existences were threatened because of declining enrolments to schools where we are now trying desperately to put new classrooms on sites that are suffering from overcapacity, such is the demand for enrolments in the public schools in those areas. Yesterday I was very pleased to join the minister for education at Wilston State School where we announced that a new three-storey classroom block and library is on track for construction next year. That is a $3.7 million package to cater for growing enrolments, and it includes eight new classrooms and a library. We are very serious about meeting the needs of families who are moving into higher density living in the inner city. Of course, as we know, the same cannot be said for those opposite. I referred to this yesterday, but I think it is important for the record of the House that we appreciate the sad and sorry saga of the lack of involvement of the conservative parties in the by-election for Brisbane Central. What we saw unfold over a 10- to 12-day period was nothing short of a political farce. Before we embark on this little history lesson, let us remind ourselves that it was not that long ago that the Liberal Party of Queensland held the seat of Merthyr on which the seat of Brisbane Central is based. Merthyr was held for the Liberal Party by Don Lane from 1971 to 1983. Don Lane then changed lanes and from 1983 he held it for the National Party. Of course, Liberal giant Santo Santoro held the seat of Merthyr from 1989 to 1992, when it had boundaries similar to the Brisbane Central electorate of today. Therefore, not that long ago it was a Liberal seat. On 10 September the former Premier announced that he would retire. Two days later the Leader of the Liberal Party released a statement saying that Brisbane Central was crying out for a strong local voice. On 17 September the Leader of the National Party and Leader of the Opposition declared that the Liberals would contest Brisbane Central. However, on the same day Brisbane Times reported that the Liberals had not yet decided. On 21 September in the Financial Review the member for Moggill said, ‘We’ll find one.’ Of course, we all know that on Sunday, 23 September they all got rolled by the Liberal Party management team meeting, which said that there would be no candidate. They are the faceless men of the Queensland Liberal Party. On Monday, 24 September they unveiled their strategy which, of course, was to surrender. We then saw endless claims and counterclaims by both parties about the reasons for it. Obviously an opposition has to oppose and we understand that, but this opposition has taken it to new heights. We have a National Party that is opposed to the Liberal Party, and who can blame it; a parliamentary Liberal Party opposed to the Liberal Party itself; the Liberal Party is opposed to Brisbane Central; the Liberal Party is even opposed to electoral contests; indeed, the Liberal Party is even opposed to Liberal voters. Time expired. 10 Oct 2007 Questions Without Notice 3337

Transport Infrastructure Miss SIMPSON: Premier, your government has announced the Gold Coast rapid transit system and the Sunshine Coast quality corridor, both of which have blown out in cost by between 50 per cent and 100 per cent in the last three years but neither has started construction and their completion dates are pushing further out into the future. These projects are critical for relieving traffic congestion and delivering efficient public transport. How confident can Queenslanders be that the government can deliver these projects and deliver people from worsening gridlock when it cannot deliver the projects on cost and on budget? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question—again a question based on a false premise. The member asserted that the two projects that she referred to on the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast have timetables that have blown out. That is not true in either case. In fact, part of the Surfers Paradise route for the Gold Coast rapid transit system was released for public consultation on time on the Gold Coast last week or the week before. It is a well-known fact that construction costs are under a lot of pressure and if there is some growth in construction costs of course there will be some growth in the ultimate cost of the project. I assume that the member for Maroochydore is not insisting that the government not meet the additional costs of construction in order to ensure good infrastructure for her electorate. I would remind her that in the case of both of those major pieces of infrastructure there is not a single dollar from the federal government even though these projects will service the fastest growing areas of Australia. Despite the fact that there are federal Liberal members up on the Sunshine Coast and federal Liberal members down on the Gold Coast, not a single dollar has come from the federal government for any of these projects. Yes, the member is right: people will have to have confidence that we will deliver these projects. How can they have that confidence? Let us look at the projects that we are building. Let us have a look on the Gold Coast at the Tugun bypass. Is the Tugun bypass on time? No, it is not on time; the Tugun bypass is ahead of schedule. The Inner City Busway is another one. Is it on time? No, it is ahead of time and it is on budget. In relation to the member’s question, if she and her constituents want to make a judgement about these projects then I suggest that they look at what is happening in the construction of major road and transport projects in the south-east corner. We are seeing an extraordinary amount of infrastructure delivered not on time but before time, with no thanks—none at all—to her federal colleagues. Not one of the federal Liberal members on the Sunshine Coast has got one dollar out of a federal government with a $14 billion surplus for any transport initiatives in her area. Not one dollar delivered by a single federal Liberal member on the Gold Coast for the rapid transit system! We have delivered on the funding, we are delivering on the construction and we are delivering it on time or before time despite all of the naysaying that we hear from members opposite. I can make a prediction right here and now that when we do see construction start on this project on time it will be the member for Maroochydore who will lead a campaign against it. It will be the member for Maroochydore who will start sending niggly little letters to the editor about land acquisition and start up community groups just like she did with regard to the Sunshine Motorway. The member for Maroochydore is a fraud on the issue of construction. Water Supply Ms PALASZCZUK: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Can the Deputy Premier inform the House about the current status of our dams and any modelling the Queensland Water Commission may have done regarding the security of our future water supply? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. I note that members opposite have said a couple of things. It is a great pity that there is not a conservative candidate in Brisbane Central because then they could put fairly and squarely the conservative agenda for water in Queensland—that is, do nothing in south-east Queensland—compared to the government’s proposal for the water grid. It would give the people of Brisbane Central every opportunity to choose between the policies of the Beattie and now Bligh Labor government and the policies of the opposition—or lack thereof. Every month the Queensland Water Commission publishes reports on the status of projects. Since February the QWC has reported that even based on the worst-case scenario the rainfalls reaching combined dam storages would remain above five per cent through to December 2008 when the major water grid projects come on line. Of course, we had the unseasonal rain that occurred a few months ago and that has led to a very significant increase in inflows into a number of our dams. As a result of that rain, the region’s combined dam storage levels will remain above 10 per cent in 2008. Modelling shows that even if our rainfall for the next three years consists of back-to-back years that are as bad as our worst ever previous rainfall years on record our storage levels will remain above seven per cent in 2010. 3338 Questions Without Notice 10 Oct 2007

There is a story in today’s Australian indicating that the cost of drought-proofing south-east Queensland could be as high as $11.2 billion over the next 50 years. I note claims in the article by the member for Gympie that the Water Commission has not been making this information public. First of all, this $11.2 billion cost in the article relates to the consultant’s estimate of capital and operating costs associated with the entire water grid projects for the next 50 years. The reason it has done that is to compare it with the alternatives, including the alternative that the member for Gympie has been advocating at various stages of Mary Valley harvesting, which in fact on that basis is $900 million more expensive. That $11.2 billion cost includes the Tugun desalination plant, Traveston, Wyaralong, the western corridor project and all associated pipelines. The government has indicated all along that the capital cost of the projects is more than $9 billion and it is the largest urban drought response in Australia. There are many operational costs associated with any water assets—maintenance of dams, filters and components et cetera, the recycled water scheme and pumping costs for pipelines are only a few. However, the south-east Queensland economy is worth billions and billions of dollars. The social and economic costs of not progressing with the water grid and not having an adequate supply of water are catastrophic. That is why we are doing it. As the article points out, the consultant’s letter clearly indicates that the Traveston Crossing Dam is economically more efficient and it has a substantially lower hydrological risk of failure than the alternative. The member for Gympie said that the information is not being made public. Well, surprise, surprise. The letter is dated 7 September. It was posted on the department’s infrastructure web site on 12 September, five days after it was sent, and it has been publicly available for three weeks. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 September 2007, from Mr Peter Jacob, Managing Director Marsden Jacob Associates to Mr Richard Priman, Queensland Water Commission, relating to the Traveston Crossing and Wyaralong Dams EIS. Health System Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Premier. Queensland Health’s own numbers reveal that there were 92 bypass or capacity alerts in 2006 in Queensland’s public hospitals. That means the doors at almost two hospitals per week are closed to the public. Is this acceptable and what does it say about her government’s claim that we have turned the corner on health? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As the member has outlined, and I think is well understood by the public as a result of a substantial commission of inquiry, Queensland’s public health system has been under a very large degree of pressure for a number of years—under pressure because of population growth, under pressure because of the complete and comprehensive failure by the Commonwealth government to train sufficient doctors to sufficiently staff our hospitals and under pressure because of historical problems. We have a plan—we have a Health Action Plan. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: We have a plan, those opposite have a criticism. We have a policy. We have a candidate. We are an electoral party. We are still trying to work out exactly what those opposite are. They are not a party that wants to contest elections. They are not a party that wants to have a candidate. They are not a party that wants to have a policy. Mr Schwarten: They are a party that wants to have a party, I believe. Ms BLIGH: That’s right, a party that likes to have a party—some of them particularly on the continent. This is a serious issue. We have a Health Action Plan. It is a comprehensive, forward-looking plan that is well funded. That plan is being progressively rolled out. I believe it is starting to see results. I commend the Minister for Health and his senior team and the people who are working on the ground out there in our hospitals and our health system across Queensland for the work that they are doing. Have we fixed every single part of the problem? Of course not. Everybody understands that and nobody is claiming that there is not more work to do. We have more work to do, as I outlined yesterday, in putting in place all of the new beds that we committed to in the election campaign and many of the facilities to accommodate those beds are in the construction phase. We also have three new tertiary hospitals in the south-east corner that will considerably alleviate some of those pressures. I have actually asked the health department about this and nobody can find any record of any state government ever in the history of Federation that has built three tertiary hospitals at once. It is an extraordinary infrastructure undertaking and one that will certainly make an enormous degree of difference in the high-pressure zones here in the south-east. As I said, I am very confident that Queensland Health is starting to see results but I expect those results to continue. The member for Surfers Paradise will be aware, for example, that only two weeks ago we opened a new accident and emergency facility at Robina Hospital near his electorate on the Gold Coast. It is a good example of the sorts of results we are starting to see on the ground. I am glad to see the member for Robina nodding, because it is a world-class facility that cannot be faulted. We need to make sure that we have the doctors and nurses to staff it, and that is about other processes that the minister is putting in place in the system. We are in this for the long haul, and all of the criticism in the world will not divert us from our commitment to Queensland Health. 10 Oct 2007 Questions Without Notice 3339

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Broadwater, I welcome to the gallery a further group of teachers and students from Morayfield East State School in the electorate of Kallangur, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Ken Hayward. WorkChoices Ms CROFT: My question is directed to the minister for employment and industrial relations. John Howard’s unfair WorkChoices legislation is unravelling before the eyes of voters as employers begin waking up to its false positive as a method to strip workers of their entitlements. Can the minister please advise the House why more and more employers are choosing to return to union negotiated agreements? Mr MICKEL: I noticed in last week’s Courier-Mail that the Workplace Authority found that 447 workplace agreements had repeatedly failed the fairness test. The authority released its first quarterly report which revealed nearly all of the 150,443 agreements lodged since the test began have been assessed. What did it find? It found that only 12,832 of the eligible agreements—that is nine per cent— passed the test the first time around. Honourable members might remember when the retail chain Spotlight was thrust into the IR debate and it was going to compensate workers 2c an hour for all of the entitlements that the AWAs had ripped away. The retail chain Spotlight now plans to scrap the use of the AWAs as a result of the introduction of the fairness test and enter into union negotiated agreements. It was one of the first big companies to take up the minimum conditions, but the Spotlight employment practices were spruiked by the federal government, particularly Minister Joe Hockey. We cannot normally get Mr Hockey away from a television camera, but now he has gone quiet as the Spotlight story has unfolded because the company has rejected the future use of post fairness AWAs. What we find is that the fairness test is simply a poor cousin of the no disadvantage test, which we have in the Queensland IR system. But even with the fairness test the Australian Cleaning Contractors Association, representing 150 contract cleaning companies, has described the federal government’s workplace relations system as ‘farcical and pointless’ and is now considering returning to the award system or enterprise bargaining. The association’s executive director, John Laws, said, ‘Now we have the situation where it is pointless to proceed with AWAs.’ In New South Wales local councils have decided to abandon WorkChoices, taking their 50,000 workers with them. Moving back to the state system is the preferred choice of the Local Government and Shires Association. And why wouldn’t it? Because we know that WorkChoices is unfair, it is confusing, it is antiworker and it is antifamily. In the time remaining I want to direct the attention of all members to an advertisement that appeared in the Courier-Mail today from a group called Haycroft Workplace Solutions. The headline is ‘Spotlight’s failed AWAs will cost them millions. How much will yours cost?’ Time expired. Wesley Radiation Oncology Mr WELLINGTON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I understand that Wesley Radiation Oncology has terminated its contract with Queensland Health which had allowed public cancer patients to receive cancer treatment at the Nambour centre and that at the time it terminated the contract there was still approximately $1 million available to pay Wesley Radiation Oncology for future cancer treatment of public patients at Nambour. I ask the minister: why did Wesley Radiation Oncology terminate the contract with the government? How can the million dollars now be available to help public cancer patients receive this life-saving cancer treatment? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question and acknowledge his ongoing efforts to ensure his constituents are able to access timely and effective health services on the Sunshine Coast. This is a government for all Queenslanders, and I am always pleased to deal with local members like the member for Nicklin who are interested in serving their constituents by working cooperatively with government. This government remains committed to delivering improved health services to the people of the Sunshine Coast. As part of our $3 billion hospital building program planning has already commenced for the new 365-bed Sunshine Coast hospital to be delivered by 2014. We have increased the district budget by 14 per cent to over $306 million in the past year alone as evidence of our commitment to ensure that we keep pace with growing demands on the Sunshine Coast. We also continue to grow the clinical workforce on the Sunshine Coast. Today there are 64 per cent more doctors, 31 per cent more nurses and 46 per cent more allied health professionals working in the district than five years ago. I can advise the member that the previous contractual arrangement between Queensland Health and Wesley Radiation Oncology for the provision of radiotherapy services to public patients on the Sunshine Coast has been replaced by a new undertaking by the Wesley. Wesley has committed that all 3340 Questions Without Notice 10 Oct 2007 patients, including those who may be financially disadvantaged, will have access to their services at the East Coast Cancer Centre at Nambour. In addition, patients will still be able to elect to receive treatment through the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. I am also advised that the Wesley’s commitment includes its radiation oncologists participating in multidisciplinary team meetings with oncology staff at Nambour General Hospital. Importantly, specialists from the East Coast Cancer Centre will continue to provide services to in-patients of Nambour General Hospital. Further planning for the new Sunshine Coast hospital includes provision for public radiotherapy services. I am pleased to assure the member that the balance of the $1 million allocated to the Wesley radiotherapy contract will remain within the district to benefit the people of the Sunshine Coast. My department is currently exploring options for the most effective and equitable means of reallocating this funding.

Skilled Workers Shortage Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts. It is estimated that our country faces a shortage of more than 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. Can the minister tell the House how Queensland is encouraging more people to take up and complete apprenticeships and traineeships, and how we compare to the rest of the country? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her interest in the important issue of the skills shortage. It is a huge challenge for businesses throughout the state and it has a significantly limiting factor on the future growth of the Queensland economy. But I am pleased to inform the House that the latest figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research show that Queensland is once again leading the nation in the uptake of apprenticeships and traineeships. A total of 58,700 Queenslanders started apprenticeships and traineeships in the 12 months ending 31 March this year, which is an increase of 8.4 per cent on the previous year. The annual growth rate for the same period Australia-wide was 0.2 per cent—0.2 per cent Australia-wide compared to 8.4 per cent in Queensland. Importantly, we are well ahead of the national level in the uptake of traditional apprenticeships, with 12,800 people representing 26 per cent of annual growth in this category. That is almost three times the national increase of nine per cent. These figures clearly show our $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan is paying dividends. Members may have heard of the $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan, which is making a significant difference to skills improvement— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr WELFORD: Indeed. An area that is most pleasing to me is the number of Queenslanders aged over 45 who completed their apprenticeship or traineeship during the past year. More than twice as many Queenslanders in this age group have completed their training this year compared to just five years ago. About 4,000 of the 29,200 apprentices and trainees who completed their training in the period to 31 March were aged 45 or over. This represents almost 14 per cent of the total number. Comparably, in 2002 there were just 6.5 per cent within this age group completing their training. Our apprentices and trainees deserve a big pat on the back for their achievements. Overall the number of Queensland apprentices and trainees who have completed their training in the last 12 months was up 45 per cent from the same period in 2002. This clearly shows our state is doing more than its fair share in a bid to ease the nation’s skills shortage. It also shows that our government’s approach to giving all Queenslanders the chance to get access to education and skills is paying off. We are developing a skilled, clever and creative Queensland workforce. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Burnett, can I recognise in the public gallery today student leaders and teachers from a number of schools in the electorate of Pumicestone. They include the Morayfield State School, Bribie Island State School, Beachmere State School and Caboolture East State School. Those schools in the electorate of Pumicestone are represented in this House by Carryn Sullivan. I call the member for Burnett.

Mandatory Sentencing Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is to the honourable Premier. I refer to the Queensland coalition’s policy which mandates a minimum three months imprisonment for all violent offenders who are found guilty of seriously assaulting police, ambulance, fire and Corrective Services officers. Will the Premier put aside her ideology and vote to support real protection for our state’s fair dinkum heroes—the police, ambulance, fire and Corrective Services officers? 10 Oct 2007 Questions Without Notice 3341

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think our government’s position on mandatory sentencing has been made clear in successive debates in this parliament. As the member is aware it is likely to be tested again. We have a strong view not only on the basis of precedent in law but also on the basis of practice in Australia. There have been a number of examples where mandatory sentencing has led to outcomes which the public actually believed were unfair and unreasonable. We have a system of justice in which the parliament outlines the laws and then the courts are given the power to exercise their judgement on the basis of both the statute and the common law precedents and the circumstances of each and every case. As I have said, I think our position on that has been well and truly made clear. Can I say to the member for Burnett in relation to this issue—as with every other issue—that the opposition had the opportunity to test community support for that idea. Those opposite had an opportunity. They could have done it this Saturday. They could have letterbox dropped people in the electorate of Brisbane Central. They could have tested community support. Mr Messenger interjected. Ms BLIGH: They could have campaigned on that. They could have gone out there and instead of coming in here and rehashing a debate that has been had many many times— Mr Messenger: So you don’t care about the police? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett! Ms Spence: You say nothing new. Mr SPEAKER: Minister for police! Mr Messenger: What are your fire officers going to say? Mr SPEAKER: Can I indicate to the member for Burnett that that is his fifth interjection. I would ask him to cease interjecting. I call the Premier. Ms BLIGH: Our government does not condone physical violence against anybody. It does not condone it against people who are serving as officers in our police service or our fire service. Nor does the government support violence against children, against pensioners, against any member of our community. It does not support it against the elderly. It does not support it wherever it happens— whether it happens in public or behind closed doors as domestic violence. We do recognise and we have recognised the special role that our police play in our community. That is why we moved last year to increase the penalties available to the courts. They are the toughest in the country. That means the judges and the courts now actually have more at their disposal to deal with these sorts of issues. I say this to the member for Burnett and everybody on his team: if you want to be credible on policy there is only one way to do—take it to the electorate. Write it up and send it out. Go out and talk to people about it. Tell them what you think. Then you will know what the community thinks about the attitudes that you want to put into play. Give them an opportunity to support you and give them an opportunity to have public debate about it. Those opposite could have had a public meeting about this at the Wilston State School but they do not have a candidate so they cannot do that. If they want to be plausible and credible as a political party then they have to go out and face the electorate. Stradbroke Island, Alcohol Confiscation Mr WEIGHTMAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport. I was concerned to hear about school students taking large amounts of alcohol to Stradbroke Island over the school holidays. Can the minister please inform the House how police handled the matter and how they will address any similar incidents in the future? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Cleveland for the question. He does a great job of looking after Stradbroke Island which is in his electorate. He visits the police over there during the September school holidays and finds out for himself what the issues are. I, like many other Queenslanders, was shocked when on the first weekend of the September school holidays police confiscated $2,000 worth of liquor from four youths aged between 17 and 19. We had a big police presence over on Stradbroke for the September school holidays. Some 18 sworn officers and one police liaison officer were present on the island. They conducted Operation Vector which went from Friday, 21 September to Sunday, 30 September. During that time there were a total of 108 liquor infringement notices and 38 traffic infringement notices issued. During that period there were 21 people arrested on a total of 31 charges. Of note there were two incidents involving a significant quantity of alcohol being confiscated by the police. I support the actions of the police on that weekend and during that two-week period. I congratulate the police on taking a stand against young people on the island who were drinking in public places, engaging in under-age drinking and engaging in public nuisance offences. 3342 Questions Without Notice 10 Oct 2007

We can try to educate young people all we want—the police do a fantastic job going around to a number of schools prior to the holidays and talking to the students—and we can increase the penalties all we want but sometimes, at end of the day, it takes that very visible police action of seeing police confiscate and destroy alcohol and arrest young people to actually make young people sit up and take notice. Personally I do not encourage young people to engage in the Stradbroke Island September holiday experience. These young people have not finished their year at school. I know from the point of view of many parents that it is hard to stop 17-year-olds doing what they want. What we can do is make sure police have the powers to keep them safe. Finally, I want to talk about another police operation being conducted on the Gold Coast— Operation Southern Alliance. Police are stopping juveniles who are unsupervised at night on the Gold Coast, asking them for their name and address and writing to their parents and telling the parents where they found their juvenile at night alone and unsupervised and asking the parents whether they were aware that their young person was out unsupervised at night. Some of the parents have believed that their child was at a friend’s place and have been horrified to find that they have been out partying in Surfers Paradise. These are the kinds of operations that are keeping our young people safe. Equine Influenza Mr HORAN: My question is to the honourable Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. Minister, there are 928 horse flu infected properties throughout south-east Queensland showing that this virus is out of control. The decision has now been made to vaccinate all race horses, including brood mares and yearlings, which accounts for 18 per cent of the horse population and leaving 72 per cent of the horse population at risk. Non-racing people are desperate to protect their pleasure and performance horses and senior equine vets insist that vaccinations must be used to kill off the spread of this disease. Will the minister vaccinate horses in south-east Queensland? Mr MULHERIN: I say from the outset that what we are operating under is an AusVet plan which is a national plan agreed to by the Commonwealth government, the state governments and industry. Eradication remains the focus of the response to equine influenza with the strategy regarding eradication of equine influenza based on a combination of rigorous movement restrictions, strategic vaccination and promoting good biosecurity practices. The Queensland strategy reflects an agreed national emergency response plan. Minister McGauran is committed to this plan. I met with him last week. He agreed that the priority for the use of vaccinations in Queensland is the buffer zones around areas of high concentration of the disease in Queensland. A 10-kilometre wide buffer zone is being established to surround the major areas of infection. The buffer zone will provide a barrier to the further spread of the disease both within the existing red zone and into the green zone. All horses on properties within the buffer zone will be vaccinated and microchipped for identification. Vaccination in the buffer zone commenced on 29 September and will continue to be rolled out across the buffer zone over the next two weeks. The program of vaccination is being undertaken by private veterinarian practitioners working in partnership with DPI. Simultaneously, the use of vaccination to protect high-performance, at-risk populations outside the buffer zone is being undertaken. To date this has included the vaccination of horses within defined racing precincts, Riding for the Disabled, Queensland Police Service horses, horses within the Outback Spectacular precinct and individual Olympic graded horses. A total of 7,914 vials of vaccine were received at Wacol on 28 September. Some 900 vaccine doses were delivered to buffer zones. This has been divided into four areas along north and western parts of the ban. Some 6,558 vials of vaccine were delivered to high-performance horse sectors including racing and harness racing and Outback Spectacular and Olympic horses. Some 482 vials remain in stock as emergency for reserves. With the arrival of further vaccine, already 12,700 horses in the red zone, including the buffers, have been vaccinated. Only the other day by working closely with industry the Queensland government managed to secure enough vaccine to protect 17,000 horses in the high-value, high-performance breeding industry. The extra vaccine is in addition to that already committed to the thoroughbred and harness racing industries. Queensland’s first priority is to vaccinate the horses that make a significant contribution to the economy and people’s livelihoods. This is not favouring one group over another but taking a sensible and responsible approach that will prepare the way for a quicker economic recovery of the broad equine industry. We are working to a national plan, the AusVet plan. It involves the member for Toowoomba South’s federal counterpart, the federal minister for agriculture, Peter McGauran, the other state governments, the racing industry and the horse council of Australia. We are working to an agreed plan. The Australian Veterinary Association has come out and endorsed our approach. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: I gave the minister a fair bit of leeway in terms of the time allocation given the importance of the topic. Before I call the member for Burleigh, I acknowledge in the public gallery school leaders and principals from Marymount College in the electorate of Burleigh, which is represented by Mrs Christine Smith. 10 Oct 2007 Questions Without Notice 3343

Public Hospitals Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Minister for Health. Minister, the recent opening of the accident and emergency department at Robina Hospital has taken some pressure off the Gold Coast Hospital, one of the busiest in Australia. Can the minister advise the House how the government is meeting this record demand for public hospital services? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question, because through our $10 billion Health Action Plan we are providing our public hospitals with the staff and the resources to meet the challenges of a growing and ageing population. Queensland public hospitals are busier than ever before and are treating more patients than ever before. For example, during 2006-07 Queensland public hospitals provided for the first time ever over 10 million occasions of service to non-admitted patients. That is 2½ times the population of Queensland and that is nearly one million more episodes of care than were provided during 2005-06 and a 12 per cent increase in just two years. For example, our emergency departments carried out 1.3 million occasions of service to patients while our specialist outpatient clinics delivered more than 3.5 million occasions of service. But it is not just outpatient services that experienced record activity in our hospitals. During 2006-07 our hospitals provided over 817,300 episodes of care to admitted patients compared to 763,200 the previous year and day-only admitted patients received 387,900 episodes of care during 2006-07 compared with 368,700 during the previous 12 months. An episode of care is counted each time an in-patient receives treatment during their stay. These figures are not the mark of an ailing health system in crisis. Rather, they represent how through our Health Action Plan we are continuing to respond to the growing demand for health care. We are opening new beds across the state to meet the challenges of our growing and ageing population. We are funding new and expanded emergency departments at the Gold Coast, Robina, Logan, Prince Charles, Redlands, Redcliffe, Gympie, Rockhampton, Townsville and PA hospitals and we are building new hospitals and redeveloping others across the state. Since June 2005 we have recruited 1,073 extra doctors, 3,801 extra nurses and 1,228 extra allied health professionals to provide care for patients in our public hospitals. That is an extra 6,102 clinical staff in just over two years. Let us contrast this performance with Tony Abbott’s, because what we have seen compared to that strong increase in clinical staff numbers in Queensland is a 24 per cent increase over the last six years in the number of bureaucrats employed by the Department of Health and Ageing. Tony Abbott says that he is very keen to fund services rather than bureaucracies. My message to Tony Abbott is this: you should start with your own department, because that 24 per cent increase of 733 bureaucrats means that not one of them provides patient services. Not one of them is engaged in healing the sick in this country. They are bureaucrats located in Canberra. If there are any cuts to occur, they should occur in Tony Abbott’s department.

Oil Vulnerability Task Force Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation. The minister is the founding patron of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas and also the chair of his government’s oil vulnerability task force, which was due to report in October 2005. Peak oil is a critical issue, so what has happened to the task force’s long-awaited report? Where is it, Minister? What does it say—or given some of the minister’s past statements is it perhaps too radical to be released? Mr McNAMARA: I genuinely thank the honourable member for the question. I can assure her that I will not need a briefing note on this one. As the member might have noticed, the report that she refers to was all across the front page of the Courier-Mail a couple of weeks ago and has been considered by cabinet. I can arrange for the report to go on a web site in the next couple of days, which is indeed what we are planning to do. It is an important starting point for a debate, and one of my first priorities is coordinating a whole-of-government response to that report. It is a warts-and-all look from a group of very senior scientists who have considered the issue in some depth in relation particularly to Queensland’s exposure to peak oil. I am indeed delighted to hear from the other side of the House a recognition of the seriousness of this issue. It is an issue which Queenslanders and people all around the world will need to confront in coming years. The report is the first detailed examination of the issue of peak oil by any regional government in the world, and I am very proud to have been a part of it. I am delighted that former Premier Peter Beattie asked for that to be done and that it received support from a number of government departments, particularly support in the form of scientists who work for the Queensland government who were involved in the production of that report. It is important that it is understood that it is not a political document; it is a scientific document. It is a starting point for understanding the issue, not the end of it. Although it is a substantial document, it is a document which recommends that more work needs to be done. Further analysis needs to be undertaken, and the impacts and the timing of peak oil will certainly have implications across all sectors of the economy. This issue will be one of the central issues that my portfolio will confront. 3344 Private Members’ Statements 10 Oct 2007

In terms of sustainability, the sustainable use of our resources is a matter on which I will be working with a number of my cabinet colleagues, the Minister for Mines and Energy in particular, in relation to having a whole-of-government approach to this issue. It is certainly an issue that will require an open and honest approach from all members of this House. This is not an ideological issue—it is not a Left or Right issue; it is not a Labor, Liberal, National or indeed Independent issue—it is an issue on which the people of Queensland are going to require us, with goodwill and in good faith, to look for results and to come up with answers to preserve their lifestyles. Mr SPEAKER: That concludes question time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Ambulance Service Hon. N ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (11.29 am), by leave: The opposition leader raised a case involving the Queensland Ambulance Service today. I want to place on the record the specifics of the case. At the outset I want to say that it is unfortunate that from time to time we need to place on the record some specific details about personal cases. I do not like doing that but, given the misrepresentations that have occurred on a number of occasions over recent weeks, it is important to do so. I have been advised by the Queensland Ambulance Service of the following in relation to the case raised by the member. A request for acute ambulance assistance was received on Sunday, 9 September 2007 at 6.26 pm, advising that Mr Silcock was experiencing pain due to a collapsed knee, being a recurrence of a previous medical condition. The Queensland Ambulance Service communication centre utilise an internationally recognised medical priority dispatch system to determine the level of service required for conditions as provided during 000 calls. Although Mr Silcock was experiencing pain at the time of his request, his condition was not considered to be life threatening and therefore it was classified as a code 2C, recommending an ambulance within 60 minutes, which is standard protocol for that type of call. At the time of the request the Queensland Ambulance Service Brisbane South-West area was experiencing a high demand for acute emergency ambulance services. An ambulance vehicle from the Mount Gravatt Ambulance Station was originally dispatched to attend to Mr Silcock’s residence. However, this vehicle was diverted to a separate life-threatening emergency. At approximately 6.55 pm Mr Silcock cancelled the request for QAS attendance and asked relatives to drive him to the hospital. In other words, based on QAS information, the man voluntarily cancelled the ambulance well inside the 60-minute internationally recognised benchmark for response times for that level of response. The Queensland Ambulance Service has been in further contact with Mr Silcock and it replied to Mr Silcock by letter. I am further advised that Mr Silcock telephoned the Queensland Ambulance Service Brisbane region on 21 September this year after receiving the letter of response and advised the Ambulance Service that he had no issue with ambulance operations or service delivery. This is just another beat-up by an ambulance-chasing opposition. I refer members to previous corrections that I have made in this chamber in relation to disgraceful misrepresentations made by the member for Maroochydore, the member for Charters Towers and most recently by the member for Kawana.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Local Government Reform Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.33 am): This morning in the parliament it was obvious that the government’s cold and heartless approach to Queensland communities is going to continue. Queensland communities—from Beaudesert and Noosa in the south- east corner right through central and western Queensland, including the communities that advertised in today’s Courier-Mail from Tambo, Isis and Ilfracombe, right through to the communities in the Torres Strait—know that the threat that is being posed to their future by the government’s forced council amalgamations is very real. This morning I want to talk about those communities in the far north—the communities of the Torres Strait that I visited because nobody else would go there. Those community leaders came to Brisbane and the minister would not even meet with them. Mr O’Brien interjected. 10 Oct 2007 Criminal Code (Assaults Against Police and Others) Amendment Bill 3345

Mr SEENEY: The local member is despised by those communities. The local member has been asked to leave a number of those communities, because nobody will represent the concerns and the fears that they have about the future of their communities. Their fears revolve around the loss of their local councils that currently hold the deed of grant in trust title that is central to the existence of those communities. When the local council entity is lost, that land title is going to be held by the regional council. That is striking fear and loathing in the hearts of the people in those island communities who fear that that will undermine completely the autonomy of their communities and the rights that they have fought for and established over a 50-year period. We have made a guarantee—a promise—to those people that we will implement the joint local government financial arrangements that they wanted to implement to resolve the problems that are being blamed for this process. The councils themselves were moving towards a situation where the 17 Torres Strait island councils could retain their autonomy, but come together as a joint local government for financial arrangements so that they could address the problems that have manifested themselves in financial arrangements. Time expired.

Townsville Showgrounds Mr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (11.35 am): I have taken the unusual step of vacating the Speaker’s chair and addressing the parliament from the floor of the chamber today as the member for Townsville in opposition to the relocation of the historic Townsville Showgrounds. I table a petition signed by some 10,572 north Queenslanders who are opposed to the government’s decision to review the siting of the showgrounds, which is currently located at West End. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to proposed relocation of the Townsville Showgrounds. As the member for Townsville, I support the petitioners and I am strongly in favour of keeping the historic Townsville Showgrounds at their present site rather than being relocated to another site, possibly the Bohle Plains. The Townsville Showgrounds belong to the people of Townsville. Families over many generations remember with a great deal of affection their annual visits to the show. Townsville families, and in particular seniors, have expressed to me their very strong affinity and historical connection with the present showgrounds. I have made representations to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water, Craig Wallace, on their behalf. I indicated to the minister and to the government that I intend to take a very strong stance in opposition to any sale of the current showgrounds site. There has been a great boon to the inner city of Townsville in recent years. We also need to recognise that high-density residential areas need recreational and green spaces kept around the inner city. It is my belief that we would rue the day if we give away the showgrounds site for residential and commercial purposes and not recognise the need to maintain recreational and green spaces during this period of urban renewal. I am aware that no final decision has been made on whether the showgrounds should stay where they are currently. I ask the minister to take note of the extremely strong views held by the Townsville community in opposition to the relocation of our showgrounds at West End.

CRIMINAL CODE (ASSAULTS AGAINST POLICE AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (11.37 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to.

Second Reading Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (11.37 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce the Criminal Code (Assaults Against Police Officers and Others) Amendment Bill. This new and historic bill will offer dramatically increased legislative protection for police, prison, ambulance and fire officers by ensuring that any offender who is found guilty of seriously assaulting our state’s fair dinkum heroes will serve a minimum of three months in jail. 3346 Private Members’ Statements 10 Oct 2007

This legislation will not allow magistrates and judges to give thugs and idiots who want to use our police officers as punching bags the soft option of court ordered parole or suspended sentences. This bill will introduce a minimum sentencing range that will see all offenders who seriously assault police, prison, ambulance and fire officers spend at least three months in prison. This bill will ensure consistency in sentencing and send a clear message to any would-be offender that the people of Queensland will not tolerate any assaults on our hardworking front-line service delivery officers. In 2004-05 there were over 830 serious assaults on police alone! That means every day almost three police officers are brutally bashed while serving and protecting the families of Queensland. According to this government’s own statistics released on 29 July 2007, only one in three people who were found guilty of seriously assaulting a police officer ever saw the inside of the jail. Most walked out of court with nothing more than a stern talking-to. This injustice must be stopped! I call on all the Labor members of this chamber to put aside their rigid and inflexible political ideology and join with our police officers, our corrective service officers, our ambulance officers, our fire service officers, their family members and the Queensland coalition in supporting this legislation that is long overdue. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Welford, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Kallangur Electorate, New Police Stations Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (11.39 am): The Caboolture police district is now officially operational after the police minister, Judy Spence, opened the office last Thursday. The new Caboolture district is a result of the community’s concerted effort and their work with local members of parliament, and I want to take the opportunity here this morning to acknowledge two local members who have worked hard: the member for Glass House, Carolyn Male, and the member for Pumicestone, Carryn Sullivan. This is a great result for our local community. The new district is a reflection of the population growth in Caboolture. The Caboolture shire is the fourth fastest growing area in Queensland and the 10th in Australia, with a population now of nearly 140,000 people. The district has an annual growth rate of twice the national average. At the opening, I was pleased to hear the minister make the commitment that more than $14 million is to be provided for the development of the Caboolture police district. I was pleased to see that $11.5 million of that money is being provided for the purchase of land and the construction of a 24- hour police station and district headquarters, which is described as the operational headquarters, in Burpengary in the electorate of Kallangur. Let me take some time to congratulate the Burpengary community, particularly the Burpengary Progress Association, for their work and effort in supporting and advocating the new Burpengary police station. The local community is looking forward to the start of construction and the station finally opening for business. This major capital works project, which is an election commitment, will ensure that the new police officers being assigned to this Burpengary station will have the tools and resources they need to fight crime and protect the local community. This new station will help our local police to service the rapid population growth in the Burpengary and Narangba areas and ensure the safety of our local community for years to come. I was pleased to hear the commissioner say at the opening that, until the Burpengary policing complex is completed, district resources will be shared with the Redcliffe district, including the Tactical Crime Squad, the Criminal Investigation Branch and the Child Protection and Investigation Unit, to ensure a full policing presence in the district. Time expired.

Needle and Syringe Program Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (11.41 am): This morning in question time I tabled a photograph of a Queensland government health centre which was unattended and had syringes for anyone who wanted to come and take them. Is it any wonder that our parks and beaches are littered with dangerous, used syringes? This is not an exchange of needles. This is simply a handing out of needles. To make matters worse, not only was there no counselling, no adviser, no education, no help to get off drugs and no prevention work, there was not even a message on the bags of syringes with a phone number to call for help. The only message on the bags was one which invited people who were picking up their packets of free syringes to go to a seminar on how to do graffiti. I table that notification. Tabled paper: Copy of a flyer headed ‘Live and Aware’. 10 Oct 2007 Private Members’ Statements 3347

There is no question whatsoever that this is simply glamorising drug taking. It is saying that it is cool, it is savvy. What we are meant to be doing is helping these people. We should be aiming to prevent drug abuse. For those who tragically get sucked into it, we should be aiming to rehabilitate them. Sure, we need to minimise harm but it needs to be done in a responsible way that does not simply facilitate and glorify drug taking. If we want to minimise harm, one thing that could have been done with these packages or in these health centres is disease testing. Hepatitis B is rampant in this country, particularly among drug users, and we have a problem with AIDS. Let us screen people and counsel them when they exchange their syringes. We on this side of the House want to see an exchange of syringes where used ones are returned rather than being tipped on our beaches and parks. They would then be supplied with new syringes in association with counselling, disease testing and, when the moment is right, assistance for them to get off the drugs. It is the support and the help that is needed. Time expired.

Autism Funding Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (11.44 am): Two years ago as a result of concerns raised by many families whose children have autism the then minister, Warren Pitt, announced a groundbreaking autism initiative. As a consequence, funding for autism has been in the last two Queensland budgets. Indeed, $30 million was allocated over four years to implement early intervention strategies for children with a disability, including the family support program, and early intervention strategies for families caring for children under five years of age with autism who have complex and challenging behaviour. Funds allocated to children with autism were allocated to Autism Queensland and AEIOU to establish autism early intervention centres in Brisbane and regional Queensland. Children with a disability are a priority for this government. Many families in my electorate and throughout Queensland have children who have autism. In the report entitled The prevalence of autism in Australia in February 2007, the chairperson of the Australian Advisory Board on Autism Spectrum Disorders stated, ‘All research to date demonstrates that early intervention leads to better outcomes for children with an autism spectrum disorder.’ The Australian Advisory Board on Autism Spectrum Disorders estimates that one in every 160 children is diagnosed with autism. For years, Queensland has lobbied the federal government for more funding for children with a disability and this has been by and large ignored. The federal government has ignored this issue up until now. The federal injection of funds includes new Medicare funded services, which has and always will be a federal government responsibility. But one must question why the federal government has done nothing over the past 11 years. Queensland has been leading the way in relation to this issue, incorporating an autism initiative over the last two budgets. Under the Bligh Labor government, children with autism will continue to be funded over the coming years. I welcome the position of the federal Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, to set up specialised child-care and early intervention services for children with autism—with six in the initial stage. A federal Labor government would enhance and embrace what Queensland is already doing by creating centres that would follow similar developmental methods to the AEIOU centres throughout Queensland.

Water Infrastructure Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.46 am): Today the Deputy Premier outlined progress on the northern interconnector water pipeline. The first stage will take 65 megalitres of water from Baroon Pocket Dam to hook into the greater Brisbane water supply. Currently, Maroochy and Caloundra use 64 megalitres a day from this dam, so it is a radical drawdown on the Sunshine Coast’s supplies. We understand that Brisbane is desperate and no-one wants Brisbane to run out of water and there should be the ability to help out in emergency situations. However, the level of proposed drawdown from the Sunshine Coast’s supplies is dangerously high and goes beyond an emergency bailout. There is grave concern in the Sunshine Coast community that this government does not care and that its water decisions are about politics rather than good planning. We saw that with the Traveston Dam decision. The Sunshine Coast’s cup full of water may be almost full, but Brisbane requires a bathtub. I am calling on the government to give Sunshine Coast residents a guarantee of water security once the 65 megalitres a day is taken out of the coast’s supplies from the end of next year. And do not tell residents that bringing on Ewan Maddock Dam is going to give that security, because that is just downright dishonest as Ewan Maddock is insufficient to replace 65 megalitres a day which the government is proposing. 3348 Private Members’ Statements 10 Oct 2007

Let us look at the second stage of the interconnector, which substantially deviates from existing easements with no explanation from the government as to why. I will declare that my parents’ place is in an Energex corridor and is affected by a section of the second stage of the northern interconnector near Yandina and I am not making representations on their behalf. However, I am getting extensive feedback from residents who are nowhere near existing easements but who are receiving a notice of entry which includes the power to actually start construction of structures on their property. They have been given no community consultation, despite what the Deputy Premier told this House today. In fact, they ask for maps and they are told by government officials, ‘We don’t have maps.’ I have seen one draft map and I do not understand why this government is hiding this information. We must have an open and accountable process rather than these bullyboy tactics. Time expired. Federal Election Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (11.48 am): After weeks of the Prime Minister leading a phoney election campaign—fuelled daily with $1 million worth of taxpayer funded government advertising—it is widely tipped that John Howard will finally call the federal election this weekend. This means that Australia’s young people could have fewer than three days to register to vote in the federal election. The roll for the election closes at 8 pm local time on the third working day after the writ is issued and cannot be updated after that date. This of course was not always the case. It is a direct result of a cunning and desperate Prime Minister who is willing to go to any lengths to try to secure a victory, even eroding our right to vote. It is the crafty handiwork of a Prime Minister wanting to disenfranchise Australia’s young people by cutting by more than half the number of days there are to get on the roll once the election is called. At the last election in 2004, more than 423,000 people enrolled or updated their electoral details in the seven days following the announcement of the election. There is nothing more fundamental to a democracy than the right to vote. The more people engaged in the electoral and political process the stronger our democracy, which is exactly what he is afraid of. Young Australians consistently identify climate change as the most important issue confronting our nation. John Howard has failed miserably in this regard. He has shown no leadership. He has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, he will not set real emissions targets and he has not even invested in renewable energy sources. It is not good enough and the Prime Minister should be judged on his failings. Today I want to encourage all young Queenslanders to get on the roll and have their say. Our state is crucial to the federal election result and young Queenslanders have a unique opportunity to directly influence who our country’s next Prime Minister will be. They can decide on what role Australia plays in the world’s response to climate change and who should lead our country. Time expired. Phillips, Mr D Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (11.50 am): Daniel Cris Phillips was charged with eight offences arising from attacks on five young women in Innisfail in north Queensland between August 2000 and November 2001, and a woman in Brisbane in May 2003. Initially he was convicted of three charges of rape, two of unlawful carnal knowledge and one of assault with intent to rape. All charges were tried together, but the High Court quashed all convictions and ordered separate trials for each offence. In Queensland, each charge must be dealt with separately except where there are a series of offences of the same or similar character. Before the trial commenced, on three occasions Phillips’s counsel applied for separate trials which were refused. The High Court said that by combining the trials into one, the prejudice to the fair trial of the appellant was substantial and the dangers in the trial of the appellant admitting the evidence relevant to all of the several allegations against him was very great. All in all, it meant that six offences had to be reheard in five separate trials. It is important to understand that in September 2002 Phillips was released on bail for five counts of rape, and whilst on bail in May 2003 he was charged with attempting to rape an 18-year-old girl. After the High Court ordered retrials in December 2005, Phillips was granted bail and in May 2006 it was alleged that he twice raped a 16-year-old. When the six offences came on for retrial, three out of the five original complainants were not prepared to give evidence. Those women have suffered a double indignity. Firstly, they had to go through the horrors of the initial trial, giving their evidence in open court where they suffered what would 10 Oct 2007 Private Members’ Statements 3349 have been an in-depth cross-examination in relation to their evidence. Secondly, they had to make the horrendous decision of whether to go back to court and be put through the whole process again. It became too much and, according to the DPP, the combined strain of their experiences, the original trial and the lengthy legal process was too much for three of the five remaining complainants to proceed. One of the questions we must ask is: how do we explain to future victims of crime that they should lay a complaint when the history of this matter leaves open serious doubts as to the process? Time expired.

Blueprint for the Bush Ministerial Community Forum Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (11.52 am): Last weekend at Mareeba I had the pleasure of attending the annual Blueprint for the Bush Ministerial Community Forum. I was extremely encouraged by what occurred. Judging by the amount of energy and enthusiasm for the blueprint evident at the three-day forum, the blueprint has a great future. The calibre of attendees was excellent. Three ministers, four other members of parliament and a strong contingent from AgForce, including state President Peter Kenny, attended. It was very evident how committed AgForce is to the executive partnership. The forum was also attended by representatives of all six B4B regions, as well as other community organisations and government departments. The blueprint comprises 170 projects and involves 22 government agencies. The forum is a great way of getting feedback from everyone on how it is being implemented and how improvements can be made. I thank the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government, Warren Pitt, for his unwavering support for the blueprint and the leadership he showed at the forum. He and Peter Kenny are obviously passionate about making the blueprint work and their positive attitude was inspiring to us all. My electorate takes in a large part of the blueprint area and I can see great potential for the residents of my community. In fact, we are already starting to see some benefits with several projects in my electorate gaining funding. The Carpentaria Shire Council has received $150,000 to develop a coordinated local transport system. The Mount Isa Community Development Association was granted $20,000 for its living equipment and medical aids project. Recently, Minister Pitt visited and saw firsthand their great work. The North West Queensland Indigenous Catholic Social Services has been given funding to develop a business plan for Indigenous youth. I must praise the team from the northern region who represented our forum, Elvene Whitbread from Charters Towers and Paul Woodhouse from Julia Creek. The forum was a fantastic success and I look forward to the ongoing success of the blueprint.

Property Resumptions Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (11.54 am): In Queensland, people work hard to achieve their dreams. For some lucky people it can come relatively easily and that could be because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, inherited a comfortable lifestyle or won the lottery. However, the majority have to scrimp to purchase their property. The vast majority are on minimal wages, live frugally and have struggled to save enough to be able to purchase their dream—a bit of land they can call their own. It does not matter what I or other local landholders think about the land, nor does it matter what the big company that wants that land thinks about its value, because to the people who own the land it is literally their castle. They should be left no worse off than they currently are; in fact, they should be left better off because of their forced disturbance. That equivalent land, be it in size, watering capability or stock carrying capacity, cannot be found is not their fault. That there is little choice in available land is not their fault. Those people would be happy to die where they are. They do not want to be moved, but they are being asked to move in the best interests of the future of the state. Surely it is the responsibility of the state or the company to ensure that at the very minimum those property owners are left in no worse a position than they are currently living in. If their 20-hectare property carries four head per hectare but the only local properties available carry half that much stock, the property owners deserve to have the same carrying capacity even if it means that the company or state has to purchase 40 hectares. If property owners have fruit plantations, they deserve to have the same number of trees planted and to be compensated for the crop that would be lost over the years it would take to re-establish that crop to full production, and not just compensation for one year’s production. Water infrastructure, a home, sheds and other variables all should not be less than what they are giving up for the future of the state. 3350 Private Members’ Statements 10 Oct 2007

For a big company or the state to come along and offer those people an amount that does not allow them to get on with their lives with the minimum of disruption or to offer so little that it forces them into debt is not acceptable. I can imagine that may happen in countries where governments walk all over their citizens, but it is not the Australian way. We pride ourselves on the fair go. I am asking this government to ensure that the people of the South Burnett who are impacted by the Tarong Energy’s purchasing of the Kunioon mine site be given more of a fair go. Time expired.

Equine Influenza Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (11.56 am): The horse industry in the Sandgate electorate has been struck hard by equine influenza. Generations of families have run thoroughbred stables and many related businesses in the area, including more than 40 trainers and more than 150 horses in Deagon, the Somerset Equestrian Centre in Fitzgibbon, the Bramble Bay pony club which currently meets at Bracken Ridge, horse riders who participate for leisure and competition and the myriad businesses that support those activities. The industry members around Deagon experienced the high of the recent staging of the first race meeting at Deagon since 1941, followed by the low of a horse flu diagnosis. I have received great messages of support for the local industry with individuals, local businesses and community groups offering their support. I will continue to represent their needs if the financial stresses continue to mount. I congratulate my local industry for taking the outbreak so seriously and for working very closely with officials of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries to help contain the disease. I congratulate the Premier on the $20 million state government package, with $5 million for the personal hardship scheme, $10 million for assistance for small businesses and $5 million for the industry. When the flu was diagnosed in horses in Brisbane, I was able to advocate for financial support for my local families and businesses, and when the Brisbane one-stop shop was announced for Hamilton, I immediately put in a request for a one-stop shop for Deagon. I am pleased to announce that a mobile one-stop shop will operate from the Sandgate PCYC next door to the Deagon race and training track this Friday from 10 am to 3 pm to provide emergency financial relief, financial advice and personal counselling to people and families in hardship as a result of the horse flu virus. Staff from the Department of Communities, Red Cross and Lifeline will also be in attendance. Finally, I congratulate the tireless officers of the DPI&F and thank the Australian Veterinary Association for its support of the department’s containment strategy. I seek leave to table a non- conforming petition regarding environment and global warming. Leave granted.

Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to global warming. Yabulu South to Ingham Transmission Line Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (11.58 am): The local community in the Rollingstone/Balgal Beach/Mystic Sands area has expressed serious concern about the proposal by Powerlink to upgrade the current 132 kVA transmission line between Yabulu South and Ingham to a 275 kVA transmission line along its current alignment. In line with the increase in the capacity of the transmission line, the easement required to accommodate the upgraded line must increase from 20 metres to 60 metres, significantly impacting on local landowners and potentially restricting residential development in the district. Powerlink is currently undertaking public consultation with respect to the alignment that currently runs through this community. It is currently asserting that no final decision has been made about the final alignment of the upgraded transmission line. Consideration has been given to the proposed route of the upgraded transmission line for the growing residential area near Bluewater, which makes sense, and I welcome this given the demand for residential land in this northern beaches area and the fact that Bluewater is growing. Residents in the Rollingstone/Balgal Beach/Mystic Sands area are expressing a strong and reasonable view that the same consideration be given to their community. The alignment should be taken west to the other side of the mountain range that runs north-south on the western side of the township of Rollingstone. I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition signed by 213 individuals expressing their concern about this issue. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to high voltage powerlines. 10 Oct 2007 Private Members’ Statements 3351

Mr CRIPPS: I have spoken in this House before about the outrageous and disgraceful behaviour of the Labor government in Queensland and Powerlink in relation to the upgrade of the Tully to Innisfail transmission line saga which has now resulted in an extravagant blow-out in project costs, proving the local community right. I sincerely hope that the upgrade of the transmission line from Yabulu South to Ingham does not result in a similar process being employed to force a particular outcome on the community. The local community acknowledges the need to upgrade the transmission line, but it is equally important that the welfare of the local community is appropriately considered and not sold out in favour of the bottom line.

Redland Bay, Police Resources Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (12.01 pm): Over the last few years the residents of the four southern bay islands in my electorate have been experiencing some increasing antisocial activity. The local police at Redland Bay have done their best in responding to these incidents. I know that the police barge at Redland Bay is the busiest vessel in the Queensland Police Service fleet. The government has recently replaced the old barge with a newer, larger and more effective vessel named after that great Queensland detective, Stewart Kerlin. In the last election campaign the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Hon. Judy Spence, promised that the government would build police stations and houses for the officers on both Macleay and Russell islands before the 2009-10 financial year. When the minister visited Macleay Island during the campaign she gave an undertaking, however, to deliver those stations as soon as possible. I know that it took some time for the Queensland Police Service to locate suitable land and property on Macleay Island. However, I have much pleasure in advising members of this House that construction of these buildings is happening at quite a pace. On Macleay Island the modular police station, which was built by a well-known Bendigo company, has been constructed next to the house. The modular station on Russell Island has been built and work on the house is continuing. The two houses and the two police stations will both need to be fitted out. The stations will need computers, gun safes and all the other technology needed by police in the 21st century. The Police Service is taking steps to advertise and identify officers to staff these two stations. Let me say to any officer considering these positions that these islands have a fantastic community feel and the community wants you there and they will support you; I want you there and I will support you. I think that the opportunity of a 35 per cent operational shift allowance within 60 minutes of the Brisbane CBD will make this an attractive option for many officers and I recommend that officers apply when the positions are advertised. The minister and I are hopeful that both stations should be opened before the end of the year, well before the deadline given in our election promise. This government does not have core and non- core promises like the Howard government; we deliver on all of our promises.

Queensland Health Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (12.02 pm): I would like to bring to the notice of the House the complete failure of Queensland Health in the case of a constituent of mine, Paul Asquith. Mr Asquith came to my office on 26 September in severe pain and gave me the following account of his treatment: he went to the emergency department at Nambour Hospital in the first couple of days of September with severe bowel pain. After a long wait he was told that he had an infection, was given medication and sent home. About a week later the pain was worse so back to the emergency department he went, underwent more tests and was sent home again. With still no improvement and in pain and several visits to his GP later, he went to Nambour Hospital for a third time—he thinks on 20 September—and was admitted. More tests were done, including CT scans and ultrasound. He was told that he would also need to have an endoscopy and a colonoscopy. He was discharged with the impression that the tests would be done in a couple of days. Paul has since been told by the hospital, ‘We don’t have anyone here who does scopes,’ and that it would be some time before the tests could be done. His wife called the hospital on 26 September and was told that one of the procedures could be done in about two weeks. It was at this point that he came to see me. My inquiries with the hospital revealed that his wait would be at least five weeks just to find out what was wrong with him. That is over two months in severe pain and with the mental anguish that goes along with it. I wrote to the minister on 27 September and I table a copy of the letter outlining the case. Tabled paper: Copy of a letter, dated 27 September 2007, from Mr Elmes to the Minister for Health (Hon. Robertson MP) relating to Nambour Hospital. I am still waiting for a reply. In the meantime I have been in contact with a friend of mine who is a specialist gastroenterologist, Dr Don Walker. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Paul Asquith has an appointment with Dr Walker for next Tuesday afternoon to have the required tests and that he will be bulk-billed. I thank Dr Don Walker, as does Paul Asquith. All of us, though, are at a loss to find the words that best describe our so-called health system. 3352 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Infrastructure Projects Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.04 pm): Parts of my electorate in the hinterland of the Sunshine Coast are currently under investigation for a range of new state government infrastructure projects, including a new Powerlink corridor from the north, an Energex corridor from the south, a railway corridor and pipeline through the Middle Road corridors and, of course, the Traveston Crossing Dam. All of these projects include study areas before final locations are finalised. I use this opportunity to again urge all people who may be impacted on by these projects to be involved with the relevant agencies and have their say. It is also imperative that the relevant state government departments ensure that property owners, included in the respective study areas, are notified of the inclusion of their properties in the study area and that as the study corridors are refined that new information is also conveyed to the property owners. I also urge prospective purchasers of properties in the region to undertake full and comprehensive searches with all the relevant agencies and not just assume that the current tranquil location would not be impacted by new infrastructure.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 9 October (see p. 3314). Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (12.05 pm): I am very glad to be able to speak on the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2007. This is great legislation. I believe that if drivers or their passengers are allowed to thoughtlessly trash our roads, footpaths and grass verges without any thought for their actions they show no respect for our environment and this can easily lead on to other thoughtless acts. I often sit waiting at traffic lights and gaze out upon hundreds of cigarette butts. Why do smokers think it is a small thing to fling a cigarette butt out of a window to end up in our waterways? And if it is habitual, there will be times when a smouldering butt will end up in long dry grass and start a fire which could lead to horrendous consequences. This offence fits into the serious category of dangerous littering, as does smashing glass such as bottles and leaving the glass on the footpath or in children’s playgrounds or leaving a hypodermic needle in a place such as a garden or a playground where it could cause injury to an unsuspecting person or child. In recent times there have been a number of reports of drivers having rocks, bricks or other objects thrown at their vehicle, sometimes hitting the windscreen of the moving vehicle or entering the vehicle through a side window. This is, in my opinion, a criminal act and could result in a serious accident causing death. Should the projectile be thrown from a bridge onto a fast-moving vehicle on a highway such as the M1 the results could be catastrophic. A further offence is that of illegally dumping fluids, with special penalties for in excess of 20 litres of litter. While I will admit that the public is now so much more aware of keeping our cities and countryside free of rubbish, there are many who have still not comprehended the message that no littering applies to them. I believe that it is time for us to get serious about littering. This legislation will bring Queensland into line with our southern states and make enforcement considerably easier. Where previously an authorised person had to stop the vehicle in which the person who committed the offence was travelling, which did have certain dangers, the method to book someone for an offence will now follow similar guidelines to those for a camera-detected speeding fine. A notice will be sent in the mail to the owner of the vehicle. It is then the owner’s responsibility to either pay the fine, have the matter heard in court or complete a declaration notifying the known or unknown offender or complete a passenger declaration or notice of sale of vehicle or, should the owner choose to do nothing, the penalty will be referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry. To give a strong message to the public of the seriousness we place on these offences, for littering from a vehicle a maximum penalty of 30 points or $225 will take effect after an initial amnesty of three months in which a publicity campaign will take place. For dangerous littering a maximum penalty of 40 points or $300 will be possible. I note that for illegal dumping—that is, for dumping in excess of 20 litres of litter—the offender may be required by the authorised person to clean up the litter and I applaud this measure. Once rubbish has been dumped, it then encourages others to do likewise—much the same as graffiti encourages further defacing of our public spaces. A further measure will allow the authorised person to access details of vehicle owners when they have been captured on camera by our local government authorities which are restricted from gaining this information. It is high time we used a little persuasion to have everyone in our state value our environment and treat it with the respect and care it deserves. I welcome these measures and thank the minister, his predecessor, Minister Lindy Nelson- Carr, and those who worked to bring this bill before the House. 10 Oct 2007 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 3353

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (12.09 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker Wendt, welcome to what I think is your second session as Deputy Speaker—it is the first session that I have had the pleasure of being before you. I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2007, which is primarily about litter enforcement. For the past seven years I have taken part in Clean Up Australia Day activities. I might have missed one when my baby was small, but almost every year I have taken the opportunity of working with some fantastic community groups in Mudgeeraba who are passionate about keeping the area clean and beautiful. It is such a very beautiful part of the Gold Coast—the Gold Coast hinterland through Mudgeeraba and Bonogin. I have walked along the length of Bonogin Road. Most people in here will not be familiar with that road, but it is quite a long way out of town. I have also walked all along Mudgeeraba Road and all through our parks with the Mudgeeraba Community Association volunteers, with the Lions Club of Mudgeeraba volunteers, with rural firies volunteers and with others who have been involved in the clean-up in Mudgeeraba, Bonogin and Tallai. Students and school groups have also been involved in cleaning up right throughout our gorgeous area. What has appalled me over time has been the amount of rubbish that has been thrown from cars onto the roadside, down the road verges, into our parks, footpaths and all the areas that we should be able to enjoy safely. I cannot say that there has been a significant decrease in the amount of rubbish found, but there has been some decrease over the years from the first year that I was involved in Clean Up Australia Day. But it is quite astonishing to still see the number of broken bottles that have been thrown from cars by people who are driving away from bottle shops and who are having a drink a kilometre or several kilometres down Bonogin Road to where the suburban areas are at the back of Bonogin. I want to make this point at the risk of vilifying one particular group of drinkers. Almost exclusively the mixer bottles of spirits that I have found along the side of the road on Clean Up Australia Day have been bourbon and coke bottles—Wild Turkey, bourbon and coke UDLs, cans and bottles. There is something wrong with the bourbon drinkers in the Gold Coast hinterland who think that their side window—either the passenger or driver side window; I hope it is not the driver’s side but I suspect it might be—is their rubbish bin and the world is their tip. They and beer drinkers in the area should hang their heads in shame, firstly, for drinking and driving and not waiting to get home to drink and, secondly, for throwing the glass and bottles out the window. I have seen broken glass at bus stops, nappies thrown out of cars, food wrappers, takeaway food containers and plastic. We have found bits of broken cars, bits of furniture, clothing, fencing and all manner of things thrown from vehicles that we perhaps would not find in more suburban areas. Some people must think that they can get to the Pacific Highway and drive into the hinterland and treat that part of the bush as a tip. ‘No-one is going to see me here. They might see me throw a bottle out of my window at traffic lights in Surfers Paradise. I had better not do it there. I will wait until I am driving out to Bonogin along Bonogin Road or Tallai.’ I could not be more pleased to see legislation such as this which will make it easier for law enforcement agencies and for EPA officers to identify the perpetrators of this disgusting habit and to fine them. According to the latest litter count figures issued by Keep Australia Beautiful in February 2007, 55 per cent of the volume of litter in Queensland is found along our roadsides. That is higher than the national average of 49 per cent. I have heard that up to 67 per cent of litter is vehicle related. It is frightening when you see it by the side of the Pacific Highway and you realise that people travelling at speeds of 100 to 110 kilometres an hour are throwing what could be deadly missiles out through the windows of their car with no regard for anyone else. They should do what I do and turn the floor of my car into a tip. A government member: I do that, too. A government member: Like me. Mrs REILLY: Yes. If I did not do that, then my two children certainly would. They think it is fun to throw missiles at the back of my head from the back of the car. So I have had to say to them, ‘Just drop that half-chewed lolly and those chocolate wrappers on the floor.’ Even if the ice-cream is melting down their hands and onto the floor I say, ‘Just drop it on the floor of the car. No, don’t open the window and throw it out the window. We never throw it out the window.’ So it makes cleaning my car lots of fun. But if I can do it I do not see why other people cannot. Put a plastic sheet on the floor. Mr Hayward: What about giving away smoking? Mrs REILLY: Giving away smoking would probably be a good idea for many people who are smokers. I am sure that all smokers have an intention to eventually give up, not just the nasty habit of throwing cigarette butts out the window, which no-one will be doing from now on because they will be caught and fined— Mr Shine interjected. Mrs REILLY: And to use the ashtray in the car. 3354 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Mr Shine: Have you got one? Mrs REILLY: Yes, mine is often overflowing, I have to admit. Everyone is having a go at me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because they know I am a smoker. But just putting added pressure onto an individual is not going to make them comply with their wishes, particularly one as rebellious as me. A government member: It is called an intervention. Mrs REILLY: If you tell me to do something, I will just go and do the opposite. It is a lesson to be learned, colleagues, but I digress. It is extremely dangerous and silly to throw lit cigarettes out the window. I have seen fires caused as a result on the median strip of the Pacific Highway that send up a lot of smoke and cause a lot of traffic congestion and danger for drivers. It is very helpful that law enforcement officers can now identify vehicles by their numberplates and send offenders a fine later on. I am also very pleased to see additional penalties and further enforcement on the dumping in national parks of rubbish, garden waste, bits of fences and cars, and things that people think they do not want anymore and cannot sell at a garage sale. I have arguably the most magnificent national park in my electorate, the Springbrook— Ms Jarratt interjected. Mrs REILLY: I know it is an argument but I am proud to say it. Springbrook National Park is a World Heritage listed national park. It is the smallest park with the highest biodiversity in Queensland. The state government has recently spent almost $40 million in acquiring land to increase the size of that national park, and almost double the size of that national park and maintain its World Heritage values for generations to come. If you go on a bushwalk in a national park, to see rubbish dumped in the national park or in the areas adjoining the national park is very distressing. I welcome the book being thrown at anyone who dumps any sort of rubbish in a national park. I must say from my experience of bushwalking and picnicking on the many occasions I have visited Springbrook, I have seen these picnic areas very busy with tourists, visitors and daytrippers. The people who are there on those days to enjoy the walks, the facilities, the views and the beautiful natural rainforest treat the area with enormous care and respect. People do take their rubbish away with them. I have never turned up to a picnic area and found leftover rubbish from someone’s barbecue. That may be because our rangers are very vigilant and very quick to clean up any rubbish that is left behind, but I think in an area like Springbrook there is a pretty good understanding. I am sure that it happens but it is not good when it happens. People pretty much understand that they should take their rubbish with them when they leave a national park. There are others who will continue to dump unnecessary waste. I welcome these provisions. I commend the current minister, the previous minister and all the officers of the department who have put this legislation together. It is something my community has been screaming out for for many years. If we could go as far as fingerprinting the bourbon and coke bottles for next year’s Clean Up Australia Day then that may go 50 per cent of the way towards ensuring we have clean roads, parklands and properties and we can continue to enjoy the wonderful Gold Coast hinterland. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.20 pm): I rise to speak briefly in the debate on the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2007. This bill aims to reduce the amount of litter we see in our communities, particularly on our roadsides. A complaint I often receive from people in my community is about the amount of litter on our roadsides. I receive a lot of complaints from people in my electorate living on the boundaries of reserves. Unfortunately, people dump rubbish in these reserves. Residents who live on the boundaries of these reserves not only have to look at this unsightly litter but also have concerns about the fact that it is a fire hazard. I am very pleased that I will be able to inform residents who have faced this problem that this bill will provide the ability to issue a clean-up direction notice for the dumping of 20 litres or more of litter. Another issue that has been raised with me on several occasions is that our roadsides look quite unsightly when covered with litter. Mr Rod Shaw from Rochedale South has contacted me several times about this issue. I am looking forward to sending him a copy of this bill. According to the latest litter count figures issued by Keep Australia Beautiful in February 2007, 55 per cent of the volume of litter in Queensland is found along our roadsides. This is higher than the national average of 49 per cent. In New South Wales, where an authorised person has the ability to issue an infringement notice to the registered owner of a vehicle, the volume of litter found along the highways and roadsides is 40 per cent. In Victoria, where public reporting is also used to report littering offences from vehicles, this figure drops to 32 per cent. Given that, is it any wonder we have people noticing the problem that roadside littering is becoming. I hope that like interstate roadside litter our roadside litter will decrease. I hope this bill will achieve that goal for us and we will see less litter on our roadsides. 10 Oct 2007 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 3355

The changes will make enforcing littering offences in Queensland significantly easier and safer, particularly when litter is thrown from a vehicle. It will be similar to a camera detected speeding offence where the owner of the vehicle receives an infringement notice in the mail. It is certainly going to make it a lot easier to enforce penalties on litter bugs. The bill will introduce two new littering offences and penalties. The first is depositing litter from a vehicle and the second is dangerous littering. Depositing litter from a vehicle has a maximum penalty of 30 penalty units or an infringement notice penalty of $225. Dangerous littering has a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or an infringement notice penalty of $300. Dangerous littering may include throwing a lit cigarette onto dry grass during extreme fire danger conditions, smashing a bottle and leaving the broken glass on the footpath, leaving a hypodermic needle in a garden bed or near a children’s playground or throwing an item from a car at another road user or pedestrian. It is quite a broad definition. I particularly want to talk about the discarding of needles in public places. I have had a number of constituents come and see me because a family member or friend has been the victim of a needle stick injury. They have been at the local shopping centre or out in the evening visiting restaurants or hotels nearby. Unfortunately, one of their family members has endured a needle stick injury. One was a needle stick injury in a car park. That family went through a lot of stress. On one occasion the victim was a five-year-old child. People go through a lot of stress waiting for months for health tests to be cleared. It is a horrible time for those families. I am very pleased to see that the maximum penalty for this offence is $3,000. I really hope this penalty is applied with the full force of the law. I know how hard it is for a family to endure an incident like a needle stick injury in a public place. I thank the former minister, Lindy Nelson-Carr, for dealing with this issue and bringing this legislation to the House. Littering has enormous environmental, social and financial costs attached to it. I want to take a moment to mention sporting grounds. I know a few young people who work part time cleaning major sport stadiums. This helps them with their uni costs. I am hoping that they will still be needed to clean up those sporting stadiums. I would hate to see them lose their jobs. I put that on the record. I take this opportunity to thank all the schools in my electorate who educate our young people on keeping their school community litter free. They are doing more than that. They are teaching children about the environmental impact of litter. There really is a lot of good education happening in our schools with respect to the environmental impacts of litter. I congratulate our schools. I also thank Col Myers, the coordinator of Clean Up Australia Day in the Springwood electorate, and all those who assisted in cleaning up the Springwood electorate this year. I assisted them at the Kimberley Park Community Centre at Shailer Park. I think most of us were very surprised at not only the amount of litter we found but also the type of litter we found. I look forward to assisting them at future clean-up days in my electorate. I want to congratulate the new minister. I have not had the opportunity to do that yet. I congratulate him on his new role. I look forward to working with him on many issues as they come forward over the term. These new laws are fantastic. They send a strong message that littering is not going to be tolerated in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (12.25 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2007 as it relates to litter enforcement. It is an amazing indictment on our society that it would appear that our society is made up of two classes of people— people who drop litter and people who pick up litter. I am not talking about authorised people or people who are paid to pick up litter. I pay tribute to the people who pick up litter in our parks and public places on their daily walks. They are simply picking up after people who can only be described as pigs and who deposit litter around our wonderful environment in Queensland. I pay tribute not only to those people who do that on their daily walks but also those in the many organised groups, especially those in my electorate, who do it on Clean Up Australia Day. I have had great pleasure in going out with those people. They clean up our parks. It is amazing the volume of debris that is left out in local environments that needs to be cleaned up on those occasions. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is sad that we have to go this far. This area of activity should fall into the many areas of activity in our society that are governed by a behavioural imperative. I hope we can see major changes in this area as we have in the area of drink driving, albeit the incidents may still be too high. It is an area where behaviour should be the governing force. We should not have to be legislating to try to force people into correct behaviour. This is an important piece of legislation that simple gives impetus to what should be good behaviour. Without traversing the ground that previous members have in terms of the specifics of the bill I shall allude to one element which the minister may wish to comment on. I congratulate the minister on his appointment. I am sure he will do a fine job in this important portfolio. There is an area that he might wish to comment on. 3356 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 10 Oct 2007

I note that the legislation specifically refers to littering on land and that there might be some grey area in relation to littering on our foreshores. There is a problem with regard to recreational boat users depositing rubbish on or around our foreshores, either into the water in Moreton Bay, for example, or on the beaches in those environs. However, we often see people with community spirit come along the next day to pick up that rubbish, and I commend those people for that. I hope this issue is adequately covered in this important piece of legislation, because the areas where that rubbish is deposited creates a further hazard to our marine life with regard to the plastics and bottles et cetera. That is an important area that should be covered in the future. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (12.30 pm): At the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker Wendt, I want to congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. It is a very important role and one that you are already handling very well. I also congratulate the minister on his elevation to the ministry, and he too is showing that he is doing a stirling job in forging out a new role for the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of taking it in a 21st century direction. Congratulations, Minister! I do not want to speak for particularly long on this bill because previous speakers in the debate have covered the substantial points quite adequately. However, I did not want to let this occasion pass without putting my support for the bill on the record. We all have our pet hates in life—little things perhaps that annoy us, that get under our skin and that we talk about at parties and at functions. Littering from cigarette smokers in particular is one of my pet hates and something that really gets up my nose and annoys me. That is why I am particularly pleased with the bill before the House. As the member for Greenslopes said, we cannot legislate for good behaviour. We can try. We can put fines into place. We can hope that we slowly bludgeon people into submission with fines which will eventually change their behaviour. But people either have respect for their fellow human beings and the environment which we all share or they do not. That is the point that the member for Greenslopes made, and he made it well. We cannot legislate for common sense, but we have to try to change the attitudes and behaviour of people. We live in an environment now that is increasingly under pressure from all sorts of issues, not just tree clearing and other environmental damage but issues such as littering. That is why I am very proud to stand here to support this legislation, legislation which mirrors legislation from other states. The evidence from those states demonstrates that legislation such as this is starting to reduce the amount of litter on highways, streets and public spaces. I represent an area of Queensland that is pristine. In many places it is untouched. My electorate has large areas of national parks and more coastline than any other electorate. Most of the time those beaches and areas are beautiful. I recently took a working holiday to Cape Tribulation during the school holidays and was amazed that there was just one piece of litter on the entire beach—just one cigarette butt. I have been to other beaches around the world where there is lots of litter. When I went to Bali when I was much younger there was a lot of litter on its beaches. If this is the sort of legislation that can keep areas like our beaches and public areas clean, then it should enjoy the support of the vast majority of people in the community. I also want to pay tribute to those people who clean up other people’s rubbish, not just on Clean Up Australia Day. There are people in my electorate who wander the highways in their spare time picking up litter or when they walk their dog in the morning they take a bag with them to pick up litter, and they assist the Department of Main Roads and councils in doing their jobs. Of course the Department of Main Roads would like to spend more resources cleaning up litter on our highways and councils would like to do a better job in cleaning up these areas, but the money can only stretch so far. The legislation before the House is important legislation. I am very pleased that the minister’s predecessor introduced it into the House, and we should congratulate Lindy Nelson-Carr, the member for Mundingburra, for bringing this legislation to the House. I hope that it enjoys the support of all honourable members. Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (12.35 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members who took part in this debate in the House and join with the member for Cook in recognising that this legislation is very much the effort and achievement of the former minister for environment and multiculturalism, the Hon. Lindy Nelson-Carr. She has done a very good job and I am delighted to be here at the end to shepherd through this very important legislation. The Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2007 makes several important amendments to strengthen litter enforcement in Queensland, especially littering from vehicles, which many honourable members have referred to. Queensland roadsides are some of the most highly littered in the country, and the amendments in this bill allow an authorised person to issue an infringement notice for littering from a vehicle to the registered owner of that vehicle. Before this bill, an authorised person had to stop and approach the vehicle and get the details of the person who littered before they could issue the infringement notice to that person. Now based on the numberplate of the vehicle, an authorised person can send an infringement notice to the owner of the vehicle. This is obviously similar to camera-detected speeding and red-light offences where the owner of the vehicle receives the infringement notice by mail. 10 Oct 2007 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 3357

Other amendments in this bill introduce new littering offences and penalties to better reflect the seriousness of some types of litter. In addition to the existing general littering and illegal dumping offences, new offences are littering from a vehicle and dangerous littering. Littering from a vehicle will cost the litterer a fine of $225 and dangerous littering will cost $300. The vehicle littering offences link to the existing State Penalties Enforcement Registry processes and provide for a passenger to be nominated as the person who committed the offence, if that is appropriate. I want to thank the shadow minister for sustainability, climate change and innovation for her insightful comments during the second reading debate. It would appear that we are both equally concerned about this issue and the importance of ensuring that there are appropriate and enforceable laws to deal with litterers. I agree with her that good enforcement needs to be supported by education and awareness to change people’s attitudes to littering. This is why communication material will be released to inform people about the changes, as well as provide information on the impacts of littering. The government is committed to having the best possible litter enforcement laws. We have undertaken to look at options for public reporting as another tool to strengthen litter prevention measures. With regard to the new vehicle littering offence in relation to bicycles and motorbikes, an authorised officer could issue an infringement notice through the mail to the owner of a motorbike but not a pushbike, which was an issue that the shadow minister raised in her contribution to the second reading debate. This is because sending a notice in the mail relies on using the registration number of a vehicle and pushbikes do not have that. However, an authorised officer could still stop the pushbike rider and issue them with a general littering infringement notice for $150. The shadow minister also raised concerns about people potentially being fined even if they try to do the right thing if they place their rubbish on top of a full bin and it blows away. The bottom line is that a full bin is no bin at all if it does not hold rubbish, and I would urge people to understand that the intent of the bill is to stop rubbish blowing down the road. Putting rubbish in a bin where the rubbish is not secured and can simply blow away does not achieve that objective. I would like to thank the shadow minister for her support and for acknowledging the hard work of the departmental officers who were involved in preparing this bill and the briefings that they made available in relation to it. I pass the member’s thanks on to those officers who were involved. I would like to address some remarks made by the member for Noosa in his contribution. It is entirely impractical and inappropriate to amend the legislation to provide for excusing people from littering just because they placed their rubbish on top of a bin. Even though those people might think that that is okay, if it still becomes litter then we have not really achieved anything at all. If we can bring anything to this place, it is a recognition of the need to be practical in the laws that we pass. If people cannot find a bin or the bin is so full that their rubbish is going to fall out if they put it in the bin, they should take their rubbish with them. I believe the member for Noosa also perhaps overstated the issue of civil liberties. The bill clearly provides ample opportunities for a registered owner of a vehicle to provide information that proves that they were not the offender. By linking into the well-established and long-accepted state penalties enforcement system, registered owners can provide declarations stating that they were not the offender. These are the same declarations that are used for camera detected offences, such as speeding and red-light camera offences. This bill even provides an additional declaration to those that currently exist in the State Penalties Enforcement Act by allowing the owner to nominate a passenger as the offender. As the bulk of Queensland litter is found along our highways and roadsides, the ability to enforce littering from vehicles is fundamental to changing behaviour and reducing the amount of roadside litter. The environmental benefits of reducing litter will be apparent immediately. I would particularly like to thank the member for Capalaba for raising the issue of the impact of litter on waterways, as did the member for Greenslopes. As they pointed out, litter continues to rate as an important environmental issue, particularly in our beautiful south-east Queensland. All kinds of litter, including plastic packaging, fishing lines, bottles and shopping trolleys enter the waterways each year. That contributes to the declining water quality of many of our creeks and rivers and endangers iconic wildlife. This bill will help keep our waterways free of litter, as the term ‘vehicle’ will also include a boat. I would like to thank the member for Indooroopilly for his support and comments. His commitment to the environment is well known around this state. I share his disappointment that the laws are necessary at all. It is my hope that the strength and enforcement provided by this bill will act as a deterrent to litterers. In relation to the issues raised by the member for Toowoomba South, litter enforcement is undertaken by authorised EPA officers and is delegated to local government, which then appoints appropriate staff as authorised officers for the purposes of litter enforcement. These staff could be existing by-laws officers or could be dedicated litter enforcement officers or other appropriate employees as chosen by the councils involved. The beauty of the enforcement is that it can be both coincidental—where an officer is carrying out their usual duties and happens to observe a person littering—or it can be targeted in specific locations where known illegal dumping has been occurring and they can be defined as hot spots. 3358 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 10 Oct 2007

The legislation will commence in 2008 following a three-month amnesty period. During the three months, specific information on the legislative changes will be promoted as well as general litter prevention messages. Information will also be provided through organisations such as the RACQ, which has a readership of more than 1.5 million through its Road Ahead magazine. I thank the member for Toowoomba South for his support. The member for Barron River and several other members highlighted that litter comes at a cost to communities, state and local governments. It is one of our most visible signs of pollution and is a costly one at that. The amendments contained in this bill will support the enforcement action of councils and provide officers with another tool to reduce the amount of litter seen on our roadsides as well as in our waterways. I would like to make particular mention also of the contributions of some members in which they acknowledged the hard work and interest of constituents who pick up other people’s litter and support stronger enforcement. Regretfully, earlier this year—on 14 May 2007—Jack Bates from Hervey Bay passed away. Jack had a number of great loves: his family, his country, Torquay and the ALP. He was very true to each of them. He could be seen every morning down at Torquay walking along the beach collecting rubbish. He never expected any reward. He never sought any recognition for it. I know that the Hervey Bay Youth Council and indeed the Hervey Bay City Council have been considering recognising Jack’s selfless contribution. I would like to raise my voice, as well as that of one of my predecessors in the seat of Hervey Bay, Bill Nunn, who thinks that that recognition for Jack is well and truly due. The member for Gregory raised the issue of the level of fines and penalties for illegal dumping. The higher fine for illegal dumping reflects the often more serious nature of the offence. I agree that a $150 fine is often a sufficient deterrent for someone throwing litter on the street and that larger fines for the illegal dumping of larger amounts of litter are appropriate. Often the entity that dumped the material could be a business, in which case $150 is not going to mean much. But I am sure that that entity will think twice if they are hit with a fine of $1,237 plus a direction to clean up the mess. I am pleased to say that local governments are supportive of the changes to the legislation. I note that a number of members have also raised the issue of children being the best educators and the work that many schools are doing. I would certainly like to acknowledge the good work of Keep Australia Beautiful in running the Green & Healthy Schools program and the Tidy Towns program, which was mentioned by the member for Whitsunday. Programs such as those go a long way to promoting a sense of pride in the community and the environment. The member for Nicklin raised several important issues that I would like to take a couple of moments to address. An abandoned vehicle would be classed as illegal dumping. Authorised officers would have the power to issue the owner of that vehicle with an infringement notice and a direction to remove the vehicle. Many councils have abandoned vehicle definitions that include, for instance, if the vehicle has not been moved for a specified length of time, if the vehicle has a derelict appearance and looks like it is not roadworthy, or if the vehicle does not have a valid registration sticker. In response to the issue of a vehicle owner having to nominate a person, the owner can provide an unknown user declaration. In that regard the owner could provide information that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence and that they do not know who the driver was. That might happen if someone has borrowed the car without the owner’s knowledge and, hopefully, returned it to them. The member for Burnett was also supportive of the bill, and I thank him for that. I also thank him for his support for my decision not to close the beaches of the southern end of Fraser Island. He raised the issue of councils illegally dumping and asked whether the bill covered them. Generally, the EPA applies the law to any entity, including councils if necessary and particularly if they are undertaking an environmentally relevant activity. But I have a very high regard for councils in Queensland and know that they not only enforce these laws but also respect them. The member for Woodridge in her contribution offered her very strong support and gave many cogent examples of the need for the legislation, as did the member for Mudgeeraba, who also took us on an interesting journey into the psychology of drinkers, disposable nappy users and smokers. I am pleased that the member for Springwood raised the particularly concerning issue of hypodermic needles, which is dangerous littering and which is something that many members of this House have had people raise with them. This bill addresses those concerns. The member for Greenslopes also offered strong support. In relation to his question about littering on land, schedule 3 of the bill defines ‘land’ to include and mean waters. So the concern that the member has raised is indeed addressed. The last speaker in the debate, the member for Cook, is, of course, very well known as a passionate defender of the environment. He knows his enormous electorate so well that he would spot a stray cigarette butt at 100 kilometres. I thank him for his support for this bill. 10 Oct 2007 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 3359

Before closing, I want to mention the situation in Singapore, which a number of members raised as a model for cleanliness. Singapore certainly is recognised as one of the cleanest, if not the cleanest city, in the world. But that does not come without very significant government intervention. To maintain Singapore’s clean image, there are very strict laws against littering of any kind. Chewing gum is totally banned and first-time offenders face a fine of 1,000 Singapore dollars, which is currently $A796. For repeat offenders, it is a fine of up to 2,000 Singapore dollars and a corrective work order. The corrective work order requires litterers to spend a few hours cleaning at a public place—for example, picking up litter in a park. Litterers are made to wear bright jackets and sometimes the local media is invited to cover the public spectacle of them being punished. Naturally, the authorities hope that public shame will make litterers think twice about their action. The laws that are before the House today are nowhere near as severe. We are aware that most Queenslanders want to do the right thing and that most visitors do the right thing. People are certainly disappointed that some people persist in littering our beautiful state. These amendments today in relation to the ability to enforce littering offences are necessary. I hope they will provide the impetus to have a cleaner Queensland. I would like to also thank the departmental officer who assisted in the preparation of the bill today, particularly Geoff Allan and Kylie Hughes, as well as my ministerial staff who have taken over at short notice to bring this bill to the House. I commend the bill to House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mrs MENKENS (12.49 pm): I take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on his appointment to his position. I am sure we will enjoy working together in this portfolio. The minister mentioned the letter in response to our query, and I thank the previous minister and her staff for that. The minister discussed this matter in detail, and it is about placing rubbish next to a bin that is full. Could I suggest that when the information brochures are put out the responsibility should be on not just local governments but functions, sporting facilities and areas like that where a large number of people are involved to be vigilant about the bins. It could be that people at a football game, a sporting event or whatever find that the bins are full, as they always are, and they walk outside the venue and drop their rubbish outside. Perhaps there could be some gentle reminders for those community events. On another issue, I was walking back from the Convention Centre last week and I was watching various people who were smoking and dropping their cigarette butts, as they do. As we know, most buildings are non-smoking environments so of course the only recourse for smokers is out in the street. Dropping a cigarette butt on the pavement will incur a penalty of 20 penalty units or a fine of $150, which would be an expensive cigarette. I certainly agree with that idea; I have no problems with that. As I was walking and thinking about this, I noticed that most of the bins along the way were plastic and I had visions of burning cigarette butts being thrown into bins full of rubbish and all sorts of dramas being created. I know that people have to take responsibility for their own actions, but I was visualising a bin designed with some sort of metal slab at a reasonable height to allow smokers to extinguish their cigarettes. I visualised seeing smoking bins everywhere. I guess smokers feel that they have a lot of imposts on them already, and it is not an offence to smoke. Mr McNAMARA: I thank the shadow minister for both those comments. The first comment about the need for local authorities and sporting groups to make sure that sufficient bins are available is a good point. In the education campaign that we will run around these new laws, we will ensure that agencies which have large numbers of people attending public events like football games consider whether they have sufficient bins available. Nevertheless, the individual responsibility remains, so throwing something on the ground merely because the bin is full is not an adequate excuse. The second point in relation to putting a cigarette in a bin can trigger an entirely different legal response—that is, if the bin catches fire, the offender might not find they are up for a fine of a couple of hundred dollars; they might be facing wilful damage charges under the Criminal Code. So the necessity to be thoughtful about disposing of something that is lit is always there. I guess this legislation comes in underneath that criminal level where something is actually set on fire and is designed to capture people who throw things on the ground, particularly cigarette butts under foot. It is a good point. People certainly need to be aware that, if there is not something adequate to dispose the cigarette butt into, it will have to go with you. If that means carrying it home in your pocket because there is no other way to do it, so be it. It is not as if smokers could smell worse. 3360 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Mrs MENKENS: That is right. I noted the comments of the member for Mudgeeraba, who is training her children very well in the disposal of rubbish and I think that is great. I guess my comment is a little pedantic. If rubbish has been thrown from a car and therefore an offence has been committed, a driver can pass that offence on to a passenger. What is the situation if the passenger is under age? What happens if the driver says, ‘It was one of the young friends of my children who was in the car’? I am not casting any aspersions on children, because many of them are a lot better than adults. However, what is the situation in this particular case? The other issue I wish to touch on relates to an authorised officer being an EPA officer. What would be the appropriate training for this type of officer? I realise this would come under the council and it would no doubt be council policy. It would then look across who that officer could be and what particular role it could take. A vehicle under the act can also involve a train, a boat or an aircraft. I realise that as trains and aircraft are public vehicles they would not come under this particular legislation but no doubt a boat would. I live in a recreational fishing area. I think the majority of boaties are very responsible, but my comment is that if a boat is out at sea can a fishing inspector actually be an authorised officer? Who else will see them, except maybe a fishing inspector or a boat nearby? Really, those people on that boat could not do much about it. Mr McNAMARA: Thank you again for those two questions. First, in relation to nominating someone else in a vehicle who may be a child, the short answer is that a child cannot be fined for throwing something from a vehicle. So that is a simple no. Obviously, there is the potential for someone to nominate that a child threw rubbish from a vehicle and thereby avoid paying the penalty. What the member for Burdekin raised is valid and that situation will be closely monitored. Again, I tend to think that most people who are caught for this sort of thing will do the right thing, cop the fine and not blame the kids. But if over time there is a perception among officers that this excuse is being overused then that is certainly something that will be taken into account in any future review. In relation to the issue of appropriate training, as the member for Burdekin mentioned, obviously in many cases they will be council officers. Council officers, just like EPA officers, already oversee a range of very complex laws in difficult situations and are well versed in being direct with people and explaining to them that this law means that they are up for a fine. Obviously, they will receive training in the legislative provisions themselves so they can explain what is going on, but that is a normal part of the implementation. This legislation was very much welcomed by councils. They did not want it delayed in light of the changes to the local government boundaries. Although there is a fair bit of obvious activity going on at the local government level, they welcome this legislation and they want it. I think that indicates their preparedness to make sure their officers are up to speed. Finally, in relation specifically to the last question, fisheries inspectors will be authorised officers under this legislation. It is the intention to actually authorise them explicitly so they will be responsible for implementing this legislation out on the water from time to time. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mrs MENKENS (12.58 pm): As I understand it, this legislation requires that the authorised officer must actually see the offence occur, so the legislation does not fully mirror some of the other states where people can dob in a litterer. I have a hypothetical situation. A nasty person comes and dumps 20 litres or 200 litres of litter at the bottom of your paddock, be it car bodies or whatever, and you see that happening so you take a photograph and you take that to an authorised officer. What would be the situation there? Mr McNAMARA: As the member for Burdekin correctly pointed out, we have not at this time chosen to go down the Victorian road of giving third parties or members of the public the ability to provide complaints on issues they observe. I guess that is a deliberate attempt to bring this legislation through in stages and see how it works. There is the potential to obviously open up a Pandora’s box of neighbourhood complaints, with people making complaints against each other, and we would like to avoid that if possible. So the intention at this time is to have authorised officers across a range of government levels and departments who can enforce this law. We will see how it goes and not adopt the Victorian model at this time of allowing the public to make these sorts of complaints. It is an issue that is open and will be considered again in due course as we see how this legislation actually works on the ground. Mrs MENKENS: I probably did not explain myself as well as I could have because I was referring to 436A(1)(b)(ii) where it says that the authorised person ‘has information that leads’ them to suspect an offence has occurred. That made me wonder exactly how much leeway would actually come within that area. But, of course, I am bearing in mind that this is still waiting to be tested. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3361

That was where this question was leading from: what information leads them to suspect and exactly how and where can that be gained? During some discussions, we raised some concerns that, if an alleged offender does not believe that they are guilty and they elect to have the matter taken to court, this could present a number of difficulties. At the end of the day, it may only be one person’s word against another and some of the court cases could end up being rather nasty. As we know, people like their rights and they will argue their way through. Perhaps there is a concern about proving the onus, or who is correct in the situation. Mr McNAMARA: The intention is to avoid precisely the circumstances that the member outlined, with putting neighbourhood disputes into play when we are trying to prevent litter. The intention of the legislation is for authorised persons to bring the complaints and for those complaints to be based upon information that the authorised person has themselves obtained where perhaps relying on hearsay and second and third party evidence would be undesirable in the scope of the legislation as framed. As I said, we may consider that in due course if we feel that we are not getting enough bang for the legislative dollar. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1.04 pm to 2.30 pm.

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill Resumed from 7 August (see p. 2275). Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (2.30 pm): When does life begin? This contentious question has been argued by scientists, philosophers and religious leaders for decades. In my lifetime, the enigmatic question has arisen in many contexts, from the 1973 definitive US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, the debate we had in the seventies and eighties about the legal, ethical and moral considerations of in-vitro fertilisation or IVF treatment, to today here in this parliament where we will decide on the future of embryonic stem cell research. Few issues elicit such strong emotion, as we will see in this debate. That is because few of the questions we are faced with answering on a daily basis go to the root of our very being. Few questions challenge our own fundamental values and beliefs about what is right and wrong in the way that the right to life does. It is an important debate and one which cannot and should not be driven by party politics. Upon hearing the many and varied opinions and arguments on the issue, we have the opportunity to decide, and we have the opportunity to decide not on how our party colleagues vote but on what we personally think is right and what we believe is important. It is a significant decision and one which I can say with certainty has not been taken lightly by any one of us. The effect of this bill will facilitate further scientific research into the human condition by legalising, albeit within rigid limits, some research activities that involve human embryos. As the health minister and honourable member for Stretton advised the House, this is a rapidly developing area of technology that has demonstrated significant potential for the development of therapeutic treatment for hundreds of debilitating injuries and diseases. However, it is difficult to consolidate the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research with the serious ethical consequences such research would confront. As elected representatives, we have been charged with the task and the responsibility of making that determination for all Queenslanders. Here we must decide on behalf of four million people what we are willing to accept and what we are willing to risk to potentially save lives. Depending on one’s personal answer to my opening question, this debate may well be an agonising trade-off. Effectively, which life does one consider to be more important: an existing life plagued by illness and disease or a 3362 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 potential life, with all the promise and hope that shrouds a newborn? As I have said, this will not be an easy debate. Few issues in our political careers will matter more than the outcome of this conscience debate. I am extremely grateful and humbled that I have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. In a sense we are fortunate that this extremely emotive issue has been decided by our federal counterparts. We have also had the benefit of witnessing the outcome of the debate raging in other states. Before I address the current bill, I think it is necessary to consider the history of the debate in Queensland and wider Australia. The impetus, indeed the embryo of the current embryonic stem cell research debate, has its origins in Canberra where, at the eleventh Council of Australian Governments meeting, the Commonwealth, states and territories agreed to introduce nationally consistent legislation to ban human cloning. Among the issues discussed by the council, controversial embryonic research was also addressed, with plans set in place for laws that would enable limited human embryonic stem cell research. The Commonwealth signalled its intention to introduce the legislation, which the states and territories agreed to carbon copy into their legislative regime. The Commonwealth government passed a Prohibition of Human Cloning Act and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act in December 2002. The acts set the boundaries for stem cell research in Australia. Under the Commonwealth legislation, and indeed in all of the ensuing states’ laws, the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, for the purpose of reproductive cloning was completely banned. The second proponent of the legislative regime, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act, opened the door—but only slightly—for human embryo scientific research in Australia. Effectively, the law would allow excess embryos created for the purpose of assisted reproductive technology, ART or more commonly known as IVF, which would otherwise have been destroyed, to be used for scientific research under a strict regulatory scheme. It was the Australian government’s view that research involving the destruction of existing surplus ART embryos should be permitted within strict limits to enable Australia to remain at the forefront of research that may one day lead to medical breakthroughs in the treatment of disease. As a result of Queensland’s COAG commitment, a similar act was introduced to Queensland parliament. The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2003 was passed in this place in March 2003 to honour our commitment to the national scheme. The act mirrored the federal legislation, the purpose of which was to regulate the destructive use of human embryos and prohibit all forms of human cloning. Both the state and Commonwealth legislation mandated a comprehensive review of the acts, which became known as the Lockhart review committee, led by the Hon. John Lockhart AO QC. Among those appointed to assess the efficacy of the law and balance the conflicting public policy positions were Queensland’s Associate Professor Pamela McCome, Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, Professor Barry Marshall, Professor Peter Schofield and Professor Loane Skene. Each of those individuals was chosen for their expertise in the fields of medicine, law, science and ethics and each brought meaning to the challenging and sometimes excruciating debate on human embryonic research. I thank all members of the committee for their expertise, leadership and guidance on the issue. Throughout the six-month review process, the committee weighed more than 1,000 submissions on the matter, which is a telling indication of the importance of the debate to the people of Queensland and this country. Scientists, religious leaders, top jurisprudential scholars and ART experts were widely consulted throughout the review process in a bid to consolidate, as far as is possible, the ethical and moral concerns about stem cell research with the potential research and medical benefits. It was a task akin to the poison chalice because, regardless of the outcome of the review, no party would ever be completely satisfied with the conclusions. However, the committee did recognise a number of commonly held interests of all the parties: a commitment to social justice and equity, and the responsibility for the care of society’s most vulnerable members. Importantly, the committee submitted that these shared interests were reflected in the community’s in-principle support for medical research and an understanding of disease, with the aim of one day treating or preventing it. To this end, the Lockhart review committee tabled its report in federal parliament in December 2005, having made 54 recommendations for the improvement of the human embryo research and cloning legislative regime in Australia. The Lockhart review recommendations concerning prohibitions on developing and implanting embryos, the creation of human embryos by fertilisation, the use of human embryos created by SCNT, among others, were codified in the Commonwealth Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006. These amendments were passed in December last year and recently came into effect. The amended legislation permits a number of research activities under licence which were previously banned and which the Queensland bill, if passed, will complement creating similar regulations, offences and penalties in Queensland as the Commonwealth. The Research Involving 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3363

Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007 fulfils Queensland’s latest COAG commitment to introduce similar amendments to maintain consistency with the national regulatory scheme. The impact of the Commonwealth law on Queensland is significant in a number of ways. Firstly, under section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution—which is the external power provision—the Commonwealth has the ability to legislate comprehensively in this area as a result of international interest in embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. This means that the federal government has the constitutional authority to enact laws governing the science nationally. In addition, section 109 operates so that where a law of a state is inconsistent with Commonwealth law the state legislation is deemed invalid to the extent of the inconsistency and the Commonwealth legislation prevails. The constitutional effect is that, if Queensland legislation is not amended, the activities that are currently banned in Queensland will still be able to be carried out in Queensland by persons licensed under the Commonwealth regime. The offence provisions contained in the bill, which allow for penalties up to 15 years imprisonment for offences, will not apply. While these penalties are provided at a federal level, if the bill does not pass in Queensland the enforcement of the Commonwealth legislation will be predominantly a Commonwealth responsibility. The bill currently before the House clearly forms part of national scheme legislation. In April this year, Queensland ratified a notice of variation to the intergovernmental agreement to renew our commitment to nationally consistent arrangements for the regulation of human embryo research and prohibition of human cloning. There are a number of problems that arise out of such legislation schemes, which the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee acknowledged in its report on the bill. The concern with Commonwealth legislation operating outside the limitations of Queensland law is that it tends to undermine the institution of parliament. Gold Coast Bond University professor, Gerard Carney, warned against executive federalism where the federal government formulates the scheme to the exclusion of other legislatures. This is why I believe that it is necessary that this debate rages in our own parliament regardless of the constitutional limitations we face, because to a certain extent we do have the opportunity to set the boundaries in our own state. In addition, regardless of whether the Queensland parliament supports this legislation, Queenslanders, through the National Health and Medical Research Council, NHMRC, may be involved in enforcing the national scheme and will hopefully, in years to come, benefit from this research. Passing these amendments will give rise to a new strict regulatory scheme in Queensland as well as create a new series of criminal offences in Queensland with respect to human embryonic cloning. As I mentioned, in bringing this bill before the House the health minister honours Queensland’s COAG commitment to introduce complementary legislation. Victoria has already passed corresponding amendments to their Infertility Treatment Act 1995, as has New South Wales. Other states are undertaking a similar process of assessing the merits of this reform. I would like to take a moment to address this bill and outline the amendments it seeks to achieve. The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill, if passed, will allow the restricted use of human embryos for research purposes under licence. The bill reiterates a blanket ban on human cloning. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, the bill would expand the range of research activities which may be carried out under licences issued by the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee. I will elaborate on the committee’s licensing process shortly. Firstly, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the experts, including the Lockhart report contributing author Professor Loane Skene, Griffith University Professor Alan McKay-Sim, Queensland Fertility Group doctor David Molloy, Professor Warwick Anderson of the NHMRC, and Queensland Health’s Professor Andrew Wilson who held an information forum recently on this bill. The Australian Stem Cell Centre has also been instrumental in helping me form my own opinion on stem cell research and understand the implications of this bill. The centrepiece of this debate is stem cells. A stem cell is an unspecialised master cell from which any of the body’s 200 cell types can develop, a process known as differentiation. Stem cells retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division thus stem cells play a critical role in growth and development by providing new cells as well as replacing and repairing damaged tissue. There are three types of stem cells, one of which directly relates to this bill. Embryonic stem cells come from a four to seven-day-old embryo. Whilst they have the ability to form virtually any type of cell found in the human body, scientists have accepted that they are not capable of developing into a whole new organism. The other types of stem cells derive from embryonic germ cells and adult stem cells, the latter of which we will hear a lot more of during the course of the debate. Stem cells have been identified as having significant potential in many areas of research and medicine. As the Australian Stem Cell Centre has noted, embryonic stem cells, those which this bill concerns, could be beneficial in the study of human development and how cells differentiate and function. Researchers hope that through the careful and controlled study of embryonic stem cells they 3364 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 will find answers that may lead to the prevention and treatment of abnormalities and diseases which plague human health. This bill, if enacted, would expand the areas of research legalised in Queensland in order to allow scientists and researchers to explore these possibilities. As members will be aware, embryonic stem cell research is a highly contentious, highly emotive issue. This is evident in the sheer volume of correspondence members have received in the lead-up to this debate. At the heart of the debate is the argument of what constitutes a human life. The current act defines a human embryo as a live embryo that has a human genome or an altered human genome and that has been developing for less than eight weeks since the appearance of two pronuclei or the initiation of its development by other means. For qualification, two pronuclei are formed in the cytoplasm of an egg in the very early stages of insemination but before the genetic material of the two entities are fused. This occurs usually only about 12 to 20 hours after the fertilisation of an oocyte by human sperm. The current bill seeks to override the current definition, replacing the aforementioned indicator with a new signpost. Most significant is the new determination of a human embryo as a discrete entity formed after the first mitotic division after fertilisation or a genome which has the potential to develop beyond the primitive streak. While I appreciate that the scientific specifics are difficult to grasp, and I should preface my comments by pointing out that I am not a scientist or a doctor, they are significant because essentially the terminology contained in the act answers that elusive question of when life begins. Of course, no definition no matter how well formulated could suffice to satisfy the differing views on conception of life. However, the new definition contained in the bill reflects recommendation No. 28 of the Lockhart review committee. The committee considered syngamy, which occurs around 22 hours after fertilisation but is impossible to visually confirm, as a ‘better definitional starting point for embryonic development because it is at this stage, when the maternal and paternal chromosomes align, that a new genetic entity is formed’. However, because of the difficulty in determining at what point syngamy occurs, the committee agreed the point at which the pronuclei membrane becomes a human embryo falls at the first mitotic cell division which happens between one to three days after fertilisation. When one considers the key events of early fertilisation and preimplantation one realises that development between the stages is counted in hours, minutes and seconds. It is exceptionally difficult to determine where the line should be drawn but it is necessary to do so in order to set the parameters for research and determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in Queensland and, indeed, Australia. The report found that the current definition contained in Queensland legislation was too restrictive in that it has inadvertently prevented some valuable ART research aimed at improving the quality and practice of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. As a result, the Lockhart committee sought to change the definition of human embryo to recognise that fertilisation is a process and that a human life does not exist until that process is complete around day 14 or 15. The second point about the changed definition is that it recognises embryos created by artificial means such as by SCNT. Here the indicator is the development of the primitive streak. This occurs around day 15 and it is the first clearly recognisable stage in embryonic development. Without delving into too much detail, it is at this stage where blastocyst-turned-bilaminar embryonic disk cells form a multicellular structure that will uniquely develop into the new individual encoded by the new genome created by the parent cells. Scientists and ART experts confirm that it is at this stage, around day 15, where the entity becomes an embryo proper. This extension of the definition is vital because of the provisions contained in this bill which authorise prohibited practices under licence contained in division 2 of the bill. None of the research practices permitted under this section by licence are allowed to develop past 14 days. It is unlawful to allow a human embryo to gestate outside the human body beyond 14 days. In a sense, the law has determined that day 14 is when human life begins. Whether this definition accurately reflects the moral inclination or not, it is vital that the terminology in the legislation is legally—thus scientifically and medically—correct as well as explicit and unambiguous. The committee noted the fallacy about definitions. Definitional clarity will not in itself resolve moral concerns. Regardless of whatever language is used, different moral interpretations will be made regarding the status of such entities and the obligations owed to them. I believe, however, that it is more constructive to have a clear operational definition of a human embryo than to leave it open to interpretation. As legislators we have less of a responsibility to dictate what is right and what is wrong than our responsibility to set down the parameters necessary to ensure our legal and moral obligations are upheld and coalesce as far as is practicable. Turning to the specific clauses of the bill, it is essential to note that these amendments reinforce a total ban on reproductive cloning. I do not think a single person in this parliament will disagree with that. Significantly, all of the stakeholders consulted throughout the review by the Lockhart committee supported a comprehensive ban on reproductive cloning—that is, implanting a prohibited embryo into a woman’s body or allowing the gestation period to exceed 14 days. This provision is contained within the new section 7 which also stipulates that no defence exists to justify human cloning for reproductive purposes. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3365

There are three parts to the amendment bill. Part 2, division 1 of the bill imposes an absolute prohibition on some practices, creating criminal offences to this effect. Human cloning for reproductive purposes is contained in this section. Under this division, creating a human embryo—that is, an embryo created by the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman—constitutes an offence punishable by 15 years imprisonment. The 14-day deadline for allowing a human embryo to develop outside a woman’s body is also contained in the replacement part 2 at proposed section 10. Other offences under the provision include placing a human embryo clone in the body of a human or animal at proposed section 7; creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation that contains the genetic material provided by more than two persons at proposed section 9; making heritable alterations to the human genome cell at proposed section 11; collecting a viable human embryo from a woman’s body at proposed section 12; creating a chimeric embryo at proposed section 13; developing a hybrid embryo at proposed section 14; and the placement of an embryo at proposed sections 15 and 16. Importantly, this division also outlaws the commercial trading in human eggs, human sperm and human embryos. This is one of the many concerns which I have had expressed to me, and I am sure other members of parliament have had expressed to them, in the consideration of this bill. During the last parliamentary sitting I received an informative briefing by Dr Johanna Lynch and Dr Monique Baldwin of the Women’s Forum Australia who raised the issue of egg supply. As they suggested, women are central to the debate on embryonic stem cell research. Without human oocytes, scientists would not be able to carry out this kind of research. Dissenters to the bill point to the potential for the exploitation of women in egg harvesting. There are fears that women may be influenced into donating their eggs at a risk to their health without any foreseeable benefits. The risks involved in human egg harvesting include ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can have grave consequences for women. Approximately 10 per cent of women who undergo IVF treatment experience a degree of hyperstimulation as a result of the chemical inducement to stimulate egg growth. The concern shared by many female dissidents is that women will be asked to assume definite health risks with no demonstrated clinical benefits, particularly if trade in eggs for monetary gain were permitted. However, the new section 18 of the bill outlaws the supply or offer of valuable consideration for the supply of reproductive matter which exceeds reasonable expenses. The bill defines these terms so that there is no uncertainty as to the parameters of the law. What we are legislating strides the boundaries of human understanding. Thus it is imperative that there are no loopholes left open and no stone unturned in drafting such law. This debate is both helpful and necessary in order to guarantee that we have considered all the options and implications of this bill. Part 2, division 2 is central to achieving the objectives of the bill and also represents the most contentious element of the bill. Herein the bill stipulates the practices which may be authorised by a licence. This section reads as an additional list of offences created under the bill with a subclause which, in effect, will allow otherwise illegal practices to be carried out if and only if the person relying on the exemption is authorised by licence. Therefore, under licence a person may create a human embryo other than by fertilisation or developing such an embryo at the proposed new section 18; create or develop a human embryo containing genetic material provided by more than two persons at section 19; use precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus to create a human embryo, or developing such embryo at section 20; and, finally, create a hybrid embryo at section 20A. I think it is important to note that these are practices which can only be carried out under licence by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Human Research Ethics Committee. In order to obtain a licence, researchers need to justify the use of human embryos and ensure that they adhere to strict standards pertaining to the use and destruction of such entities. Only a minimal number of human embryos will be permitted under licence. Since Australia embarked on stem cell research, only nine licences nationally have been granted for research involving human embryos and there have been no new licences issued since March 2005. The proposed new section 18, in conjunction with the amended section 28, gives effect to recommendation No. 23 of the Lockhart report, which supports the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create human embryo clones for ‘research, training and clinical application’. Arguably, this amendment is the most controversial aspect of the proposed legislation as SCNT technology was used in Scotland to reproduce ‘Dolly the Sheep’, the first animal to be cloned out of stem cell research. SCNT allows scientists to create a genetic duplicate of a cell which can develop into a separate entity. The nucleus of a somatic cell is subtracted and transferred by injection into an unfertilised egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Through chemical inducement, the discrete entities are fused together to form a new egg which then proceeds to culture in the same way an ordinary embryo does. These embryonic stem cell lines are genetically identical to the cell from which the DNA was originally removed. As asserted by the Australian Stem Cell Centre— Researchers regard nuclear transfer as an effective method for deriving human embryonic stem cells with specific characteristics, about which a great deal remains unknown. 3366 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

SCNT represents an opportunity to better understand and develop treatments for complex diseases. Any legitimate apprehensions we may harbour about this technique can and should be addressed through legislation and regulation. Some of the aspirational research of SCNT technology both here and overseas includes producing pancreatic islet cells for diabetes, dopaminergic neurons for Parkinson’s disease, cardiomyocytes for heart disease and neurones for spinal cord injuries to name just a few. There is little doubt in my mind that allowing some of the abovementioned research practices will significantly benefit medical and scientific research in Queensland. In its own embryonic stages, stem cell research, both embryonic and adult, has shown considerable potential in finding answers to treating a wide range of health conditions from the treatment of physical trauma to the prevention of degenerative conditions and genetic diseases. For many Queenslanders who suffer a condition, and for the many hundreds of thousands more whose lives have been touched by someone who is suffering, stem cell research tends to offer hope where traditionally there was none under current medical practices. Across Australia and internationally, scientists, doctors and gene therapists are investigating stem cells for their potential in the treatment and prevention of a huge range of medical conditions. The San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy in Milan is using adult and embryonic stem cells to learn more about the nature and development of human diseases, including immunodeficiencies, lysosomal storage disorders, diabetes, cystic fibrosis and muscle dystrophies. Through studies involving human embryonic research, scientists have also been able to learn more about degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s. Much success and potential has been demonstrated from research involving stem cells both here and around the world. In a few short years we now know more about disease and treatment than we ever have. In 2007, to use a recent example, we are treating thousands of young women against cervical cancer with the Gardasil vaccine. If this bill is passed, in 2017 who knows what we will have achieved. The difficulty for me is not knowing where we are going and what this kind of genetic research will uncover. We do not know where this will lead. However, stem cells, particularly human embryonic stem cells, have shown great potential to drive the future of molecular medicine in Australia and around the world. Professor Ian Frazer, our renowned Queensland Australian of the Year and the creator of one of the world’s first cancer vaccines, has been a strong advocate for stem cell research. In a letter to our federal colleagues who considered these amendments to Commonwealth statutes at the end of last year, Professor Frazer highlighted the importance of our decision and the impact it will have on generations to come. He said— The decision you make will determine the ability of Australia’s medical researchers to participate in this exciting new field, and in the longer term has the potential to impact on the quality of medical treatment our children receive. Will our children look back in 25 years and say ‘our parliamentarians made the right decision that gave us access to cures for diabetes, heart disease and neurological disorders’? This decision may well be our lasting political legacy. Much has been said over recent weeks about alternatives to embryonic stem cells. As I have mentioned, much success and potential has been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells. Bone marrow used in the treatment of cancer is derived from adult stem cells. There has also been much excitement surrounding the potential for adult stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood. Research utilising adult stem cells has produced promising outcomes in the treatment of cancers, cardiovascular and autoimmune diseases and neural degenerative diseases just to name a few. However, while valuable research continues into the viability of adult stem cell research, many scientists say embryonic stem cell research is imperative and represents far greater promise in the development of medical treatments for a wide range of conditions from potentially fixing spinal cord and heart damage to reversing brain damage. As human embryonic stem cells have the potential to be differentiated into basically all of the body cell types, they are considered more useful for the nervous system therapies contrasted with adult stem cells which are more specialised and restricted than embryonic stem cells. As I briefly mentioned, human embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos or the entity, a precursor to a human embryo, that are four to seven days old. At this stage, the two pronuclei, fused together in the fertilisation process, have developed into a mass of cells collectively known as the blastocyst. This mass of between 200 and 250 cells contains around 30 cells which make up the inner cell mass which are pluripotent stem cells that have the potential to develop into any one of the 200-odd cell types found in the adult organism. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that this entity represents a human life in its preliminary stages and given the opportunity it would develop into a baby. I think it is important to note that the legislation before the House does not allow human embryos to be specifically created for research purposes. My colleagues and I had difficulty with this point as this was not sufficiently clear in the bill’s provisions and explanatory notes. The passage on restricted research practices seemingly contradicted another on those practices which remain strictly prohibited by law. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3367

The bill will allow research to be carried out on human embryos created by means other than by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm not beyond 14 days. This provision covers practices such as SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer, and parthenogenesis, which represent artificial means by which scientists can create embryos. The difficulty I have with the argument that such an entity constitutes human life is that the human embryo is created by a calculated, measured, scientific process rather than a natural biological occurrence. I am not sure an artificially created entity at this earliest stage can be said to be human life. Certainly it has the potential for human life but I do not believe an artificially created embryo at this earliest stage has the same status as something biologically conceived. I have to be careful here given the increased prevalence of IVF treatment in society. I am certainly not suggesting that our children who were created carefully and skilfully in Petri dishes are less human than naturally conceived babies. That is not what I am suggesting. What I do believe, however, is that there should be some distinction between embryos created for reproductive purposes and embryos created purely for scientific research. Currently scientists are able to utilise superfluous ART embryos for research purposes where the donors consent. These surplus embryos would ordinarily be destroyed or stored for long periods of time beyond their viable storage life. In Australia there are in excess of 70,000 ART embryos which will never be used in reproductive treatment which are destined to be destroyed. My question to those who suggest the artificial creation and destruction of embryos within the first 14-day period of creation for scientific research is unethical because it discards human life is: what about the tens of thousands of embryos which go to waste every year through reproductive treatment? Again the answer gravitates back towards the definition of the point at which an entity becomes an embryo. Egg fertilisation is not the beginning of an individual life. Scientists have argued this point on the basis that up until day 14 a single blastocyst may generate twins or triplets and so on. It is not until the end of the second week that a smaller group of cells are identified as being the precursor of the embryo proper which is when the primitive streak becomes discernible. Of all the potential lines to be drawn in the sand this is the most logical and defensible. The characteristics of human beings that set us apart from other species is our capacity to think. Human beings are considered an advanced species based on our brain activity. This power of the human mind is now recognised at law. Doctors can now ascertain life based on a person’s level of brain activity. Brain dead constitutes part of the legal definition of death and exists where a person displays no electrical activity in the brain. If we are to accept this premise, why then should not the same criteria apply to the beginning of life? That is, if death is determined by the cessation of brain activity should birth then not be determined by the commencement of brain activity. This is said to occur within the first one to two months of conception—around the same time a heartbeat can be heard for the first time. If the bill mandates human embryos may only gestate outside a woman’s reproductive tract for up to 14 days, scientists and medical researchers will be well within the confines to conduct these kinds of activities. Professor John Burn, the medical director and head of the Institute of Human Genetics, argues that the entity that exists before the embryo cannot constitute individual human life because it does not present any of the vital signs of life. I hope I am not misrepresenting him in any way here, but Professor Burn refuted the religious and moral argument that human life is created at the moment of conception because historically the Catholic church did not recognise an embryo as human life until ensoulment occurred sometime later in pregnancy than conception. Professor Burn writes— It is worthy of note that the Catholic Church adopted its present position on a precautionary principle in 1879, and prior to that they shared the opinion of other major religions that ensoulment occurred sometime later in pregnancy than conception. Looking at it from a pragmatic perspective, there are many arguments that support the use of excess ART and artificially created human embryos, some of which I have already outlined. The efficiency argument for the use of embryos in research derives from the tens of thousands of ART embryos destined to be destroyed after treatment. If an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway, is it not far more efficient and desirable to make practical use of it than to discard it on principle? The Council of Australian Governments meeting which agreed upon the need to further develop and regulate stem cell research in Australia agreed that research involving the use of excess ART embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed was a difficult area of public policy, involving complex and sensitive ethical and scientific issues. In 2002 the council agreed that research should be allowed on existing excess ART embryos which would have otherwise been destroyed within a strict regulatory regime. The principal legislation, as well as the amendments before the House, reinforce that view. Furthermore, as Dr Michael Rudnicki, a senior scientist and director of molecular medicine at the Ottawa Health Research Institute suggests— The proposed changes would provide a robust legislative framework of exceptional international standard, which would enable Australian researchers to maintain a high level of research excellence and facilitate their continued participation in the international research community in working towards treatments for a vast range of debilitating diseases. 3368 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

With respect to the value of human life, advocates of embryonic stem cell research argue that the potential for life of an embryo is not mutually exclusively from the life of a child or adult. Whilst valuable in its own right, it cannot be said that the potential for life of an embryo is worth more than or in the least on par with the lives of fully developed human beings. This issue was at the crux of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade. Central to the landmark decision which effectively legalised abortion in the United States was the concept of viability, in the sense that an embryo becomes viable when it is potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. In 1973 Justice Blackmun measured viability at 28 weeks. Today it is likely to be less given the significant advances that have been made in medicine. The point that I am making is that up until this point of viability, a test which is still applied in the US today, an embryo merely has the potential for life. Even in the natural order of things a fertilised embryo may not make it through to conception. Whilst it is incalculable how many embryos are lost to pre-implantation wastage, the percentage has been estimated around 20 per cent. Some reports even suggest as high as 80 per cent of zygotes will fail to implant in the uterine wall. Whatever the statistic, the bottom line is that a significant number of embryos, be they naturally conceived or those concocted in a Petri dish for the purposes of achieving pregnancy, are destroyed before they are medically or legally recognised as a human life. Therefore, the same should apply for human embryos for scientific research. The National Health and Medical Research Council mandate only minimal use of human embryos for research purposes. Thus it can be submitted that more embryos will be lost to the vicissitudes of life than through scientific and medical stem cell research. Perhaps the salient reason I will support this bill is because I truly believe that one day we will be able to treat motor neurone disease, Alzheimer’s and cancer. In Australia we are already treating cancer. My daughters will be among a whole generation of women immunised against cervical cancer. Every year half a million women worldwide die from cervical cancer. Professor Ian Frazer’s Gardasil vaccine, developed right here in Queensland, will save lives. Professor Frazer is a strong proponent of stem cell research because, in his own words— ... if medical research had been suspended in the 1970s when we considered imposing a moratorium on genetic research the cervical cancer vaccine would never have been developed. When one looks at the advancements that have already been made in the area of stem cell research, the potential medical benefits in my opinion overshadow the arguments for the contrary. Of course, there is nothing more valuable than life and I would not condone anything that erodes its sanctity. I do not believe that this legislation does this. This bill and the principal act represent moderate and just middle ground. The undeniable fact is that molecular medicine is developing at an incredibly rapid rate. Regardless of whether we accept stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research, in Australia, the fact is it is going ahead in other countries. The UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Israel, Singapore, Japan and China—these countries all have supportive policies towards stem cell research. As a nation we have the opportunity to participate on the world stage and become leaders in the field. Our scientists and medicos are amongst the best in the world and I have not a shadow of a doubt that one day we could be exporting treatment for some of humankind’s most insidious diseases with a green and gold ‘Made in Australia’ tag on it. While we are justifiably concerned at this playing-God science, fear should not hinder the future development of science. Most people experience apprehension about the future at some time in their life. In the same way fear of uncertainty has plagued science for centuries, but importantly it has not deterred researchers from challenging custom and conviction. The 16th century sparked the scientific revolution, the foundation upon which modern science was built. Science’s greatest minds—Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and Andreas Vesalius who performed some of the earliest medical research on anatomy—were all persecuted at some stage of their lives for their ideas and research. Some great minds of science died in their quest for the discovery of scientific truth. Progression is something which protagonists have had to fight for, in the same way that our modern prodigies of science are fighting for embryonic stem cell research. At every major crossroad of scientific and medical discovery there has been both widespread support and vehement opposition to it. In the 1950s when cardiac surgeon Professor Christian Barnard was toying with the idea of organ transplants and open-heart surgery, his dissidents publicly decried him for playing God by trying to prolong human life through medical and scientific exploration. He went on to become one of the leading heart surgeons in the world and established the foundation for many of the practices of modern medicine. Several months ago I had the privilege of visiting the Queenslanders Donate centre at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and was amazed at the fantastic work it does in the area of organ and tissue transplants. How many lives have been saved by transplants and blood transfusions—practices which were once branded as immoral and unethical that are today commonplace in our hospitals? Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to improve the transplant practices currently used in our hospitals because organs containing the recipient’s own DNA could be created to minimise the risk of organ rejection by the body’s immune system. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3369

In the seventies and eighties people were questioning the ethics involved in genetic engineering and the development of assisted reproductive treatments such as IVF. As many as one in six Australian couples have trouble conceiving a baby. Many of these couples will turn to ART to enable them to experience the joy of having children. I have friends whose children were born of IVF and these children are no less special than a child conceived naturally. Few people today would argue the ethics and morality of IVF, yet rewind back to the early 1980s and that is exactly what was happening. In fact, one dissenter moved a motion in federal parliament suggesting the legal, ethical and moral problems of IVF are so serious, far reaching and so incalculable that it should be banned in Australia. The point I am making is that this is not a new debate. The context differs but the premise stays the same. Historically, the best way to control medical advancement is not by prohibition but regulation. In regulating medical science, we have been able to save and even create lives. Embryonic stem cell research promises to do the same. As arbiters, our job is to set the boundaries for scientific discovery whilst ensuring Queenslanders are not caged in. If we were to persecute the cream of our Smart State by shutting the door to further research in disallowing the very practices which may one day improve the human condition, we will lose these great minds to the states and institutions that will support their endeavours. Dr Barry Marshall, the 2005 Nobel Prize laureate, sees this legislation as a necessity. To borrow his words— We can be 100 per cent certain that if the current legislation stays in place in Australia there will be no more advances in this area and everybody interested in it will go overseas. I note that this year’s joint recipients of the Nobel medicine prize just announced won the honour for their research in gene targeting using embryo stem cells in mice to replicate human disease. This research is going forward and is receiving international acclaim. Here Queensland has the opportunity to be involved in this groundbreaking science. Since 1998 we have seen remarkable advances in medical research thanks to embryonic stem cell research, which is still very much in its own infancy. Adult stem cell research has been carried out for decades and its benefits are irrefutable. However, scientists and medical researchers are telling us about the untapped potential of embryonic stem cell research and its prospects for further developing our understanding of human disease. While adult embryos have helped in the treatment of more than 70 diseases, many scientists agree that much of the future of cellular therapy development lies in embryo stem cells. Embryo stem cells present more opportunities for researchers than adult stem cells because they self-renew at a much higher rate and have greater elasticity, thus further widening the spectrum of diseases which may be treated. The research that has been carried out to date on surplus ART embryos is yielding promising results. However, scientists are very limited in their ability to delve into the minutiae of disease because only healthy cells are created for reproductive purposes. By virtue, excess ART embryos are limited in their ability to unlock the secrets of sickness because the cells are not so affected. Creating flawed cells by means such as SCNT will enable researchers to dissect disease which is where the real benefit of embryonic stem cell research lies. Thus in order for scientists to realise the potential of embryonic stem cell research, they need to be able to create an embryo by means other than the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm to carry out research. This bill sets out the necessary parameters for such activity and to my mind strikes a balance between our moral and ethical obligations to protect the sanctity of life with our desire to help the sick and the vulnerable by improving their chances of remission. We know many health benefits have been born of adult stem cell research. Whilst we do not know what might be achieved through embryonic stem cell research, we should not reject it simply because we are collectively afraid of the unknown. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research should be explored in order to maximise our intelligence on some of the most complex human conditions. This bill is imperative if we are to advance the latter. In a similar vein, this bill is imperative in order to ensure that any research involving embryonic life is carried out ethically and in compliance with the strict legislative safeguards which protect against the misuse of this research privilege. The amendments before the House do not make human embryonic stem cell research easy. Yes, the bill makes some embryonic stem cell research lawful, but it certainly will not open a floodgate. The bill sets down very strict conditions for research and requires all research to be licensed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. As I noted earlier, since the principal legislation was introduced in 2002 only nine licences have ever been issued permitting research involving human embryos. Scientists face an arduous application process under the NHMRC to carry out this unique and sensitive research. If, and only if, they satisfy a raft of conditions will the council and its subsidiary Human Research Ethics Committee issue a provisional licence to enable the use of human embryos. The fact that no new licences have been granted in more than two years is testament to the fact that Australia’s policy on human cloning and embryonic stem cell research does not cultivate a landmine of legal and ethical issues. It is for this reason also that I do not accept the slippery slide argument against progressing embryonic stem cell research. I do not believe that allowing this small concession will spark a downward spiral towards 3370 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 reproductive cloning. It is quite clear that this form of cloning is grossly unacceptable and abhorred in Queensland, Australia and internationally. It would require a colossal attitudinal shift for such practices to be accepted in Australia, which I believe is completely unrealistic and unattainable. The community’s repugnance of human cloning will ensure that it is never decriminalised in Queensland. As I said, this bill and its principal legislation set the necessary boundaries. They codify the practices that we, as representatives of four million Queenslanders, believe should be sanctioned and those which should continue to be unlawful. We need a policy framework that will advance this type of research within limits. Today’s editorial in the Courier-Mail puts forward an excellent point—

... Were research involving therapeutic cloning interstate or overseas to produce a medical breakthrough, would you also oppose the adoption of potentially life-saving treatment because of ethical concerns about the research that preceded it? Faced with a life-or-death situation, I submit there would be few people who would turn down life- saving treatment for them or their families because of ethical concerns. As I outlined earlier, the same ethical arguments shrouded organ transplants, blood transfusions and IVF when these procedures were in their spawning stages. However, I recognise that some people opt against such treatment. The same should apply to treatments born of embryonic stem cell research. In closing, I would like to reflect on some of the correspondence that I have received in the time that I have been researching and contemplating this bill. Both the advocates and the antagonists of human embryo research have provided an insight into the debate, for which I am thankful. However, I took exception to some of the comments that I received by those who were totally opposed to this bill. The fervour of some of the arguments against it tended to undermine those people’s position. In much of the argument the implication was that those in favour of this kind of research under strict restraints are somehow less than ethical, or even immoral. I do not think it is appropriate to be casting judgements such as, ‘We don’t see things as they are; we see things as “we” are.’ Each and every one of us is entitled to our opinion based on our own personal experience, research, hopes and beliefs. While I, too, share some apprehensions about this kind of research, I believe that humanity has a higher duty to alleviate human suffering. For me, there is no distinguishable moral high ground. Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and cancer: these conditions affect many lives. They have affected my own life and those of my family members as well. I had an uncle—my father’s brother in Holland—and I remember clearly as a child growing up that we would visit him. He had multiple sclerosis. As a child you are not very aware of what these diseases are. I now remember that he went through a slow, progressive disease that started with him being on sticks, then in a walking frame, then in a wheelchair and finally he was confined to bed and died far younger than he should have. I remember his family trying all sorts of alternative treatments—buckwheat therapies and dietary therapies. The type of therapy referred to in this bill that we are debating may give hope to people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. That is one case. As the member for Mudgeeraba is very aware, I have a brother-in-law who is about four kilometres away from here at Toowong and who has motor neurone disease. He is about 54 years old and it has destroyed his family. My brother-in-law has had this terrible condition since the year 2000. He now weighs 35 kilos and is completely bedridden requiring 24-hour nursing and he has two daughters of a similar age to mine. It is just a terrible disease. This research gives some sort of hope to people who suffer from disorders like motor neurone disease—maybe not for the people who are suffering now but for the people who may suffer in the future. That is why we do not just say that charities are raising money; hopefully they will provide some sort of treatment for these conditions in the future. We are raising money for all the people who suffer these conditions when we go and support them as members of parliament so that hopefully we can get some sort of cure for these conditions. That is what this legislation is about. Living with these conditions, which not only kills the body but also a person’s spirit, is incredibly difficult. Knowing that the cures may be out there but remain undiscovered is excruciating. Their doctors remain hopeful, and so do I. That is why, despite some ethical apprehensions that I harbour about this legislation, I will support this bill. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (3.23 pm): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I would like to start my comments by congratulating the previous speaker on what I think was an incredibly well-researched, thoughtful consideration of a very difficult and complex topic. It is a complex matter, but my reasons for supporting this bill are very simple. This bill, and the research that it will facilitate, has the potential to cure serious, life-debilitating diseases. It has the potential to save lives. It is based on the work of independent experts representing fields such as law, science, medicine and ethics. It brings Queensland into line with the Commonwealth of Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. It will offer a significant boost to our universities and medical researchers here in Queensland and it will enhance our reputation as the Smart State of Australia. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3371

This legislation gives effect to a commitment that Queensland made at the Council of Australian Governments meeting of 13 April 2007 along with the other states and the Australian Capital Territory. That commitment was to introduce legislation into our respective parliaments to maintain a national approach to human embryo research and cloning. New South Wales and Victoria have already recently passed legislation giving effect to their COAG commitments. The amendments in this bill mirror those contained in the Commonwealth’s Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002, which commenced on 12 June this year. That legislation arose out of a public review of the Commonwealth legislation chaired by former Federal Court Justice, the late Honourable John Lockhart. The review was informed by a committee of experienced individuals with expertise in law, science, medicine and ethics. The Queensland government was an active participant during all stages of that process. I appreciate that some of the amendments contained in this bill cause concern for some members and I will address those in due course. However, firstly I would like to comment on the importance of stem cell research. The opportunities afforded by stem cell research cannot be underestimated or overstated. It offers the possibility of advancement in medical treatments for a range of degenerative diseases and acquired tissue injuries. Any new treatments discovered through stem cell research will have the potential to significantly improve the lives of millions of people, including thousands of Queenslanders. Stem cell research provides scientists with the opportunity to understand how cells differentiate and transform into specialised cells, thereby giving them greater insights into how diseases occur. Therefore, the creation of embryonic stem cells with specific targeted diseases will assist scientists to obtain a better understanding of diseased cells and may also lead to the identification of drugs and treatments for diseases. There is also the real possibility that in the future stem cell research will enable scientists to create cells and tissues to replace or regenerate tissues that are either diseased or have been destroyed. That leaves open the possibility—the very real possibility—of cures for diseases and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, paraplegia and quadriplegia, multiple sclerosis and other neural disorders. It also leaves open the possibility of creating embryonic stem cell lines to generate patient-matched stem cells for research and developing specific cellular therapies to overcome problems such as tissue rejection. This bill paves the way for increased stem cell research effort by lifting existing prohibitions on certain research activities. The most controversial of these is somatic cell nuclear transfer through which embryo clones are created so that the embryonic stem cells can be derived from them for use in further research. This process is commonly referred to as therapeutic cloning. I note that much of the concern relating to this process centres on the fact that it effectively results in the destruction of these embryos as they are left in a state from which they can no longer develop. In considering the ethical issues relating to somatic cell nuclear transfer, I think it is useful to note the distinction made by the Lockhart review committee between embryos that are created through somatic cell nuclear transfer and those embryos that are created by couples for the purposes of assisted reproductive technology whereby a human egg is fertilised by human sperm. In the view of the independent experts who formed the Lockhart review committee, embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer are akin to an extension of the person from whom the cell is taken. This is because the resulting embryo’s DNA is the DNA of the donor of the somatic cell. In contrast, embryos created using assisted reproductive technology have a mixture of DNA from the mother and the father, or the donated egg and sperm. The committee also drew a clear ethical distinction between the differing purposes for which somatic nuclear cell transfer embryos and assisted reproductive technology embryos are created. The aim of somatic cell nuclear transfer is to derive embryonic stem cells for research and, possibly in the future, therapeutic treatments. In stark contrast, embryos created by the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm are created for the purpose of having a baby. Only when this purpose has been achieved can excess embryos then be used for research and only with the proper consent of the parents. Further, the committee noted that the production and destruction of embryos created through somatic nuclear cell transfer is not dissimilar to the production and destruction of excess assisted reproductive technology embryos, a process which is currently permitted by the legislation and which in the view of the Lockhart committee—and I agree with them on this assessment—is widely accepted by the broader community. For these reasons, the committee recommended that somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning, be allowed. It was on that basis, that recommendation, that the Prime Minister agreed that a bill would be brought into the Commonwealth parliament to consider this matter again. The introduction of this bill has generated some public debate and a certain amount of confusion about what this bill represents. Let me dispel some of the myths. This bill comprehensively does not represent open season on all forms of research involving human embryos, nor does it represent open season on ethics and morals. Some very important existing prohibitions on a range of activities will remain in place with this legislation, and they include the following. 3372 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

A prohibition will exist on placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal. Creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm for a purpose other than achieving a pregnancy in a woman will be prohibited. Creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm which contains genetic material provided by more than two persons will be prohibited. Similarly, making heritable alterations to a human genome will be prohibited. Collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman for research will be prohibited. Creating or developing a human embryo into which the cell of an animal has been introduced will similarly be prohibited. Placing a human embryo into an animal or into the body of a human in an area other than the female reproductive tract or placing an animal embryo into a human will be prohibited by this legislation, as I believe it should be. There is, however, a prohibition in the existing legislation that will be lifted by the bill that is before the House. This goes to the matter raised by the member for Southern Downs in a recent media article. The member for Southern Downs drew attention to the fact that the bill will be lifting an existing prohibition on a process that allows for a human sperm to be used to penetrate an animal egg for the purpose of sperm viability testing. What the member for Southern Downs did not alert the public to in the article that he wrote was that this is a practice that has been commonly used in IVF in Australia for decades. It is a practice that is commonly used in the United States of America. It has been used for decades and it is still used. This is a practice that is used in every other state of Australia. The implication in the article that was published this week was that this bill will be somehow facilitating some new and bizarre thing in relation to animal eggs and human sperm. This is a completely false assertion and implication and, in my view, it is very mischievous and does not in any way contribute to a sensible and careful debate on this matter. Effectively, this provision of the bill that is before the House—and we do need to be honest about it—will re-allow a practice that was prohibited by the act that was passed by this parliament a number of years ago. But this does not make it a new thing. The fact that we are re-allowing it does not make it a new activity, nor does it break new grounds in science in any way, shape or form. For those who are not scientists and those who have not got an intimate knowledge of how IVF is practised and how IVF science works, it is probably a revelation, but the reality is that it is a practice that is standard and common in IVF and has been for decades, and it is practised in many countries around the world. So I think it is important to put that one to bed. It is important to note that the provisions of the bill include a number of safeguards. Research activities permitted under this bill will only be able to be undertaken under a licence approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee. There are also a number of offence provisions in the bill that carry significant penalties. I join with the member for Surfers Paradise in acknowledging that there is nothing in this bill that allows someone with a basic science degree to walk out of here and start doing embryonic stem cell research. This bill actually provides some very, very firm safeguards and restricted licensing to put a very safe framework around this practice. This bill also ensures that those practices that are completely prohibited will attract penalties further to those that were in the bill that was considered previously by the parliament. In fact, the maximum penalty has been increased from 10 years to 15 years imprisonment, so it is by no means a light matter. These practices will include placing a human embryo clone in a human body or the body of an animal, and developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days. Practices that are prohibited unless authorised by a licence will attract maximum penalties of 10 years imprisonment. I think it is important to remind the House of the practical considerations of not passing the proposed amendments. Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that when a law of a state is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth the Commonwealth law will prevail and the state law will, to the extent of any consistency, be invalid. Therefore, the practical consequences of not passing this bill are that any provisions in the existing Queensland act that are inconsistent with the Commonwealth acts will be inoperative. This means that those activities that are currently banned in Queensland will still be able to be carried out in Queensland if the person has been issued with the appropriate licence by the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee under the Commonwealth legislation. Further, the offence provisions of the Queensland act for those research activities would not apply, as a prosecution based on the Queensland act would impair or detract from the operation of the Commonwealth acts. I think it is important that people understand that voting against this bill will not eliminate or prohibit this practice in Queensland research institutions. The Commonwealth legislation specifically allows this practice to occur in Queensland in those research facilities over which the Commonwealth law prevails. The Commonwealth amendments allow research companies that are incorporated and operating across Australia—that is, beyond one boundary of a state—to undertake previously prohibited human embryo research. However, it is less certain whether smaller and private researchers, such as individual scientists and researchers at our universities, are covered by the Commonwealth legislation. That is why there was an agreement at COAG for states to bring in mirror legislation to remove any uncertainty in relation to these other categories of researchers. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3373

Recently, High Court opinion on the interpretation of the Constitution’s external affairs power has suggested that the Commonwealth legislation indeed may cover some of these smaller researchers. However, it is untested. It is again for that reason that COAG moved to remove any uncertainty. The bill will ensure that companies operating only in Queensland and independent researchers in smaller organisations can undertake all embryo research in Queensland that is allowed under Commonwealth law for other organisations. In broadening the range of research activities that can be carried out under licences issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Embryo Research Licensing Committee, this bill represents a significant opportunity for Queensland to attract scientists here, to further grow our medical research sector and to lead the world in biomedical research. I do not think, however, we can speak on a bill like this without going to the fact that it is a conscience vote in the House, and that is an unusual event in this parliament. This bill attracts a conscience vote because it is recognised by all sides that it does go to moral issues. Those moral issues are ones about which I hope every single member of the House has carefully and accurately considered the contents of the bill and exercised their conscience. I, like others, reject the notion that a respect for the sanctity of life and a respect for the dignity of human life resides only on one side of this argument. Regardless of how members exercise their conscience, I do not believe we can consider this bill without a respect for human life. I have exercised my conscience very carefully on this bill and my conscience will act in favour of those who are living with terrible life-debilitating diseases. I respect the dignity of their life and the sanctity of their life and the families who are living with their pain and the families who are supporting them through it. I have asked myself exactly the question outlined in this morning’s editorial of the Courier-Mail and repeated here by the member for Surfers Paradise, because some time ago I heard it put by a scientist. It is important that we ask ourselves this question. It is a question that I think most people in the debate would find very hard to answer honestly in the negative. That question is this: if a scientist in another part of Australia or another part of the world develops a cure for multiple sclerosis using embryonic stem cell research, would we deny that cure to someone in a Queensland hospital? I put it to members that no side of politics would even contemplate denying such a thing. Equally, I put it to members that no organised religion of conscience would want us to deny such a thing. I ask every member to consider that question, because I think it forms a very significant part of this debate. I acknowledge that nothing in this bill will guarantee a cure for any disease. That is a matter for science to work through. What we are doing is trying to give them the ability to do that. However, if this bill fails to pass I can guarantee that we have closed the door on this possibility for a number of very talented and very significant scientific researchers in this state. Can members imagine if the world missed out on a chance for a cure to any number of these diseases or if a small Queensland research organisation missed out on the chance to lead the world in developing such a cure just because we failed in our duty to pass this bill. Queensland may well be home to the one scientist who makes the one breakthrough that makes the difference. I do not know if they are here—nobody does—but I am not going to be the one who closes the door on that possibility. I commend other speakers to consider some of these points. I look forward to hearing a well thought through and considered debate. It is important that we conduct ourselves in a careful and thoughtful way. I have been very pleased to note that the lead-up to this debate has been characterised by a great deal of political maturity. I am unaware of any members being put under any unreasonable political pressure. I think there has been a very important recognition of the importance of a conscience vote and the importance of individuals exercising their conscience on what is a moral issue. For those reasons, I support the bill. I am very hopeful that the majority of this parliament will equally support the bill because I honestly believe that it will be a very sad day if we fail. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (3.42 pm): I rise to contribute to the consideration of the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007. I endorse the remarks made by the opposition health spokesman and my colleague, the member for Surfers Paradise. I congratulate him on the address that he made to this parliament. In the years that I have been in this parliament, I cannot remember an address that was more impressive or more intellectually rigorous. On behalf of all members who heard the member for Surfers Paradise speak this afternoon, I put on record my admiration and congratulations. My approach will be much more of a layman’s approach. From a layman’s point of view, the intent of the legislation is to help people. It is about giving people hope where there is no hope. It is about making life better for people in the future. Helping people, giving people hope, making life better: those are the reasons I entered public life in the first place. That is why I do this job. I do not do it because I have to or because I enjoy the public attention. I believe that collectively, all of us, using the democratic processes of this parliament, should be able to improve the life of the people in Queensland whom we represent. This legislation is about giving people hope that one day we may be able to cure some of the debilitating diseases that afflict Queenslanders today. Diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal injuries afflict too many of the people whom I come here to represent. Those diseases afflict 3374 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 people who are my friends and others who are close to me and my family. I know that they live in hope that treatments will one day be available, if not for them then for others who will similarly be afflicted in the future. My father-in-law has dealt with diabetes for most of his life. A mate who stood beside me when I got married 30 years ago has dealt with diabetes all his life. His 21-year-old son faces the same prospect, as does the daughter of another close friend. I have an uncle who is well recognised as one of the toughest men in central Queensland and who is now crippled by Parkinson’s disease. My son’s best mate is wheelchair bound with a spinal injury. Those friends and loved ones give me a very personal motivation to support the bill. I stand here today to represent them. I will vote today to give hope to Brian, Peter, Cameron, Melissa, Uncle Chilla, Rowan and all the others who are similarly afflicted. The desire to help people has to be balanced against the ethical issues raised by the rapidly developing technologies regulated by this bill. Those technologies will continue to be developed and they are going to continue to raise ethical issues. Shutting our minds to them in Queensland will not prevent their development in other places. Medical research has always created controversy. It has always raised ethical issues and it has often met moral resistance. In centuries past, those who dared to dissect human bodies to understand how they worked had to do it in secret lest they be imprisoned for doing the devil’s work. In more recent times, there have been moral and ethical debates about blood transfusion treatments and organ transplants that are considered routine today and that have saved thousands of lives, yet it is not hard to find vestiges of the resistance that they had to overcome. I can well remember the controversy about IVF treatments and the moral debate about the so- called test-tube babies, because I was old enough to participate in that debate. Today, over 8,000 Australians owe their lives to that technology and so many families have had their lives enriched by IVF and ART. The ethical arguments that were mounted against those technologies seem so irrelevant now and so I believe it will be with stem cell technology. I believe that one day stem cell technology will produce results that will lead our children’s children to wonder why its development was resisted in the first place. Whether or not this technology produces the results that we hope for, it is essential that we continue to push the boundaries of medical research so that some day some medical research will produce the technology that will produce those results. Also, I have a very personal motivation for supporting medical research. Medical research that was considered groundbreaking and somewhat controversial back in the 1950s made it possible for me to be here today. Our family was afflicted with an inheritable disorder that in the early 1950s caused newborn children to die within a couple of days of birth. My mother was voluntarily part of a then controversial medical research program that sought to develop a treatment for that disorder. She lost her first two children before that research program was able to develop a treatment that is now considered routine. Therefore, it is difficult for me to accept arguments against medical research involving cells or groups of cells when women like my mother bore three children before me, two of whom did not survive. A controversial medical research program made it possible for me, my brother, my two sisters and seven grandchildren from the next generation of our family to be alive today. That is the background against which I have to consider this bill. There is no doubt that this bill has been and will remain controversial. The ethical and moral controversy surrounding this legislation centres on one essential question that we must all answer individually according to our own beliefs. That question is what status should we assign to embryos formed by the processes licensed under this bill? These are microscopic groups of cells that form over five to seven days after the nucleus of an egg cell has been artificially substituted with another nucleus. The legislation restricts the period of cell division to 14 days with penalties of 15 years jail for any breach, but it is usually after five to seven days that the stem cells are removed from the microscopic group of cells and grown in a culture. The ethical question relates to the status of the group of cells that develop and divide over that period of five to seven days. Does that group of cells constitute human life? Does that group of cells possess a human spirit? And does that group of cells constitute a human soul? To form an opinion about that, we all must answer this question: when in our physical development does a new human spirit come into existence? In a spiritual sense, when and how is a new human soul created? For as long as mankind has been able to think and reason, this question has created moral controversy and debate. It has resulted in very emotive debates among all the major religions of the world and the accepted positions that those major religions have held have changed markedly through time as man’s understanding of the physical processes has changed and increased. It is a question that I believe has no definitive or provable answer. It is a question that each of us must answer according to our own beliefs, and how each of us as individuals address that essential issue will in the main determine how we view this legislation. Many people who are opposed to this legislation, in addressing this question and indeed on determining a position in this debate, will be 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3375 guided by their religious views and the positions advocated by their religious leaders, and I very much respect those views. However, I do not believe that this is simply a religious question, and a position on this legislation cannot and should not be determined according to whether or not we have a religious belief. Many arguments mounted against this legislation oppose it on the basis that the processes necessary to produce embryonic stem cells involve the creation of human life which then must be destroyed when the stem cells are isolated. While I understand and respect that point of view, I cannot accept or agree with it. For me personally it is too simplistic an approach, and the question of what is human life requires much deeper analysis than that. I do not accept the argument that substituting the nucleus in an egg cell and artificially causing it to begin cell division without any intent to do so creates human life. I cannot accept that cell division itself constitutes human life. I believe there is much more to creating human life than involuntary cell division. I cannot accept that a new human soul is created immediately cell division begins, wherever it begins, and no matter why it begins. I believe creating a new human spirit—a new soul—is much more complex than that and certainly requires some degree of intent. I believe in both the physical sense and the spiritual sense that the process licensed by this legislation and undertaken with the express intent of producing stem cells is not creating human life. I believe that in both the physical sense and the spiritual sense there is much more required to create a new human spirit—a new human soul—than the process undertaken to produce stem cells. In a physical sense it is only one small step in a very long and complex process towards the creation of human life. I believe that new human life, both physically and spiritually, is created by a whole process of development and not at a single point in time in that development. If there was a single point in time it would have been identified and agreed upon years ago. But there are still creditable arguments mounted that have it that life begins at conception or it begins at the point of implantation in the womb or it begins when the embryo becomes a foetus at 14 weeks or even that it begins at the point of independent survival. Whatever we believe in that regard, it is no more or less right or wrong than what someone else believes, and we should all be very careful that we show appropriate respect for each other’s views and the right we all have to answer that vexed question within the confines of our own consciences. I have answered that question in my own mind and I believe that this legislation is deserving of support. It provides the necessary regulatory framework for the research that I believe is essential while at the same time providing stringent safeguards against any attempt towards reproductive cloning or inappropriately advancing the process that I believe is necessary to create new human life. This bill will fulfil Queensland’s commitment to a 2002 agreement for nationally consistent legislation to regulate human embryo research and prohibit human cloning. It mirrors similar legislation that has already been passed into law at a federal level and by all the other states. For Queensland not to pass similar legislation would ensure that our medical research programs and talented researchers would very quickly relocate to other states. It is important to understand that this bill is as much about prohibiting human cloning as it is about regulating research using human embryonic stem cells. However, there is no doubt that it is the latter issue that has caused controversy in every other parliament where this issue has been addressed. The bill imposes very heavy penalties, in most cases involving 15 years imprisonment, for any attempt at reproductive cloning or any attempt to develop an embryo artificially for any more than 14 days. The bill also makes it an offence to engage in any commercial trading in human sperm, human eggs or human embryos. I do not believe that there is any difference of opinion in this parliament or in the community about the appropriateness of these measures. The controversial part of this bill is the research activities that it sets out to regulate. The member for Surfers Paradise went through them in some detail. In summary, the bill enables a number of research activities subject to the activity being licensed by the National Health and Medical Research Council Embryo Research Licensing Committee. This bill will enable licences to be issued to control activities involving human embryos formed other than by fertilisation of the human egg by human sperm and use for research of such embryos for limited periods. It will allow human embryos formed by a process other than by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm containing genetic material provided by more than two persons and the use of such embryos, and it will control activities involving human embryos formed using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus and the use of such embryos. Under the bill, licences may only authorise the development of embryos up to 14 days. In no circumstances under the provisions of this bill can any embryo be developed beyond 14 days. The bill will also regulate two processes to allow research and testing associated with artificial reproductive technology, or ART, rather than the production of stem cells. Those two processes are the research and training involving the fertilisation of a human egg up to but not including the first mitotic division for the purposes of research and training and forming of a hybrid embryo by the fertilisation of an animal egg by human sperm and developing the embryos up to but not including the first mitotic division provided that the creation is for the purposes of testing sperm quality and will occur in an accredited artificial 3376 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 reproductive technology centre. It is important to understand that in both cases the process is about assisting the ART process, and developing the embryo past the first mitotic division, or about a day old, is expressly forbidden with harsh penalties of 10 years imprisonment. Those safeguards of 10- and 15- year prison sentences cannot be lightly dismissed. I believe that stem cell technology offers exciting opportunities for the future. There have been copious amounts of material supplied to us as parliamentarians that have enabled all of us to fully understand the technologies and the potential treatments that are emerging. My colleague the member for Surfers Paradise and shadow minister for health discussed a lot of the detail in his contribution. I believe that it is essential that the broader community is well informed about this whole issue to ensure that some of the misinformation that unfortunately is also part of the public debate is not used in scare campaigns. I understand and respect that there will be people who cannot address the moral and ethical issues involved in this legislation and cannot accept it. My only concern is that people, both within this parliament and the general community, are well informed and that they are able to make up their own minds based on the facts. Finally, I want to say that this is an issue that always should be considered by a conscience vote here in the parliament. I hope that all members of the parliament will be well informed and will vote according to their conscience. I believe that no-one should be compelled by the beliefs of others to support this legislation, just as no-one should be compelled to be involved in the research it regulates and no-one should be compelled to undergo the therapies and treatments that will eventuate from that research. Equally, I believe no-one should be denied by the beliefs of others the hope that this research can bring and no-one should be denied by the beliefs of others the therapies and the treatments that will eventuate from that research. I will support the bill. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (3.58 pm): At the outset I compliment the three previous speakers for their excellent research. I note that the member for Callide said that he was taking a layman’s view at the outset but I think that it was a pretty in-depth layman’s view that was very well researched. I compliment the three previous speakers in what has been, I think, an excellent and very hard to beat performance in dealing with what is a most controversial issue out there in the community. At the outset I say that I intend to support the agreement that our government made with COAG in April this year. In doing so, I have exercised my conscience very greatly on this issue, as indeed on others. I, too, have a personal issue in terms of disability in my family: a father who has had diabetes since the age of 28 that has caused degenerative disease in him over his lengthy life and eventually will lead to his death. The reality is that that is one side of the personal issue that guides me down a path of support for this bill. But the overwhelming one is the position that one takes if one is to close the door on this research. If one closes the door on research such as this, one has to ask: what next? What is wrong with research that has had the ruler of ethics, law and medicine run across it by way of the Lockhart committee? What is wrong with research that has the potential to unlock the mysteries of debilitating diseases and cure them in our society? Like the member for Callide, I, too, remember the debate of test- tube babies. I well recall the posters around at the time that showed deformities in children and so on as a result of that process. Today, the debate has changed. I listened to the John Laws program the other day and they were talking about the ethics of lesbians having babies through the IVF project. Everybody takes for granted that the IVF process is a part and parcel of life. Every single caller who rang that program supported IVF. That was not the case some years ago. I do understand that anything that is new, that has not hit the deck before in terms of research, is likely to arouse suspicion in the community generally. But I have to say that from talking to many constituents from a wide variety of backgrounds—people involved in medicine and law, and people who have very strong religious views—I have formed the view that the majority of people in my electorate support my view on this. That is, if one wants to turn their back on research of this nature, we have to put up our hands and surrender to the fact that we will never develop new cures. As the Premier outlined, I am not convinced necessarily that this will lead to the answer or to the solution. Nobody knows that, despite all the people who deride this. They cannot say with any great certainty that it will not, any more than I can say with certainty that it will. That is the reality of this issue. People have not gone down this path of research just for the fun of it. It is a genuine attempt by well- qualified scientists underpinned by ethical practice to solve problems like diabetes. I know of a person with three little children who at the age of 40 has been diagnosed with MS. Her outcome is going to be dreadful. Could I stand in front of her tomorrow and say: ‘I am confident that the research into therapeutic stem cells will not yield you an outcome’? I could not look her in the eye and tell her that. I could not honestly, as an elected person charged with the responsibility of either supporting or not supporting this legislation, look her in the eye and say, ‘It is a load of nonsense. Rule it out; it is never going to help you.’ But that is what some people would like me to do. I cannot do that because I am not convinced that is the case at all. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3377

My conscience, like the Premier’s, is guided by staring into the eyes of somebody such as that who is feeling real pain, who is facing the real tragedy of not being able to bring up her children and the real tragedy of science never unlocking the mystery of what caused her to have what she has, why her number was the unlucky one that came out of the barrel and why it is that as yet we have not found a solution to that problem. I have no doubt that one day we will. If we go back in time there are plenty of diseases for which it was thought there would never, ever be a cure and the research occurred by absolute good luck or just plain mistake, I guess. The point that needs to be made is that, if we as a state say that this is not going to happen in Queensland, if we say that we are not prepared to pass this bill and we effectively leave it to the Commonwealth, how much does it change the outcome? Will it put an end to what people appear to be concerned about in this debate? The answer is no, and we have already heard the Premier outline the reasons why the Commonwealth legislation will override the state legislation. What it will do, however, is deny the smaller organisations an opportunity to participate in it. I guess at the end of the day we could live with that if we had to, but I do not think we should have to live with that. I do not think the small research firms in Queensland should be seen as second best in that regard. As a result of that, I think passing this legislation and providing the opportunity to smaller firms that exists for bigger corporations is a good enough reason to do it, if for no other. I am one of those people who take a very strong view about research on animals. It is very cruel in a lot of circumstances. As someone who loves animals, I get quite upset at the torture that animals are put through in the hope of finding cures. I live with that because I think we are the superior beings and something that comes out of that research might well find, as it has in the past, a cure for disease. But when confronted with stem cell research and animal research I know where the cruelty lies. I know where the pain is felt. I know where all of those issues that ought to concern people about the welfare of animals should lie. I have to say that the pain inflicted on the animal that everyone takes for granted is a real concern to me and it ought to be a concern to everybody. From that aspect, I think it is a far harsher research than what we are discussing here today. I know that people of religious fervour will say that animals lack a soul and all the rest of it, and I understand that argument. Nevertheless, animals feel pain and I am yet to be convinced that stem cells feel pain as part of this process. What we are proposing here today is the prohibition of some things, which I have to say have been wildly asserted by some members of the community as a result of misinformation and so on. I heard somebody say that this would result in us cloning animals with people when this is absolutely prohibited under this legislation. I do not think it is helpful for anybody to be promulgating that as a process. Nobody in their right mind would be supportive of that process in any shape or form. I think the Leader of the Opposition said before that there is nobody more right or wrong on this issue, and that is true. A conscience vote enables us to have the luxury, I suppose, of considering in isolation basically what our conscience tells us to do. I honestly believe that as a result of this bill being passed we are giving the best opportunity we can to learned and ethical scientists to provide a way forward for research into some of the most debilitating diseases that continue to confront our society. As with the Premier, I believe that human life is just as important as those who want to talk about when life actually begins. In my humble view, it is more important to try to find something that eases pain and suffering in human beings through research and, in this particular case, by stem cell research. I think it is far worth the contemplation of what life you may be destroying to do it, if people want to take that point of view. I cannot help but think that in 20 or 30 years time people will sit in this parliament and wonder what this debate was really about and why all the kerfuffle. I think that, given that in New South Wales they will be able to do the research and in Victoria they will be able to do the research, to somehow say that in Queensland we are not good enough to do that research, we are not ethical enough or we are not interested enough in finding cures for people is not an argument that has any sustainability. Simply shutting down the research facilities in Queensland and shifting them to New South Wales or Victoria is not a progressive thought. It is not going to yield one iota of difference. I heard the scientist make the point a few months ago—I see it was in the Courier-Mail and others have reiterated it today—and I think it is the most telling in terms of my conscience. It is a bit like the story I told before of standing in front of the person with MS and saying, ‘I am going to deny somebody the right to try to find you a cure.’ My conscience will not allow me to do that. More importantly, at the end of the day when somebody uses this technology and finds a cure to something who amongst us will stand in their way and say, ‘Not here. Not for this person. Not in Queensland. Not for this citizen of this state because we as a state do not believe that the process by which this cure was obtained is a proper, appropriate and ethical.’ That is the main argument I have used with myself over and over. I cannot in all conscience or in all honesty say that, if I were confronted with the situation to let somebody go away and make the hard decisions, to do the research and come back and I reap the rewards of that research, I would not let them do that as I do not believe that to be an ethical position for me to take. I think that would be an abrogation of my responsibility as an elected member. 3378 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

The technology exists for it to occur. Technology exists for people to do the wrong thing on a whole host of research projects. They have done that all over the world. They will continue to do that. We can go back to Hitler Germany and all the stuff he tried to do. If there is a madman in the world who wants to misuse all the technology and research, well so be it; they will do that. But we are not dealing with that in this Queensland set of circumstances. We are not dealing with this issue with gay abandon. We are tightening the regime to make sure that it is watertight and that it carries penalties like 10 years jail for people who do the wrong thing. As others have said, this is a conscience vote and none of my comments ought to be misread by people who take a different view to me that I am belittling their view or their attitude or their intelligence or anything else. It is not like that at all. Conscience votes, as the three previous speakers have said, are about people’s own conscience. There is only one person who can master their own conscience and that is oneself. I am comfortable having listened to all sides of the argument and I am comfortable having read everything I can on this subject that I understand it sufficiently well enough to make the judgement that I have. I urge every member of this parliament if they have not already done so to apply their conscience to this matter. At the end of the day, we all have to look in the mirror and sleep at night. I will sleep soundly. I will be able to look in the mirror tonight and look back at somebody who I believe has acted honestly and with integrity in supporting this bill. I ask others to do the same. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (4.14 pm): I rise to strongly support the bill before the House. I want to make a brief contribution. At the time that this matter was last debated—that is, the debate on the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2003—I was well aware that a three-year time frame was identified as a review period for the examination of the issues that we are discussing today and are contained within this bill. In 2003 I held the same view that I hold today. As a long time oncology nurse I understand the complexities of cell physiology that underpin the issues of stem cell research to a significant degree and am comfortable with my decision to support the bill with that knowledge. As a long time nurse I am committed to the progression of scientific research that advances improved quality of life for all people, disease prevention and disease treatment. I will support this legislation as it allows those advances to take place within the legislative parameters identified at this time. I feel that the pace of protective legislation is sufficient to allow ordinary people in our society the chance to digest the information and to be comfortable with the science. I do not support the view that human embryonic stem cells constitute human life. Beyond that, it is my view that the determination of that humanity is a matter for the producer of the eggs, embryo or foetus and that is a woman—the woman who creates the eggs and carries the pregnancy, whatever the stage of its development up to and prior to the point of recognition of the birth of a child as determined in legislation in Queensland. This bill does not define human life but simply identifies the parameters of research allowable at this time within the research trajectory. I strongly support Queensland being at the forefront of this research because I am confident that our medical scientists have strong ethical frameworks that are well defined and well adhered to. It is smart for our future prosperity at both a scientific and personal level. I acknowledge that not all of my constituents agree with me, but I am at all opportunities honest about my strong views on this subject whenever I am asked and in this place today. On a personal note, I really appreciate the support of those colleagues who might have a differing opinion to me but respect my position. Finally, I would like to dedicate my vote today to patient of mine who I cared for in an aged-care facility. The gentleman was suffering from motor neurone disease and he had sought to suffocate himself by tieing a plastic bag around his neck. When I found him and tore the bag from his face I do not know who cried more. But I know that when I sat with him in the hours following his suicide attempt I assured him that one day science would find a cure for those people who suffered from motor neurone disease. I believe it will. This bill continues that journey and I support the bill. Mrs LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (4.17 pm): The modern political process generally operates on the basis of collective decision making. This model assumes that the business of governing involves many and varied issues and that in order for there to be effective decision making it is better to adopt a majority position on nearly all issues. This majority decision is made in the party room prior to any vote taken in parliament. Mostly members of a political party will have similar views on the issues which are confronted. After all, it is a belief in an understood set of values and beliefs which draws people into a political party in the first place. But on occasion it is possible an individual view may differ from the majority view. This is a fact of life. There are various avenues by which different views can be pursued. But ultimately in most cases an individual will accept a majority view on one issue knowing in another case it may be their own view which is shared by the majority but possibly not everybody else in the party. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3379

Accordingly, an untied vote is generally reserved for issues of a nature which invoke deeply personal views which can go to the basic philosophical and spiritual beliefs of the individual. In these cases it is considered that each individual must be fully free to decide upon an issue according to their own conscience. This bill is one of those occasions. Let me say from the outset that I will be supporting this bill. I do so knowing that many members of this House from all sides of the chamber will not support the bill and they will have reached their decision for very genuine and heartfelt reasons. I too have reached my decision after considering all of the issues and support the bill for genuine and heartfelt reasons. I certainly respect those who hold contrary views to my own, be they members of parliament or members of my own community, and hope that those who do not agree with my decision can respect my decision. At the most basic level, the reason I support this bill is that it offers hope to improve the health and wellbeing of many people who are suffering from acute and debilitating illnesses. While I truly appreciate that the ends do not justify the means, in this case I am convinced that the means—namely, a robust process of scientific research within a well-defined and comprehensive ethical framework—is entirely a valid and worthwhile process to seek possible great benefit for millions of people around the world. The bill before the House does essentially two things. Firstly, it renews the decision taken by this House and parliaments around Australia to permit research into embryonic stem cells as embodied in the principal act. Secondly, the bill enacts the recommendations of the Lockhart review and replicates the provisions of the federal legislation. In doing this, the bill proposes that Queensland will be part of a nationally consistent regulatory regime for human embryo research. Let me dwell on this point for a moment. The federal parliament has already enacted provisions which permit from a national perspective the measures which this bill proposes to apply for Queensland. In fact, this bill reflects a commitment from 2002 and reaffirmed in 2007 for all Australian governments to adopt nationally consistent laws to prohibit human cloning for reproduction and to regulate human embryo research. As the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the effect of the national legislation means that Queensland cannot adopt a position which is inconsistent with federal laws and believe that its position can limit activity authorised by the federal law. This is of course because of the operation of section 109 of the Australian Constitution. Further, it makes good sense that Australia would have a uniform legislative regime for this very sensitive area. That said, I do not make my argument in favour of the bill simply because it is part of a nationally agreed scheme or to avoid legal complications or to uphold constitutional niceties. The subject matter deserves a genuine and fresh consideration of the issues by this House independent of the position adopted elsewhere in the country. In forming my view that this bill should be supported, I have listened to the views of advocates— those who reject the provisions of this bill and those who support it. In particular, I took the opportunity to organise two briefing sessions for fellow members on the bill. The first was from representatives of the Women’s Forum of Australia, WFA, and the second was from Professor Melissa Little, Chief Scientist of the Australian Stem Cell Research Centre. The aspect of the bill which I particularly sought clarification on was the impact on women and their health through the securing of ova for research purposes. It has been argued before the Senate committee, which considered the federal bill, and more broadly that the use of donated human eggs for research in the terms proposed by the bill would cause potential risks for the women involved and that commodification of eggs could occur. I listened carefully to these arguments. But based on the advice from Professor Little and having regard to the reasoning advanced by the Lockhart review and the submissions to the Senate committee inquiry, I am of the view that somatic cell nuclear transfer, known as SCNT, should be permitted under the strict terms prescribed by the bill and under the strict oversight and licensing requirements of the NHMRC. WFA argues that it would be impossible to obtain near sufficient supplies of ova without offering women some sort of commercial incentive. I have satisfied myself that the science of SCNT does not require thousands and thousands of eggs to be able to proceed. Surplus eggs from assistant reproductive technology treatments are expected to be used. An embryonic stem cell can grow indefinitely, creating a stem cell line. It was envisaged by the Lockhart review that a national stem cell bank could be established. While this recommendation has not been picked up in legislation, it is envisaged that a national stem cell bank can be established without the need for legislation and is to be supported and, in this way, relatively few eggs would be required. It is also important to stress that the bill specifically prohibits the sale of human eggs, sperm and embryos and clarifies what is meant by reasonable expenses. Australia does not have, never has had and I cannot imagine ever would have a culture for the purchase of blood, tissues, fluids or other body parts. This is not part of the medical system in Australia. As I said, it has legislative prohibition as well. But let us be honest about what this bill does and does not allow. The bill, like the existing law, does not allow reproductive human cloning. It does not allow the creation of human/animal hybrids. It does not allow the creation of heritable alterations of a human embryo. In fact, the bill will not allow any embryo created for research to develop for more than 14 days. All of these actions are criminal offences which carry a maximum penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment. What the bill will allow is research permitted under the existing law with the addition of somatic cell nuclear transfer research. It will allow this under a licensing system and granting of ethics clearances. Such clearances are only given 3380 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 following a comprehensive examination of the proposed research and the establishment that the work is able to be carried out with respect for the rights of the persons involved. Australia has a strong and distinguished history of the highest ethical standards in scientific research. Nationally we have long adopted public oversight of scientific research and a strict regulatory framework underpinned by stringent ethical standards. I have every confidence in our scientists and our scientific community that the strict requirements will be met. I believe that the extension of avenues for stem cell research is justified and worthwhile. Many argue that we do not need to undertake embryonic research because of the advances in adult stem cell research. I do not believe it is the case of choosing one source of stem cells over another and then closing the door on any possible research in the area that is not chosen. This is research in its very early stages, and I believe both adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research complement each other. They both have the potential to tackle many diseases and disabilities. In the overwhelming scientific evidence before the Lockhart review, the importance of both arms of stem cell research was stressed. Professor Barry Rolfe, an adult stem cell scientist, submitted that it is clear from the research to date that we need as many comparisons as possible to work out how far to go forward and that we cannot possibly know what such research may lead to so a comparison is very valuable. Evidence from the Australian Academy of Science was clear that only embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow and grow and grow indefinitely. Adult stem cells stop growing after 15, 20 or 25 generations. The other positive benefit of embryonic stem cells is that they can differentiate. They can give any cell type in the body; adult stem cells cannot transdifferentiate. It is argued we should not go any further with embryonic research as there have only been five licences issued since the principal legislation came into effect and the hope given has not been realised. The majority report of the Senate inquiry notes that opponents of the Lockhart recommendations claim nothing has changed to justify relaxing of the current legislation. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who provided evidence in the inquiry refuted this claim. Evidence was given by those working in the field as to the advances. The Senate inquiry report states— Professor Phil Waite, who is comparing embryonic stem cells, adult bone marrow stem cells and olfactory stem cells in spinal cord injury, listed the following recent advancements: ... research in the last few years has demonstrated that: Human embryonic stem cells can be differentiated into myelin producing precursor cells and made in sufficient numbers and purity for human use. Human embryonic stem cells can repair demyelinating lesions in mice. Human embryonic stem cells can improve locomotor function in a rat model of spinal cord injury. Adult stem cells migrated less well in the spinal cord and mature glial cells would not remyelinate. Complications such as excessive growth of teratomas were never seen. They also strongly expressed the view for the need for a broad SCNT approach to continue advances, especially in respect of regenerative medicine. SCNT offers a unique approach to the study of genetic disorders in humans. The submission by the Australian Stem Cell Centre advises that the availability of such cell lines would enable the study of the cellular basis of disease susceptibility, an understanding of the evolution or trigger for the emergence of genetic disease in the very early human, and the testing hypotheses concerning the involvement of specific genes for patients suffering from a number of serious diseases. Sir Gustav Nossal sums up the need to lift the current prohibition on therapeutic cloning in the following way— Embryonic stem cell research is rich in promise. It has already demonstrated its potential in the study of disease causation, in development of new diagnostic methods and in basic research. In the longer term, the possibility of new therapies for serious diseases is real, though this will be the work of decades rather than of years... Stem cell science has advanced to the point where it is pushing against the boundaries of current legislation. It is time for the next step. Australia has a very noble history of conducting leading-edge science for the benefit of humankind. We were at the forefront of IVF research since the first breakthroughs in 1970. I also have the honour of working with some of our most distinguished scientists here in Queensland, being a director of the research based PA Foundation with scientists such as Dr Ian Frazer and Dr John Prins. In Queensland we have seen major scientific breakthroughs and it is important that we continue to support medical research for the betterment of the human condition. In 2003, when I spoke in support of the principal legislation, I spoke of the hope of finding a cure for my daughter, Lizzie. Four years later, the promise is still real and it is still rich. For all the Lizzies and for all those who one day may require medical help, I support this bill. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.32 pm): I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. It gives me an opportunity to put on the record my support for the bill and the justification for my stance. This bill introduces amendments to several bills in a way that reflects the 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3381 changes that were made to Commonwealth legislation that took effect on 12 June 2007. The amendments made at the Commonwealth level and which are proposed in this House today are based on the recommendations that arose out of the deliberations of the Lockhart review committee. The issues pertaining to these amendments are nothing if not provocative, because they challenge our thinking about the directions in which it is appropriate to allow scientific research to proceed. Just as the legislative changes that led to the development of artificial reproductive therapies challenged us as a society, these amendments also require that we take a step into a future that is uncharted and, for some, fraught with moral trepidation. For me, having read and understood the extent and limits of the proposal on which we will vote this week, I am willing to take that leap knowing that my vote will almost certainly mean that at some time in the future breakthroughs in medical science will occur that will save lives, reduce pain and improve the quality of life for many people. It is already possible to collect adult stem cells from specific organs and research and experience has proven the value of stem cell therapy. Research using adult stem cells continues to be undertaken with encouraging results. One of the limitations in using adult stem cells is their inability to generate different cell types. So although the use of adult stem cells is less controversial than embryonic stem cell research, it is also potentially less versatile and more limited than the alternative. Embryonic stem cell research offers the potential to accelerate and expand this research owing to the fact that these stem cells are pluripotent cells, or cells capable of becoming any other cell. There is much research to be done, but where is the downside of developing a therapy that may hold a cure for debilitating conditions such as heart failure, spinal injuries, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease? I will resist the temptation to give a technical discourse on the process of creating embryonic stem cells. Suffice to say that, for me, the important issue is that in no circumstance will a researcher be licensed to develop an embryo beyond 14 days of development and in no circumstance will permission be given for a cloned human embryo to be inserted into a human body or an animal body. Heavy penalties will exist to dissuade anybody from breaching these prohibitions. For all of those reasons, I will be supporting the bill. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (4.35 pm): I congratulate those members of this House who have already risen to speak. I have learned a lot. I acknowledge the integrity, truthfulness and honesty with which they have approached this debate and I acknowledge their hard work. I was particularly impressed by our shadow minister’s contribution, who presented a magnificent speech covering many different technical aspects of this bill. I will not be so technical. This legislation that is before the parliament of Queensland, the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill, commonly known as the stem cell legislation, is one of the most important pieces of legislation that members of this chamber have ever had to consult on, consider, debate and study. It is a once in a political lifetime opportunity to be involved in a debate about legislation that will drastically change and shape the destiny and future of Queensland and Australian families. I believe that many members who support this legislation try to frame this debate as being about trying to find cures for horrible medical conditions such as MS, cancer, Parkinson’s disease and paralysis and that those of us—and I am going to oppose this legislation—who oppose and refuse to support this legislation are condemning our fellow Queenslanders and Australians who suffer from these awful diseases and their families to a hopeless future without cures for cystic fibrosis, MS, cancer, Parkinson’s disease and paralysis. Unfortunately, I believe that many supporters of this legislation try to paint a simplistic picture of those who intend to oppose this legislation as being nothing more than healthy, selfish politicians who are climbing on to their soapboxes full of hypocritical moral and religious indignation to say no to the advancement in medical science all because they are either religious fanatics or scientific Luddites. That simplistic, glib, shallow argument is quite simply a lie that, unfortunately, some supporters of this bill perpetuate because they have not taken the time to examine properly the medical science that is involved in this debate or the human ethics and taboos that are associated with cloning science, which is also supported by this legislation. Some public supporters have been duped or dazzled by the cloning lobby which I believe is using this debate and stem cell science to further its own agenda. I will shortly address the issue of cloning, but I would like to bring to the attention of this House an article about stem cell research written by a Courier-Mail journalist dated 29 September 2007. I believe it is a good example of a journalist presenting an unbalanced view of this legislation. Beside the headline, ‘Waiting for a life line’ on the right-hand side of the page is a tragic photo of a young man called Michael O’Neil smiling while he undertakes treatment for cystic fibrosis. It is a particularly poignant and emotional photo that shows Mr O’Neil, stripped to the waist, holding on to an IV stand with his right hand with intravenous lines connected to his stomach. His face wears a smile that is full of unexplainable happiness, trust and innocence. 3382 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

One would have to be a monster to want to cause further harm to a sensitive human being like Michael O’Neil, yet in a deceptively clever piece of what I believe to be sophistry, spin doctoring and biased writing, the journalist leaves readers with the overwhelming impression that opponents of this legislation would be prepared to see Mr O’Neil die from cystic fibrosis simply because a possible cure would compromise our morals or ethics. The journalist uses a well-worn emotional argument and logic template when he writes the following— On current medical thinking Michael O’Neil will be dead by the age of 40. Cystic Fibrosis does that to you. The debilitating disease progressively attacks key organs, principally the lungs and pancreas leading to a life expectancy for an Australian male of about 36 years. So this journalist, after describing very accurately and truthfully the tragic medical condition which Mr O’Neil and too many Australians face, then went on to blatantly I believe misrepresent the truth by subtle techniques of omission. He stated— O’Neil is one of the millions of Australians who one day could benefit from Embryonic Stem Cell research—perhaps not a cure in his lifetime, but maybe a glimmer of hope. Why has this journalist failed to acknowledge that adult stem cell research and breakthrough stem cell research, which has emerged from Japan in recent months, have far greater chances of offering a cure to Mr O’Neil and millions of Australians than the scientifically flawed embryonic stem cell research? Why hasn’t this journalist acknowledged that those who intend to vote against this legislation are not voting to condemn Mr O’Neil and millions of Australians to a life of disease and no hope of cure? In fact, the opposite is true. By voting no to this legislation, I am voting to ensure that scarce research dollars are spent on two medical plans of action most likely to bear fruit. Those medical courses of action, from the research I have read, are the adult stem cell therapies and the breakthrough stem cell therapy emerging from Japan. Both methods stand a greater chance of delivering cures for cystic fibrosis, MS, cancer, Parkinson’s disease and paralysis. Why hasn’t the journalist acknowledged that embryonic stem cell research is scientifically inferior when compared to adult stem cell research and the Japanese stem cell breakthrough? Many journalists have failed to note and include in their articles that by voting against this legislation I am not voting against stem cell medical treatment and the magnificent future medical benefits it promises. I am voting against just one method of obtaining stem cells—that is, the embryonic method, where the reality is that human life is created and then destroyed in order to cannibalise and obtain human stem cells. If I could vote yes for stem cell medical treatment, I would vote for adult stem cell therapy or the recent revolutionary stem cell therapy which does not even require the use of morally risky, expensive and complicated cloning technology. One of the most important reasons I am voting against the current stem cell legislation is that the proposed law is now technically behind the times and out of date. The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007 was written before the stem cell revolution occurred on 7 June this year when a Japanese scientist created stem cells or cells which acted like stem cells without the need for cloning. That Japanese scientist was Shinya Yamanaka, and I apologise for my Japanese pronunciation. According to Dr David van Gend in an article in the Courier-Mail on Tuesday, 26 June, Japanese medical researcher Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University took a mouse skin cell and introduced four small proteins which reprogrammed the cell’s nuclear DNA to make it pluripotent—effectively the same as an embryonic stem cell. Up until June 2007, the only way that medical scientists could obtain stem cells was from two basic sources—human embryos and adult stem cells. There is now a third method of creating stem cells using molecular and cell biology science, not cloning techniques. The third way is cheaper and less complicated and is a morally and ethically risk free method of stem cell creation which now makes the first two methods superfluous. This new medical breakthrough, according to Dr David van Gend, is bad news for cloning specialists but good news for Queensland, which has world-class institutions for molecular and cell biology. When this legislation is defeated—and I hope it is defeated—it will not mean that Queensland will lose the brand of Smart State because we already have in place, as Dr van Gend states, world-class institutions for molecular and cell biology. We will lead the research field. It will mean that the Smart State in defeating this legislation will become the ‘Smarter State’ because we already have, as Dr van Gend says, world-class institutions for molecular and cell biology—in other words, the medical research technology to assist, develop and financially benefit from the new Japanese breakthrough in stem cell technology. This debate we have in Queensland parliament is nationally significant and I believe a chance to right some wrongs. I do not believe the argument that, because the federal government can overrule us, we should declare this a fait accompli and not put up a fight. If this medical breakthrough from Japan had occurred and been explained before the stem cell legislation was debated in federal parliament and passed by only one vote, then I believe we would not even be having this debate here in this chamber 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3383 today. The stem cell legislation in its current form would have been defeated in our nation’s capital if the politicians who voted for it had known about the new medical breakthrough and new scientific method to obtain stem cells. This is the first time in Australia where this type of legislation allows human cloning to occur— despite what I believe is a very clever and deceitful bill title—and is to be debated while embryonic stem cells can be obtained without the creation and then the destruction of human life. Even though part of the title of the bill is ‘prohibition of human cloning’, this legislation in reality allows for Queensland scientists to develop and perfect techniques for the cloning of humans. The legislation allows for Queensland medical scientists to create a human embryo and then destroy it 14 days later. So why doesn’t the title of this bill honestly reflect that reality? Why doesn’t the bill truthfully reflect the legal and scientific fact created by this bill? Why isn’t this bill titled ‘Research Involving Human Embryos and Permission to Clone Humans for at Least 7 to 14 Days Amendment Bill 2007’? The reason why this bill is not called that is that people in my electorate and other electorates throughout Queensland who have not been fully informed by the popular media and briefed about the scientific proposition and fact made possible by this bill know that cloning of humans is wrong and we would begin to ask questions about the science, the economics and the ethics of cloning. The explanatory notes for the legislation state— However, the creation by means other than by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm (such as through somatic cell nuclear transfer), of a human embryo involving genetic material from more than two persons, is permitted if authorised under licence issued by the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee. This allows for the beginning of legal cloning of humans. There is no doubt about that. No amount of scientific weasel words—like somatic cell nuclear transfer—can hide the fact that this legislation is legalising the beginning of human cloning. It is the point at which Pandora’s box is opened, it is the thin end of the scientific wedge and it is the beginning of a frightening future for Queensland and Australia. This will give those scientists who are advocates of human cloning the ability to continue to create cloned human embryos and experiment with and on them—human embryos which given the chance would have become human babies. I have no doubt that in the next 10 years if these scientists are allowed to have their way there will be legislation before this House which allows the creation of a cloned human baby involving genetic material from more than two persons if authorised under licence issued by the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee. The agenda and the objectives of these scientists is not the further development of stem cell technology and the subsequent medical cures which, as we have heard from numerous credible and eminent professors and doctors, can be achieved through adult stem cell technology or, as I have mentioned before, the Japanese method of stem cell creation. The agenda and the objectives of these scientists is the further development of cloning technology. I believe that they are using the stem cell debate as a Trojan horse for their own unethical and illegal purposes. The cloning of humans is wrong. The cloning of human beings using animal eggs—which is where this cloning technology is taking us—is an abomination. At the moment, society is talking about the liberties and rights of humans. If this legislation is allowed to pass, one of the cloning possibilities is a future in which we will be debating the liberties and rights of a new animal/human species, a chimera. Once again this sounds like science fiction but, in fact, it is a science reality. In closing, I wish to put forward some of my constituents’ views on this debate. Like many other members of this chamber, I have received many written submissions on the issue. A submission from the Scots Presbyterian Church in Bundaberg states— Prayerfully seek that as the local member in the Legislative Assembly of the QLD Parliament that you would consider all the ramifications especially where there is a concern in regards to God’s creation of human life and so considering that human life at the time of conception is a gift from God and therefore why should man interfere with what God has created. A submission from Mr BJ and Mrs CJ Robinson states— While we appreciate that there ought to be a standard approach on this matter throughout Australia, we believe that embryonic stem cell research—even with the addition of the cloning dimension—is scientifically flawed and ethically untenable. We fully support adult stem cell research—which is already resulting in successful treatments for a range of medical conditions—but note that embryonic stem cell research is yet to produce any verifiable and beneficial medical advances. However, if QLD is going to permit the creation of laboratory-cloned human embryos to be destroyed within fourteen days to ‘harvest’ their stem cells, we would urge the QLD Parliament to draw ‘a line in the sand’ at the proposal to harvest ova from the bodies of late-term aborted baby girls. We believe that the abortion of any child is a tragedy, but surely we would be crossing a line into barbarism to then dissect the body of the aborted baby girls to extract their ova. While we would prefer no ‘therapeutic’ cloning in QLD, if such a practice is to be established, we would plead with you to support any amendment that would prevent the utilisation of ova from late-term aborted baby girls. Jana Mackie, a 31-year-old Bundaberg resident, has written to me stating— I am writing to you today to let you know that I am greatly saddened about the federal government’s legislation to allow immoral harvesting of human babies to use for cloning and other purposes. Please take time to consider the fact that if something as valuable as human life is exploited in this way in 2007 around Australia, what will remain sacred in the future of my children? 3384 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

I beg you to fight for our current state laws that ban cloning so that Queensland does not join the madness. The argument of whether an embryo can be called a human being is clear especially for those people who can’t conceive and those that value human life in all its early stages. The procedure of somatic cell nuclear transfer really creates a human embryo. Please vote no for cloning. I would like to note a number of things. I note that we Queensland parliamentarians are to be given a conscience vote and I appreciate that right and privilege. I note that the idea of creating human life to destroy it violates the principles of the sanctity of human life. I would also like to put on the record the fact that the efficacy of embryo stem cells has never been proven in animal models, and remains dangerous and unusable in humans. I note that ethically acceptable adult stem cells are being used safely in 80 human conditions. I respectfully urge all Queensland members of parliament to thoroughly investigate the claims of miracle cures from cloning before voting on this issue. I plan to oppose the bill before the House. Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (4.55 pm): I rise to speak on the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill. After much soul searching and discussion, I have decided to support the legislation before the House today. This was not an easy decision. I am a Catholic and I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I grew up in a Catholic household and as a child I was an altar boy. The teachings of the church and Christian values are very important to me. However, I also believe that we have a moral duty to use, in responsible ways, the science that is available to us to relieve suffering and to cure where we can the terrible diseases that can afflict so many in our community. This bill will allow for the development of human embryos only for a period of 14 days. It will continue to prohibit reproductive human cloning. It reflects federal legislation and it will ensure the responsible use of human embryo science. Many people in the community believe that stem cell research is wrong and argue that it contravenes the Christian teachings. The moral dilemma that I face is that I see the suffering of the people in my community who are forced to live with spinal injuries, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and many other conditions that prevent them from living a full and active life. At the age of 57, my father died from diabetes after losing his leg and going blind. I had to watch that happen, knowing that medical science could do nothing to stop it. That disease is reaching epidemic proportions in this country. I am blessed with two healthy sons, but they could become diabetics in the future and face a similar fate to my father’s. I cannot bring myself to reject scientific research that may prevent that happening or that has the potential to cure other dreadful diseases. I cannot condemn people, when their suffering and that of their families could be prevented. I do not believe that I have the right to stop people from living a normal and happy life. In Queensland the cost of these diseases is huge. Of course, in dollar terms there are costs for treatment and prevention programs. My concern is for the physical and mental costs to individuals, families and communities. Of course, this legislation will not ensure that we find cures for these diseases. What it will do is give our scientists the right to try. If there is a chance that even a few people in my community are helped as a result, I believe that I need to give them that chance. I have already said that I did not find my decision to support this bill an easy one to make. In fact, it was one of the hardest decisions I have ever made. I had to weigh up my long-held religious beliefs against what I believe is my moral responsibility to the people I represent. Those people include many who may be helped by this legislation and the research it will allow. That includes families who are caring for those with disabling medical conditions. It includes ageing parents who struggle with the care of middle-aged intellectually and physically handicapped children. It includes husbands and wives whose lifelong partners suffer from Alzheimer’s and can no longer recognise or communicate with them. I cannot bring myself to believe that a merciful God wants those people to be deprived of hope, dignity and a quality of life. If I am wrong, I also believe that God is forgiving and will understand that as politicians we make decisions that are morally difficult. I imagine that many members in this House have found this decision equally challenging. I ask them to think about those among their family and friends and others in their communities who can benefit from this research. They are the ones who need this legislation so that they can have an opportunity to lead a normal, healthy and productive life. I commend the bill to the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.00 pm): I rise to speak on the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill. I do not want any part of the cloning of human life for the purpose of experimentation. I believe that there is an overwhelming principle here that we must have respect for human life and under no circumstances must human life become a tradeable commodity. I do not believe that we can say any science that leads to research is valid simply because it leads to some sort of discovery or research. You cannot have science completely divorced from humanity or ethics. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3385

I have heard the argument here today that there may be an overriding law from Canberra that may supersede the decision that we make here today. I do not care how people voted in Canberra or in the other states. The reality is that this matter is before the Queensland parliament and we must make a decision based on the best judgement and based on the values and standards that each of us hold. Let me make it clear at the beginning that my objection is to cloning or the creation of human life for the purposes of experimentation. I am not—I repeat—I am not objecting to stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research per se. It is not the whole of this bill and it is not the whole of this research that I have concerns about. We have heard here today mention of in-vitro fertilisation and organ transplant and other scientific advances. I see no moral dilemma with any of those things. I see a moral dilemma when human life is created for the purposes of experimentation. I have listened to the arguments put in this place to date in this discussion, some of them put by people I have enormous respect for, particularly the member for Surfers Paradise, who made a very insightful and quite magnificent assessment of the issues that are involved here, and I think that goes to the root of the fact that this is a challenging issue for all of us and it should be done in an environment where we respect the views of others. Clearly those who are in favour of this bill are motivated by a desire to seek to improve the lot and sufferings of humans with disease and that is a worthy thing. I am sure that many have expected with my medical background that this would also be my view, but I do take a different view and it is a view that I have long held. Decision making in these areas has to be underlined by your personal principles, beliefs, philosophy and values. I have a fundamental belief in respect for human life and whilst this would not be inconsistent with improving the treatment of people suffering with disease, I want to outline the reasons why I take the view that I do. Firstly, it is yet to be established that it is necessary to clone human foetal material for the purpose of experimentation in order to achieve the objectives of advancing medical science. If these measures are not permitted, if this bill goes down here today, it is not the case that medical research will cease, it is not the case that we would not have tools available to advance genetic research for Parkinson’s disease or therapy for spinal cord injuries. Whilst some scientists no doubt would like their research to head in this direction, their inability to do so would simply mean that research would utilise other currently available tools, in particular available stem cells. I do not believe the case has been made conclusively that such research could not proceed without taking these measures that are before us today, measures some of us find to be ethically disturbing. We live in a world where increasingly, and very sadly in my view, human life and human beings are sometimes treated as some sort of commodity that has a monetary value or is somehow tradeable. There are many precedents around that disturb me and others about the attitude towards human life. One image that I doubt many of us will forget is that of the battle of control of the child of Anna Nicole Smith that was conducted in the public spotlight with something akin to the behaviour of a football game. This child, who despite obvious monetary advantages, was born with significant disadvantage and was used as a public brawl. Few could escape the conclusion that it was associated with a monetary windfall for whoever could prove paternity. The image of someone cheering as a victor because paternity had been established was, in my view, symptomatic of the decline of our ethical concerns. This should have been about a baby and its welfare; it became about celebrity and wealth. Science, and medical science in particular, has achieved many marvellous things that have been greatly to the advantage of our fellow citizens. But with the advance in genetic technology, as with other scientific discoveries, comes the potential for misuse. The genetic work that has been done to date, which has produced a lot of benefits and which I welcome, has still been used at times in ways that view convenience and lifestyle factors as more important than human life. We have seen people who use technology to produce designer babies, to pick and choose or selectively breed features that they want in a child—everything, in fact, from the complexion to musical skill or sporting prowess or gender. This is another example of what I consider to be turning human life into a commodity instead of valuing and celebrating each individual whether they be attractive, talented, wealthy or disabled and battling. There is somehow implicit in this trend a concept that people with certain attributes are superior or more valuable than those who do not possess those attributes. A reproductive technology such as villus biopsy to identify the chromosomes in the very early stage of pregnancy is used in order to screen for genetic abnormalities. This technology has produced enormous benefits to many patients, including patients of my own in the past. But again it is technology that can have a downside. It can be misused. We have seen that technology used in parts of the world where early detection for gender of a pregnancy can be used to terminate pregnancies if the gender is not what the parents are seeking—again an example of our declining standard of valuing each individual human life. As a father of four boys, I know when someone sees a family with four children of the one gender people usually jump to conclusions. ‘Looking for a girl, were we?’, is the line I usually get. But I cannot imagine rejecting a child because it was not the gender I was looking for. 3386 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

It is only about four years ago that a bill was brought to this House to allow the use of foetal stem cells from surplus human embryos from the fertility industry. The assurance was given at that time that this would not be the thin end of the wedge, that we would not be moving towards cloning of humans or taking further steps down the line of turning human life into a commodity. In fact, the bill was called the prohibition of cloning bill, which the government is seeking to amend here today. There are alleged safeguards contained in this present bill that state it would become a criminal offence to assist with the cloned human life beyond 14 days, implanted in a female uterus and so forth, and after this time it must be destroyed. However, there is no guarantee that we will not be back here in another four years wanting to further expand these provisions. Even if these provisions are adhered to in this state, clearly the technologies that emerge within the scope permitted by this bill can then be taken to other jurisdictions and advanced further. The world is such that the demand for this sort of technology will ensure that it is taken from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is a little bit like banning pornography or extreme violent combat sports only to find them popping up on cable television because they are being conducted in another jurisdiction. One Queensland print media incorrectly quoted me as saying that I felt the benefits of embryonic stem cells for research were overstated, when in fact I was making reference to the benefits from cloning to obtain embryonic stem cells. There is a major difference. It should be understood that adult stem cells have led to numerous valuable human therapies. Embryonic stem cells are yet to produce any applicable therapies that are practical to patients. Further, technology does not even currently exist to prepare the embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos. I have no objection to the study of embryonic stem cells, and I would like to make that clear. I have no objection to research using embryonic stem cells where they have been sourced from embryos that were not specifically created for the purpose of experimentation. But we hear these grandiose claims being made for these wonderful advances. It is time for a reality check. There is no evidence that cloning embryos for research will produce anything remotely like the medical advances that people are suggesting—no evidence whatsoever. There is also currently no technology for the cloning. I have had contact over the years with academics and researchers. I understand their enthusiasm to pursue their research and I understand their arguments about not interfering in scientific endeavour. I think this is an argument and a debate that our community should nevertheless have and that should reflect the values of individuals and of our community. I am not pleased to hear the community misled with promises of incredible advances for which at the time we are having this debate in this parliament there is absolutely no evidence to support. There are ample areas available to research using adult stem cells and currently available embryonic stem cells, and it is likely from a Queensland point of view that we will contribute more to the knowledge of science and medicine by becoming leaders in some areas of research rather than having an open season in numerous areas of research. I think it is important in this debate to make it clear that it is frequently confusing to people to understand. We have done enormously valuable research with adult stem cells, yet embryonic stem cells have significant technical problems that have rendered them to date ineffective as a source of new disease treatments for humans. Further, stem cells obtained from cloned humans at this point in time while we have this debate in the Queensland parliament is science fiction. No-one has yet mastered the technology for human embryonic cloning and there is no evidence, having done so, that there will be huge rewards for patients. Over many years I have seen false hopes raised in hundreds of patients. Every time you turn on a media outlet there is a new cure coming, until you read the fine print and find it is just someone’s unproven research project. I have seen everything—the downright fraudulent, the deceptive, particularly in unfulfilled promises to cancer patients, through to the more plausible and conventional therapies that can still be used to unreasonably elevate people’s expectations and produce false hope. I think that this is happening in this debate. I hear that there are potential benefits and treatments to come from this research, and yet on closer inspection there is no evidence that this is the case and some strong evidence that more conventional genetic research with adult stem cells and conventional surplus embryonic stem cells probably offer much greater promise. I have spent an entire working life, some 25 years, treating patients with almost every disease you could imagine. These are people that I care deeply for and in many cases they have been friends. I have seen a number of members of my own family die from the effects of Alzheimer’s disease, including my mother who contracted the disease in her 50s. I have seen members of my family die from cancer, including my father. I have seen a family member born in my family with Down syndrome. It would be wrong to assume that those of us opposed to cloning of human life are in some way uncaring or seek in some way to prevent cures for these sorts of diseases becoming available. Research and discovery will continue with the tools that are available, as it has done for years now, and the prospects for medical breakthroughs will continue to shine bright without pushing the boundaries of respect for human life in the manner envisaged in this bill. We heard the enormous promise of embryonic stem cells four years ago. Whilst, had I been in this parliament at that time, I would have supported that bill, no medical treatment advances have yet flowed from that. Yet once again we are here debating this issue. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3387

I read, and I will table shortly for the benefit of the House, an article in the magazine Sydney Alumni from the University of Sydney, which happens to be my old university—hardly an institution that is opposed to medical research. In its current edition in the section that discusses research it quotes a whole range of people from Sydney university and from other universities in relation to this particular issue. I might read a couple of those quotes, because an important message that I would like everyone to take home, whether they support the position I am taking or not, is that we, and in particular the community, should understand the danger of overhyping and raising people’s hopes falsely in relation to these matters. One researcher from Monash University says in this article, ‘The overselling is a strategy to overcome obstacles in obtaining funding for your particular area of research.’ Professor Andrew Elefanty of the Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation Laboratory at Monash University—not an opponent of embryonic stem cells but a researcher into not adult stem cells but embryonic stem cells—says in the article, ‘It is important the general public realises that encouraging results from laboratory research or early clinical trials would not necessarily translate into new treatments with widespread application.’ He goes on at some length and says, ‘So people have to be aware that just because you do something in a research setting doesn’t mean it is going to be feasible or safe enough to bring into clinical use.’ I will table that article in case somebody following this debate has some interest in it. It is a difficult debate for us. I appreciate from the speakers I have heard—and I look forward to those to come—that people have searched in their own mind for their own standards and principles on which to make a decision. I have also done that. I believe passionately in medicine and in science, in caring for people and in helping people, but I have to weigh that up against the fact that I believe human life should be respected and never allowed to become a commodity that is somehow tradeable. Tabled paper: Copy of an article by Melissa Sweet titled ‘Beware the stem cell hard sell’. I am particularly concerned about exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about what benefits would come. If you wanted an analogy outside the biological area, we could perhaps use the nuclear one. There are enormous peaceful benefits from nuclear power but there are enormous downsides. I do not think anyone in this chamber would want to say that anything is fair game in nuclear research or putting the results of nuclear research into effect. I think all of us would want to apply some principles and some judgement to that sort of science. The same is involved in the cloning of human beings. Although there are safeguards in this bill, there is nothing that will stop technology developed in Queensland being advanced in other areas that do not apply this law. There are those in the world, sadly and tragically, who would misuse this sort of technology. As well as the upside and the benefits people may perceive in it, there is no doubt a darker side exists and there is the potential for misuse. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (5.18 pm): Last week I met a group of courageous and determined people, all survivors of stroke, who urged me to support the passage of this bill. They welcomed my reply that I was supporting the bill. I had just launched an art exhibition for the Stroke Association of Queensland—a non- government association based in my local electorate. The creative works of stroke survivors were being showcased at this exhibition. A man with aphasia, and a great name, Winston Jerome Lindsley hooked up a gadget that assisted him to speak. Totally unprompted he raised the topic of embryonic stem cell research. I was flawed to hear his words to me, ‘Please help us by supporting embryonic stem cell research. This research may lead to treatments for stroke and aphasia. Please support the bill.’ This then sparked a discussion amongst the group, all of whom were fervent in their support for the bill. They knew about it. They knew we were debating it some time in the next few weeks. They acknowledged however that research on treatments was going to be a long, slow process. Ann Mellersh, a stroke sufferer herself and president of the Stroke Association of Queensland, quipped in a light-hearted and non-offensive way, ‘You’d better lock the Catholics in the toilet though when the vote is on—they won’t support the bill.’ I am sure she will not mind me dobbing her in for saying that. She was concerned that religious beliefs would override other views. It is great to see the very thoughtful way and the very well-researched way members in this House have been contributing to this debate today. The practices to be given the green light in the bill mirror those already passed in the federal parliament. The debate in the federal parliament then like now has raised moral and ethical issues about the sanctity and quality of life. Essentially the bill raises such questions as: can the collection of cells from which embryonic stem cells are harvested and hybrid embryos created be considered a human life and what value is to be attributed to this stage or type of human life, however one wants to consider this? At one end of the continuum are those who believe that life has sanctity or is sacred regardless of the degree or kind of suffering, deterioration, dependency and regardless of the imminence of death, the burden on others and the wishes of the subject to live or die. Lives have sanctity, regardless of the quality, condition or circumstances of that life and regardless of the biological stages of that life. That is one position which some people hold. 3388 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

I am not shy in admitting that I am more in the quality of life camp. That is the view that life is contingent on circumstances such as the imminence of death, the constancy and severity of pain, the ability to think clearly and rationally, to enjoy life, to have dignity, to make rational choices and the level of dependency on others. These issues all impact on the quality and value of life and the choices people make in their lives. The more extreme sanctity position values life independently of its quality or condition. Where there is bioelectrical activity life is to be protected. A critical issue for me in thinking about this bill is: at what stage in development does a living organism take on a quality of life that must be nurtured and protected—a quality of life when emotion, feeling, intelligence and other fundamental human qualities emerge? This is difficult to define, but I am satisfied that to ensure cloning techniques are used for research purposes only it will be an offence to allow an embryo to develop for more than 14 days. This is when the rudimentary nervous system, the primitive streak, first appears. I am also of the view that on balance the potential for new treatments and improved quality of life for children and adults outweighs concern about the protection of an embryo at such an early stage. Many people in my local community who are suffering or caring for people who are suffering with diseases that have destroyed them physically and destroyed their dignity and soul may benefit from these developments in the future. Those people, including those at the Stroke Association, have certainly expressed clearly to me that they want to live with some hope. The member for Moggill spoke of false hope. Many of the people I have spoken to are aware of the long-term nature of this type of research. I am also satisfied that numerous safeguards have been built solidly into this bill to ensure that researchers do not breach ethical standards. In fact, the strict licensing arrangements in the bill and the existing robust research frameworks governing universities and other institutions in Australia and Queensland provide significant safeguards. In this bill unacceptable activities remain prohibited, with maximum penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment for noncompliance. Those prohibited activities include cloning a human for reproductive purposes, making heritable alterations to a human embryo and creating or developing a chimeric embryo. It will also be an offence to permit an embryo created for research to be implanted into the body of a human or an animal under any circumstances. These offences carry maximum penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment for noncompliance. This bill will allow important and groundbreaking research to be conducted in order to obtain a better understanding of disease and how cells differentiate. This may ultimately have a profound and positive effect on the ability to treat a range of human conditions and diseases such as spinal injuries, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and stroke. I have been impressed with the work of Queensland based researchers in this field. As a member of the Griffith University Council, I am probably a bit biased but I cannot help but boast about the adult stem cell breakthroughs that Dr Alan Mackay-Sim and his team are achieving through their work at Griffith University in conjunction with researchers at the PA hospital. I can understand the wishes of my ‘strokee’ friends. They are aware of the outstanding, innovative research of researchers like Dr Alan Mackay–Sim and clinicians at the PA who are involved in cell transplantation therapy. This involves removing cells from paraplegics and transplanting them into their own spinal cords. They are aware of the possibilities in stimulating adult stem cells in the brain to repair the brain after a stroke or Parkinson’s. In Australia, Professor Mal Hone is working on neural stem cell research with encouraging developments. Worldwide there are many others. There have been published reports on stroke specific research from people like Saritz in 2003, Nan et al in 2005 and Peterson in 2004. It is my understanding that they are all using embryonic stem cells. Their research is resulting in some positive functional improvements through the work that they are doing. Do I give false hope? What I have seen with people who have spoken to me is more that they are very aware that this research takes a lot of time. They see it sensibly as opportunities opening up. They know that some of these doors will close. In the presentations to me by people who have had their lives turned upside down by some sort of physical illness, they see that these opportunities for research push the boundaries but rightly so. They say they need to in order to make further advances. As long as there are safeguards, which I am satisfied there are in this bill, then this sort of research ought to be encouraged. Certainly in Queensland we have some very prominent researchers doing some outstanding work. The bill will ensure that further advances in the field of science are made within a very responsible and robust regulatory framework. One of my son Alexander’s favourite books is Edwina the Emu. I do not want to make light of what is a very serious issue, but in this story—and I have to read it probably two or three times a day— Edwina lays 10 emu eggs. I think they are green. She goes to great lengths to get a job to support her future family. She cleans chimneys. I think she works on a bus. She works in a bar. She is in a cafe when she overhears a man who is eating his bacon and eggs say that he eats emu eggs. She drops 10 Oct 2007 Transport Infrastructure 3389 what she is doing in the cafe and runs home to protect the emu eggs. I guess I am potentially making light of a very serious issue here. Each time I read that I understand Edwina’s deep-rooted motherly protective instincts. There is no-one in this House who does not value human life. But there is a range of considerations related to this bill that members have canvassed in this House that take us beyond simply a sanctity of life position for the sake of sanctity of life. There is a range of other issues. In reading Edwina the Emu I also understand, thinking about this bill, the desperation many parents and loved ones feel in exploring and wanting every possible treatment option for their sick family members or their sick children. To me that is the broader issue here. It is an issue about the broader quality of life for individuals, not simply the sanctity of life for an individual entity. In relation to this bill I guess I have come to understand after much deliberation that the sanctity of life position in its extreme is constantly under challenge as new technological and medical advances occur. It has to be challenged. Community members are demanding more sophisticated treatments for all sorts of diseases. That requires more sophisticated research. It requires more sophisticated consideration by all of us as community members and us as leaders in our elected roles of all of these issues and new developments. In order to make rational and fair beginning and end of life decisions, the quality of life for individuals and the quality of life for all as distinct from simply sanctity of life must be given full consideration. Again I commend the way in which members have dealt with the issues in this bill. It has been a very thoughtful debate so far and will continue to be. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Ms Struthers, adjourned.

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (5.30 pm): I move— That this Parliament acknowledges the failure of the Queensland Labor Government to adequately plan for and provide in a timely manner both public transport infrastructure and services in south east Queensland. Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (5.30 pm): I second the motion. Mr NICHOLLS: Yesterday the Premier and the new transport minister acknowledged 10 years of failure of Labor in government to plan for and provide in a timely manner public transport infrastructure and services. The Premier has finally acknowledged what the coalition and the commuting public of south-east Queensland have known for a long time—that our public transport network in south-east Queensland has failed to meet the demands and expectations of commuters in the 21st century. As a result of 10 years of Labor’s failure to address public transport needs, south-east Queensland now confronts a public transport crisis. This follows hot on the heels of the water supply crisis, the health crisis, the electricity supply crisis and the kids care crisis—in fact, 10 years of government by crisis. As I said yesterday in relation to the announcements made by the Premier, this rehash of an old plan that was first contemplated by the failed Goss government in the mid-nineties will not deliver one more train, one more bus or one more ferry—all of which are desperately needed to address the public transport crisis in south-east Queensland. There are many examples of the Labor government’s failure in the public transport area, but perhaps none more significantly demonstrates the failure than the government’s demonstrated inability to deliver on the much-promised smart card integrated ticketing system. In August 2002 the then Premier announced with much fanfare, as per usual, the preferred tenderer to design, build and operate south-east Queensland’s smart card integrated ticketing system. In his press release, the Premier stated— Cabinet’s approval of the preferred tender today is proof the government is on track to launch the new system in mid-2004. It is interesting to note that a Sunday Mail article of 17 September 2007 stated— The $200 million scheme—first suggested by government in 1999—was supposed to be operational across the south-east by 2003. So even at the time of the first announcement of the tenderer for the smart card project, the Labor government was already a year behind its previously announced introduction date. In June 2003 the then transport minister, Mr Bredhauer, announced— Smart card technology would be progressively introduced from mid-2004. On 31 March 2004 the new transport minister—the now Deputy Premier—announced— This new equipment represents the first step towards progressively introducing Smartcards in 2005. On 17 June that year, Minister Lucas made a revised statement, saying— A trial of the new technology will start on bus routes and rail networks in the Redcliffe area in early 2005. On 1 October that year the minister stated— Once Smartcards are introduced from July next year ... 3390 Transport Infrastructure 10 Oct 2007

So we have gone from 2004 to July 2005. On 6 July 2005, that being the month when originally this new minister had promised the smart cards would be introduced, he stated that it would be rigorously tested through the second half of the year—that is, the second half of 2005 in case anyone is getting confused, and who would not be—before being rolled out across the network early next year— that is, 2006. On 15 July 2005, just nine days later, Minister Lucas again said— There’s more to come next year including the delivery of the $136 million Smartcard system. So let us go to July 2006. Minister Lucas stated— Last year I told Parliament that we planned to have the Smartcard rollout in south-east Queensland by the end of 2006. The end of 2006 has now come and gone, and we still do not see a smart card rollout. It has not been delivered, and the cost of the smart card system has not been cheap. In July 2003 $130 million was going to be spent on delivering a turnkey system. Officers of TransLink have been quoted in articles, including the Sunday Mail and mX magazine, as saying— The $200 million Smartcard network is to be rolled out. So where are we today? Today we are still waiting for an operational smart card. It has been trialled and trialled and trialled. It has been announced and reannounced and reannounced, and we are still yet to see the much-vaunted smart card. This government’s ability to drive the development and delivery of this technology is woeful and the facts speak for themselves. What about policy for public transport in south-east Queensland? I have previously raised in this place TransLink’s efforts to create a network plan. Indeed, in a question on notice in 2003 the then transport minister in answer to a question extolled the virtues of TransLink, describing in effect what the Premier yesterday described this new south-east Queensland transit authority was going to do. He talked about what it will do, including planning and policy and network coordination across the 17 public transport contract providers. But in fact for two years the network plan developed by TransLink was only a draft network plan, and it was only after I pointed this out in this parliament earlier this year that action was taken to finalise the draft plan into a proper plan that could be said to be finalised. No wonder the trains are overcrowded and do not run! More interesting than the draft network plan is the government’s attempt to formulate policy via a transport green paper. Announced in Queensland Transport’s 2005-06 annual report, the transport minister stated that he would develop a coordinated public transport policy for the region. Alleluia! ‘Smart travel choices for south-east Queensland: a transport green paper’ was released in December 2005. That green paper got no further than completion of the consultation stage. So despite being issued in December 2005 and receiving over 1,750 comments by March 2006—that is more than 18 months ago now—and despite the annual report of the department stating that a white paper would be produced in the following year, no white paper has ever been delivered. This abandoned policy document was supposed to contain specific policies to address transport in south-east Queensland, including increased discounted fares for public transport, tighter controls on inner-city parking and an increase in the number of energy-efficient cars—all failures of this Labor government. In effect, it was to be the government’s major response to the transport challenges in south-east Queensland. However, since then no action has been taken. It is interesting to note that in September—the time this government’s failure was reported—the green paper, the consultation document, the summary of responses and other information were all on the Queensland Transport web site. Out of interest I today visited the Queensland Transport web site to see if any further action had been taken in relation to it. I went to the home page for Queensland Transport to see what was there. I typed in the words ‘smart travel choices’. I came up with 99 fully matching documents and 176 partially matching documents. I clicked on the link of the first one and what happened? What was I directed to? The Queensland government site headed up with a funny little logo and the words ‘Page not found, exist or moved’. That is how this government deals with planning policy. It takes it off the web. It removes it. It tries to erase all evidence of its own incompetence. So we have clear examples of the government’s failure—failure to deliver in terms of a smart card system for at least four years and possibly as far back as 1999 and the fact that the department’s bureaucrats are reported as saying it is a $200 million expenditure and the complete sham of going through a green paper process involving local governments and the public with 1,750 responses only to end up with a blank page on the internet. The litany of failures continues. One only needs to look at today’s story about the AAMI survey which shows that commuters do not believe transport in south-east Queensland is up to scratch. In fact, of the three east coast capital cities, Brisbane had the highest percentage of drivers who drive to work, uni or TAFE at a rate of 67 per cent. The percentage who use public transport to go to work at 11 per cent was worse than Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. A quarter of Brisbane drivers said that they do not use public transport because it takes too long to reach their destination and 26 per cent said that it is unreliable. A massive 40 per cent said that they do not use it because there is no public transport near their home, their workplace or their university. That reflects the results of a Kelly survey earlier this year which found similar numbers and that fewer than 63 per cent of Queenslanders believed they had a choice of using public transport. And little wonder when one considers the number of train cancellations. 10 Oct 2007 Transport Infrastructure 3391

I have highlighted the number of cancellations in the rail network in the month of July, but one only needs to go to any interested web site to read about almost daily problems. For example, on 18 September Rail Back on Track issued a media release under the heading ‘Citytrain—cancellations, congestion, chaos’. On 7 October it issued another release, ‘Flawed Queensland Transport planning highlighted’ in reference to the Darra to Springfield railway line and other comments are equally available. In terms of delivery of infrastructure, we see that of 132 carriages promised in 2004 only 12 carriages have been delivered, with the remainder to be delivered by January 2009 despite originally being promised for 2008. It does not matter what the government says. It does not matter what the media releases it issues say. It does not matter what spin is spun. The cold hard facts are that the commuting public know this government has failed them. Acknowledging failure is the first step towards fixing a problem. This motion acknowledges those public transport failures, which the former Premier was always willing to do, and he had good reason to do so. We all remember the art of the mea culpa. This motion ought to be supported. It is a motion that enables this government to acknowledge its failures and to start moving down the track to fixing the problems in south-east Queensland’s public transport network. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.39 pm): It gives me pleasure to support the motion moved by the member for Clayfield. Oh, dear, here we go again. This is deja vu for the people of south-east Queensland. When this government failed to provide water infrastructure and realised that it was in deep trouble and its focus groups started to tell it that there was an issue—and it takes a focus group in this state before the government realises that anything is wrong—what was its response? To set up a bureaucracy to oversee water and to take some of the blame for years of preceding failure. It is deja vu, because the focus groups are out there again and they are saying that public transport is a shambles. It is amazing that the government did not realise that, because one only has to catch a train or talk to someone who does to realise that public transport is a shambles. It is overcrowded. The buses are so overcrowded that they drive past people. The trains are in a terrible state. It is not as though the residents of south-east Queensland do not have enough incentives to take public transport, because the roads are shocking, particularly for people in my part of town. But I think that statement applies to the Gold Coast and to the north coast. The roads would give any Queenslander all the incentive they need to get out and use public transport. The only problem is that the public transport is not there and it is not good enough. I ask members to have a look at the state of public transport, particularly of rail transport. Is it any wonder that Queenslanders are less likely to get on a train to go to work than anyone else anywhere in Australia? I ask members to look at any of the criteria. The services themselves are overcrowded. Where is the modern rolling stock? If we want people to use public transport, a number of criteria have to exist: the convenience, the frequency of services, the speed and the comfort. None of those criteria exist. I ask members to have a look at the stations around Brisbane. People have to be in pretty good physical shape to be able to walk to it, because there is no other way of getting to it. People have to walk through dimly lit areas, which impedes their safety. The railway stations in the western suburbs in particular and elsewhere lack disability access. Where are the new lines? We have talked about lines to Redcliffe and we have talked about lines to Springfield. The government has not done enough with the lines here to improve services at all. Recently I took a private trip to Germany. I decided to do some work while I was on my private trip so I had a good look at the public transport system in Germany. The public transport system in that country delivered all the things that this government has failed to deliver. It had modern carriages, the service was fast, it was located in convenient areas, there were excellent lines— Mr Rickuss interjected. Dr FLEGG: The trains can fit through the tunnels. The gradient of the line meant that the trip was comfortable. There was connectivity in that people could hop from one mode of public transport to another. The public transport in that country fitted all the criteria. In Bremen in north Germany, which is not a huge city—it is about the size of the Gold Coast—there is no need for people to own a car. In Germany there are modern ticketing systems, not just people standing up promising to deliver modern ticketing systems. In some ways I wonder if I should be the person speaking about this issue, because my electorate— Government members interjected. Dr FLEGG: I knew the members opposite would like that one. My electorate has the most difficult access to public transport of anywhere I know in Brisbane. Many of my constituents who want to catch public transport have Buckley’s chance of doing so. There is no railway other than Indooroopilly Railway Station, but that does not have a bus station attached— Time expired. 3392 Transport Infrastructure 10 Oct 2007

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (5.44 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘acknowledges’ are deleted and the following words inserted: ‘the extraordinary growth in infrastructure spending on passenger transport and substantial increases in the availability of passenger services leading to a 30% increase in public transport patronage in the past three years in South East Queensland.’ Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (5.45 pm): I second the amendment. Ms BLIGH: The opposition’s motion accuses the government of failure in relation to planning for public transport. So let us have a look at our performance and the plans that we have for the forward years and the growth that we are experiencing. We have committed more than $950 million this year to bus, train and ferry services. There is funding this financial year for 148 new buses and 9,000 extra seats. Over the next three years there is funding for 132 new train carriages, delivering an extra 30,000 seats for passengers in peak periods every single day. No reasonable commentator could call that failing to plan. Almost $10 billion has been allocated to improve public transport infrastructure not just for this year and not just for next year; we have a 20-year plan that will see our public transport infrastructure build and build and build with the growth of our population. It is a record investment and it includes $770 million for the Northern Busway from Herston to Kedron; $137.8 million for the first section of the Eastern Busway which, I have to say, was opposed by members of the opposition in its early stages; $218.5 million for the Boggo Road Busway, which again was opposed by the previous shadow minister for transport; $330 million for the Inner Northern Busway, which as I outlined this morning is on time; $268.6 million to construct an additional rail line between the Salisbury and Park Road stations and between Kuraby and Kingston, which are new rail lines delivering new services to previously unserviced areas; $30 million to duplicate the rail line between Keperra and Ferny Grove; $313 million to upgrade the Ipswich line from Corinda to Darra and then from Darra to Redbank; $30 million for the South East Busway extension to Springwood; $120 million for bus priority measures from Capalaba to Cleveland; $600 million for the Gold Coast rapid transit system; $960 million for the Gold Coast heavy rail extension to Coolangatta; $1.2 billion for a new rail line to Maroochydore; and the list goes on. This is $10 billion worth of success. That is what this plan is about. How does Queensland compare on a national basis? This year alone we will spend $5.7 billion for transport and roads infrastructure. What will the Commonwealth spend for the whole of Australia on transport and energy? It will spend $9.8 billion. Queensland’s share of that is likely to be less than $2 billion. It is not just about how much money we put in; it is about the results that we get for the investment that we make. The investment that we have made in public transport in the past three years has seen a 30 per cent increase in the number of people using public transport and an increase in the number of trips from 119 million trips per annum to more than 160 million trips per annum. This is success in public transport planning. On any world assessment of a successful public transport system that was planning for growth, this plan would stack up. But if the members opposite want to talk about failure, I will talk about the mover of this motion when he was in charge of public transport at the Brisbane City Council. Before the member for Clayfield took over in the Brisbane City Council when it was run by Labor, the state contributed $32 million to our city’s public transport system and the Brisbane City Council contributed $30 million. Basically, the government and the council shared the costs. In the budget this year, the state is contributing $72 million and the BCC $55 million. The state is now funding our public transport system to 57 per cent. While the member for Clayfield was a BCC councillor, expenditure on public transport dropped from six per cent of its budget to five per cent of its budget. That looks like failure to me. Since the introduction of TransLink, a total of 200 new buses introduced by the council in the last three years have all been funded by the state—success! Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (5.50 pm): I join with the member for Moggill when he said that nobody could believe he was standing there; half the members of the Liberal Party cannot believe it either. The honourable member for Clayfield said that we had a web site that was a bit out of date. We looked up the honourable member for Clayfield’s web site and it says, ‘Tim is the shadow minister for tourism, fair trading and wine industry development’. In other words, the last couple of weeks just have not happened. The honourable member for Moggill said that people cannot get on the railway stations and they cannot do anything. I am holding here a photo of the Banoon Railway Station. It has been like that since the 1930s. Pity the pensioner trying to get up the stairs, pity the mum with a pram and pity somebody with a disability. They have no chance. This second photo shows what we are doing today at the Banoon Railway Station. This is exactly what is happening under the Labor government. It never would have happened under those jokers over there. Let us contrast it: this first photo is you jokers, this second photo is us. This is the way it is today. 10 Oct 2007 Transport Infrastructure 3393

The point is this: when it comes to patronage on the services, let us look at what has happened in the last three years. Patronage is up more than 37 per cent on the Gold Coast, it is up 37 per cent on the Sunshine Coast, it is up 60 per cent in Redlands, it is up 71 per cent in Caboolture, Pine Rivers and Redcliffe, it is up 100 per cent in Ipswich and we know it for sure in Logan because it is up 118 per cent in Logan City. That is what has happened. The member for Moggill said that if you are standing at the bus stations they drive past you. What a condemnation of the lord mayor and his ability to run a bus service. Ask any patron in Brisbane about what happens with the way they manage the bus service. The lord mayor, under the tutelage of the member for Clayfield, never contributed to the growth funds. That is what has happened, so people just wave goodbye as the bus passes them by. That is how they get to work. We also were treated to a condemnation because nothing has happened with capital works. Let us look at it. The Inner Northern Busway is ahead of schedule, with $333 million worth of development. Mr Hinchliffe: That’s a bit more than nothing. Mr MICKEL: A little bit more than nothing. What is happening with the third track from Salisbury to Kuraby which will enable people from the Gold Coast to get there? It is ahead of schedule—in fact, $255 million worth of ahead of schedule. What about the Mitchelton to Keperra rail upgrade? Where is it? It is ahead of schedule. How much is it? It is $46 million worth. I do not want to steal the thunder from the honourable member for Glass House because I know that she has a magnificent project going on in her part of the world. Let me take all honourable members for a whirlwind trip around the region. On the Sunshine Coast, in the three years of TransLink, there have been 88 new buses and $39.6 million spent on infrastructure. In the eastern region, where the member for Capalaba is, there have been 33 new buses, $3 million spent on service improvements and $1.2 million spent on infrastructure. In the southern region, where I am, there have been 77 new buses, $6.9 million per annum spent on service improvements and $6.8 million spent on infrastructure. On the Gold Coast there have been 72 new buses, $8.6 million per annum spent on new services, $85 million spent on infrastructure and consultation is well underway on the Gold Coast rapid transit system. In the western region, where the member for Inala is, there have been 25 new buses, $3 million per annum spent on service improvements and $41.9 million spent on infrastructure. In the CBD—that is, Brisbane Central where ‘We couldn’t muster a candidate. Don’t ask us to do that. Heaven’s above, we can waltz off to Germany but we cannot find a candidate’—there have been 190 new buses, $21.2 million per annum spent on service improvements and $475.9 million spent on infrastructure. No wonder you did not want to contest it, old friend. The member for Moggill sought refuge in Germany and let the Liberal Party’s faceless people tell him what to do but he could not rustle up the courage, the ticker—you know, the little thing inside you—to find a candidate to contest his ideas and his plan for infrastructure. Instead of that, the member for Moggill launched a vicious attack on the lord mayor and his inability to deliver bus services because people have to drive past them. When it comes to delivery, it is Labor who delivers. It is Labor, Labor, Labor—always Labor. Time expired. Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (5.55 pm): I rise to support my coalition colleagues by contributing to this debate and speaking on the motion before the House on the deplorable state of public transport infrastructure in Queensland. My focus of course will be the neglect of the Gold Coast region that this Labor government has practised over 16 of the last 18 years it has been in office. The Gold Coast region is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia and has been for the last 30 years. The Beattie-Bligh Labor government has mistreated the residents of the area to the point of desperation. Congestion on the Gold Coast is at an all-time high, and coming into the tourist season the influx of another 500,000 people over the coming months will only exacerbate this problem. This is something that we on the Gold Coast have had to deal with each year for years, and the state government has just totally ignored this problem. The government has been encouraging people to come to Queensland but it has not provided for them in terms of suitable public transport infrastructure for the booming Gold Coast region. Growth on the Gold Coast has been powering for the last 30 years since Joh abolished death duties, yet the Labor Party keeps telling us that this is some new phenomenon that it has only just woken up to. There is no bus service to the important booming industrial area in Yatala from the surrounding suburbs and back for the 8,000 workers who contribute to this thriving business area. The bus service to the Gold Coast hinterland is limited and sporadic, and forward thinking needs to be put into the development of the communities in the hinterland. The application for the solar cat ferry project from Runaway Bay all the way through to Broadbeach has been undermined and financially hamstrung due to the six-knot requirement in certain parts of the waterways along proposed routes. This project, which was presented by a consortium headed by Labor icon Bob Hawke, has had the wind taken out of its sails by Labor government bureaucrats. The six-knot requirement for the project would be like a slow boat to China or catching a 3394 Transport Infrastructure 10 Oct 2007 train doing 20 kilometres per hour from Brisbane to the Gold Coast. No-one would use it. The temerity of the government in undermining the project and not allowing an exemption from the six-knot requirement is inexcusable. Yet again this is another example of the government not planning for future public transport needs in the Gold Coast region. Research has shown there would be no safety or environmental issues, especially erosion of river banks, with the exemption of the six-knot provision. The research was also ignored by the state government. The Gold Coast rapid transport system is another saga that has been on the backburner. This fiasco with the light rail system is dismal and has been on the drawing board for four years—very similar to the TransLink smart card debacle. The light rail system was initiated by the former mayor of the Gold Coast, Gary Baildon, and he has not been around for the last four years. The half a billion dollar project has been analysed, scrutinised, politicised and criticised and still no decision has been arrived at by the state government one way or another. We cannot wait any longer for basic transport services. Even the duplication and extension of the rail system to Coolangatta will not be completed until 2026. Doesn’t this government realise it will be too late by then? The Gold Coast will be a city of a million people by 2026. The economic growth on the Gold Coast has generated enormous funds for the state government through stamp duty, gambling taxes and tourism dollars. The public transport infrastructure has not met the exponential growth of this region. With the Gold Coast being the sixth largest city in Australia, there has been plenty of planning in the area of public transport infrastructure, but very little action. Let us look at the debacle on the on- and off-ramps of the M1. The member for Mudgeeraba would be well aware of the problems there. Despite increasing commuter usage, there has been no planning for growth and traffic is at a standstill at the roundabouts and exit and entry points. The upgrade of the motorway has been stalled through excuses and the buck passing of responsibility to other levels government. By the time it is delivered to Gold Coast motorists, it will simply be full up again. In conclusion, I call on the state government to get its acts together and build a more efficient, commuter-friendly public transport infrastructure and road system, as is its duty as the elected representative of the people. It must stop ignoring the enormous growth on the Gold Coast, which will continue. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (6.00 pm): Although the member for Robina and I live within a stone’s throw of each other, it would seem that our view of infrastructure on the Gold Coast is poles apart. The South East Queensland Regional Infrastructure Plan and Program includes more than $11.6 billion to be spent on new infrastructure on the Gold Coast over the next 20 years. Over the past 25 years, the Gold Coast, extending from Yatala in the north to the New South Wales border in the south, has experienced the most sustained growth of any Australian city. More than half of this investment on the Gold Coast is being spent on transport infrastructure, with $6.34 billion earmarked for road, public transport and freight projects. A major component of the investment is increasing the capacity and patronage on the Gold Coast rail line. Sections of the track are being duplicated and the extension of the rail line from Robina to Varsity Lakes is under construction. As the member for Southport reminds us, in 1966 a coalition government under a Liberal Party transport minister ripped out the line to the Gold Coast with such undue haste that they left a locomotive at Coolangatta. A Labor government has replaced it. In June 2007 the Queensland government announced record spending on infrastructure. For Gold Coast commuters, that would see more seats on trains. A sum of $104.6 million was allocated in this year’s budget for 44 three-car train sets. That is an extra 132 Citytrain carriages hitting the tracks to boost capacity on the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and suburban Brisbane lines. Of the 2006-7 budget, $28.3 million was earmarked to continue planning and consultation for the new Gold Coast rapid transit system. The Gold Coast rapid transit system is a $600 million Queensland government project being delivered by TransLink in partnership with the Gold Coast City Council. It will be a fast, frequent, reliable system integrated with the coast’s existing transport network, using either light rail or bus. Ultimately the transit system will link Helensvale with Coolangatta, passing through Southport, Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach. Scarborough Street has been announced as the preferred route for the Gold Coast rapid transit system through Southport. In March 2007 two route options through Southport were presented to the community, with over 1,200 people registering their comments on the project. Feedback showed no clear preference or opposition. The Scarborough Street option allows the rapid transit system to travel through the key business and employment centre of Southport and provide access to the Scarborough/ Nerang streets precinct. The Robina to Varsity Lakes project is a $324.4 million extension of the Gold Coast rail line south from Robina to a new station at Varsity Lakes in the electorate of Burleigh. The 4.1 kilometre Robina to Varsity Lakes line extension is part of an unprecedented upgrade of rail infrastructure and services for the Gold Coast. The Robina to Varsity Lakes extension is the first stage in restoring the Gold Coast line to the border by 2018. 10 Oct 2007 Transport Infrastructure 3395

The Robina to Varsity Lakes extension will deliver twin electrified tracks, a 300 metre tunnel under Easthill Drive at Robina, three road overpasses and a new station at Varsity Lakes. Workers will start building the new station at Varsity Lakes next year, which will include 300 commuter car parks, a drop- off area, six bus bays and a taxi rank. Once tracks are in service by 2010, it is expected that residents of Varsity Lakes will be able to reach Brisbane’s Central Station in 75 minutes and the international airport will be reached in just over an hour and a half. The Queensland government also committed $23.7 million to develop a transit-oriented development around the Varsity Lakes station. So far the government has committed more than $500 million for 36 kilometres of new rail infrastructure to increase speed, frequency and the reach of Gold Coast train services. The $22 million second track from Ormeau to Coomera, completed in September 2006, was the first part of the Gold Coast line. Construction is continuing to deliver the third capacity building track from Salisbury to Kuraby by early 2008 and the second line between Helensvale and Robina, due to open in August next year. The first of 44 new Citytrains, worth more than $500 million, are already operating on the Gold Coast corridor, with two new services added to the timetable and more to come. By late 2008 track capacity on the Gold Coast line will have been boosted by 50 per cent, with new trains delivering a 60 per cent increase in seats. Once the Salisbury-Kuraby track is completed, track capacity on the Gold Coast line will be increased by 50 per cent, with a further two six-car trains provided by March 2008, which will mean an extra 868 seats. I look forward to the first train arriving at Varsity Lakes and I congratulate the government on the new infrastructure. Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.05 pm): I rise to support the coalition’s motion. Managing for growth is about building timely and cost-effective infrastructure. Public transport must be a core part of ensuring the livability of Queensland and, in particular, south-east Queensland. We are being choked to death by gridlock and poor public transport. However, having listened to the new Premier it seems that she would have Queenslanders believe that she is ahead of the pack and that there is not a problem. Growth in Queensland has been predictable. Growth in Queensland is not something that has happened suddenly. In fact, when one looks at charts of the increase in population in south-east Queensland and the whole of Queensland, one will see a consistent upward trend. In fact, there have been higher spikes in percentage terms in years before now. Therefore, it should not be an extraordinary event for good government to plan for growth. However, in the past few years the government has failed to deliver any major infrastructure in Queensland. For nine years it did nothing. For nine years it was about spin. We may have a new Premier, but it is the same old spin. The government now points to the budget papers and says that a record amount of spending is still to come. However, it fails to explain why projects are blowing out by up to double their estimated cost and why completion dates for a number of projects are pushing out further and further. The Premier also fails to explain why the government did nothing for nine years. Why did the government fail to see that the predictable high growth in the population required it to undertake some forward action? In fact, today the government’s budgeted capital statement reads a bit like a fairytale. No-one can believe the figures because the cost estimates are escalating faster than the rise in construction costs due to poor planning. The statement reads more like a wish list than a serious program of scheduled works with credible figures and credible timing. I am receiving feedback from small to medium sized construction firms that are worried about the unpredictability of the construction time frame of this government because projects that have not been funded properly are escalating and are eating into other programs. It is making it harder for industry to plan because the plan released by the government is not truthful. Labor has been out of practice when it comes to delivering infrastructure because of its self- imposed, nine-year infrastructure drought. When asked about the major infrastructure that they have presided over, Premier Bligh and her predecessor listed footbridges among their major achievements. That is terribly nice, but it is not terribly effective in preventing the escalating congestion on south-east Queensland roads and public transport congestion. The new Premier must ensure that cost blowouts and critical public transport infrastructure do not blow a hole in time frames that have been set to deliver for residents caught in gridlock. If she is serious about managing for growth, then she needs to get serious about delivering these projects on budget and in a timely way. We have already heard from my colleague the member for Clayfield that the time frames for the smart-ticketing system have blown out. In fact, the new Premier did not even know how long that project had been going, and it is now running years late. That critical piece of servicing is required for easy transition across a number of modes of public transport. 3396 Transport Infrastructure 10 Oct 2007

But let us look at the Sunshine Coast. My colleagues have outlined some of the Gold Coast issues. The Sunshine Coast quality bus corridor has risen from a $168 million estimated cost in 2005-06 to $307 million in 2007-08 and the figure will only go higher. The interim upgrade of the bus station for Maroochydore is running behind schedule and we are still yet to see a decision about the other piece of major infrastructure that must be put in place which is a fully integrated transit centre that links between bus and rail. CAMCOS, the long awaited rail line into Maroochydore, also sits so far out in the capital program that it is failing to address current growth and choices of people who are moving to the Sunshine Coast. Catch-up infrastructure which is occurring too late is not good enough. There must be infrastructure to meet current demand and forward infrastructure to drive new choices—choices about where people live and housing affordability, and also the choice about whether they buy a second car because they have good alternative public transport. All we have seen to date from this government has been promises with very, very long lead times. As the costs escalate there has been no explanation as to how the government is going to be able to fund these costs. Meanwhile, critically needed infrastructure continues to slip behind. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (6.10 pm): I rise to speak against the motion moved by the honourable member for Clayfield. Based on the honourable member’s previous involvement in the Brisbane City Council, one would have thought that he ought to have a better understanding than most about the increasing demands in public transport and the challenges faced by all levels of government in providing services and the additional infrastructure required to cater for the additional 800 to 1,000 persons coming to the south-east corner each week. In fact, I believe the honourable member for Clayfield actually understands the issues and is supportive of the action taken by this government in addressing public transport issues such as busways et cetera. So why this motion? This motion is nothing more than a smart ploy by the honourable member for Clayfield to take this opportunity to put himself in the leadership position, to take the charge against the government and to continue shoring up support to challenge for the top job in the Liberal Party, which I believe will take place within weeks after the federal election is over. I can just imagine the honourable member for Clayfield rocking up to the member for Moggill’s office yesterday and saying, ‘Mate, have I got a deal for you here. I will take charge of this issue tomorrow and you will take second spot speaking after me and we will highlight the failure of this government.’ In fact, what he wants to highlight is his leadership aspirations. I give my best wishes to the honourable member for Clayfield. We on this side will be watching the drama unfold with great interest and anticipation during Christmas when he thinks no-one is watching. What is the record of this government in terms of our investment in public transport infrastructure and services? The achievements are simply too numerous to mention. For the sake of time I will simply focus on the wonderful Brisbane busway network as an example. The Queensland government is proud of its commitment to busways. The Brisbane busway plan was initially conceived to improve public transport connectivity across the city. The Integrated Regional Transport Plan 1997 broadened the Brisbane busway plan into the SEQ Regional Busway Network. The development of the busway network was identified as a significant project in the Integrated Regional Transport Plan. The South East Queensland Regional Plan and the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program have been prepared by the Queensland government to provide a framework for sustainable development in the region in response to the forecast population growth over the next 20 years to 2026. Both these plans support a busway network as part of an integrated approach to addressing the future transport needs of greater Brisbane. Core sections of the busway network are already in place, with the South East Busway and Inner Northern Busway already operational. We have now completed 19.3 kilometres of the proposed 54.8 kilometre network planned by 2026. A further 2.8 kilometres of busway is presently under construction. Other busway projects in detailed planning stages include the Eastern Busway from Buranda to Capalaba and the Northern Busway from Herston to Bracken Ridge. These busways will form part of a complete busway network for Brisbane that will greatly benefit the whole city. Eventually, a person will be able to travel on a bus from one side of the city to the other without leaving their seat. Busways will fill the gaps between existing rail lines to complete Brisbane’s major public transport network and create a world-class system for the future. We are building a busway network that will be fast and seamless and be the envy of other Australian cities. In terms of the future, when the busway network is completed bus travel could be as much as 20 minutes faster during peak periods for popular journeys such as Kelvin Grove to the city. Students from Carindale will travel to the University of Queensland in less than 14 minutes. The busway network will also benefit residents living across the city. Over the next 20 years, around 145,000 new homes will be built in Brisbane, ranging from family homes to units and apartments. Most new residents will be living in suburbs within 10 kilometres of the CBD and will greatly benefit from this busway. On the South East Busway, patronage on core services has increased by 163 per cent to more than 5,600,000 passenger trips per year in comparison with pre-busway operations. The Eastern Busway and Northern Busway are expected to prove just as popular. When completed, the Northern Busway is expected to provide for 78,000 trips per day in 2026. The Eastern Busway is expected to provide for 46,000 trips per day in 10 Oct 2007 Transport Infrastructure 3397

2026, taking thousands of cars off the road and giving commuters a congestion-free run. We stand on our record and I firmly reject the motion of the opposition and support the amendment moved by the Premier. Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (6.15 pm): I am very pleased to support the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Clayfield. This government is forcing unprecedented growth on the Sunshine Coast. The South East Regional Plan requires council to produce a local growth management strategy that will provide for many thousands more people to come to the Sunshine Coast to live. Why would they not want to come to the Sunshine Coast to live? But unfortunately one of the answers to that question is lack of adequate transport. Public transport in particular is simply inadequate for the needs of a growing community, especially in an environment where we should be reducing the use of private vehicles to help cut greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to make it clear that my criticisms of the lack of public transport are not directed at the local providers. I believe the Sunbus company is doing the best that it can with the limited resources and timetables that it has. There have been some recent additions to this bus service, including the provision of a new express service from Caloundra to Maroochydore on weekdays. What we need is not just one more service but many more services. It is a great frustration to many of my constituents that they want to use public transport but it is too far away, it does not take them to where they want to go or it is just too infrequent. There are older citizens living in our area who do not want to drive but the reality is that there is no other option for them. Others who would like to commute locally to work on public transport find that it is an impractical option because the bus services only run once an hour every now and then. In this morning’s Courier-Mail there was a report on a study by AAMI that found that two thirds of Brisbane residents will not use public transport because it is not reliable, accessible or fast enough. If the same study was done on the Sunshine Coast I am sure that the usage would be even lower. This government is doing a lot of talking about improving public transport services. CAMCOS is supposed to deliver a much-needed additional rail service to the Sunshine Coast but it will not be fully completed until 2025. The upgrade to the existing railway corridor between Landsborough and Nambour that is needed to improve train services on this line has only just been announced and will not be finished for many years to come. In the meantime, this government pushes additional development that will bring more people, more cars and more pressure to the Sunshine Coast road network that will not be able to cope. We will have a ridiculous situation with the new hospital in Kawana that is due in 2014—years ahead of the CAMCOS railway line or the multimodal transport corridor that is supposed to provide access to it. In the meantime, hospital users and emergency vehicles will have to rely on the existing road network that was never designed to carry this extra transport. Rail transport is just one issue. Equally important is the lack of connectivity on the coast. We have a wonderful university, the University of the Sunshine Coast, but access to it is limited to cars and a few buses every now and then. We need to provide a public transport network that will make it easier for people to get to school, to the university and to work. We do not just want to make it easier for Sunshine Coast people to commute to Brisbane, we want them to be able to work as well as live on the coast. Good transport infrastructure is critical if we want to build local employment. The Premier yesterday announced a new authority to manage Queensland Rail and coordinate public transport. That is fine, but first we need the services. We need CAMCOS. We need a far better network of bus services. We need timetables and routes that will cater to consumer demand. We talk about Queensland being the Smart State. It is not very smart to encourage growth without infrastructure. It is even less smart not to offer viable alternatives to private car users. Global warming and greenhouse gases are not something that we need to worry about in the future; they need action now. This is not my opinion; it is what experts like Professor Ian Lowe and Professor Tim Flannery are saying. Decreased car usage and good environmentally friendly public transport options are not the only solution, but they are a part of it. Transport infrastructure that will not be delivered for over a decade is not going to cut it, and neither is encouraging rampant growth without providing real public transport options. I want this government to act now to resolve public transport issues with proper planning and real investment where necessary. We need to fast-track transport projects so they can be delivered sooner rather than later. Show us; do not tell us. This government tells the people of Queensland every day what it is going to do, but it needs to show us what it is going to do. Because we do not see it; we just hear about it. Every day that I sit in this House I keep hearing about promises like the Kawana police station that is going to be built in Sippy Downs. For three years in a row it has been put on the budget. There is not a brick on the ground. There is not even a driveway into that site. This government continues to let the people of Queensland down and it needs to pick up its game because we cannot keep taking the development. We do not mind people coming our way but we need the services to cater for those people and public transport is most essential. Time expired. 3398 Transport Infrastructure 10 Oct 2007

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (6.20 pm): I rise to support the Premier’s amendment. This government is committed to public transport and it is committed to infrastructure. The South East Queensland Regional Infrastructure Plan and Program from 2007-2026 includes more than $8.2 billion to be invested on new infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast over the next 20 years. By 2026, more than 470,000 people are expected to be living on the Sunshine Coast including the shires of Noosa, Maroochy and the City of Caloundra. In that time, traffic demand is projected to increase by 500,000 trips a day. Over three-quarters of investment on the Sunshine Coast is to be spent on transport infrastructure, with $6.4 billion earmarked for road, rail and public transport projects. The first phase of the infrastructure plan, which is to 2010–11, includes improving the north coast rail line. A major upgrade is currently underway between Caboolture and Landsborough, and planning is progressing to increase the passenger and freight capacity of the track between Landsborough and Nambour. The 2006-07 state budget included $15 million for planning a major railway track upgrade between Beerburrum and Landsborough and $1 million to continue planning a track upgrade between Landsborough and Nambour. The current $298 million being spent on the Caboolture to Beerburrum upgrade involves constructing 14 kilometres of new track and realigning the existing corridor. It is scheduled for completion by mid-2009. Construction started in March this year and is currently continuing with earthworks, road works and bridge construction underway. The minister for transport, the Hon. John Mickel, and I visited the works the other day, and TrackStar was working very hard with the government and private contractors to make sure that this project moves ahead and is on time and on budget. The amount of work that has been done is breathtaking. The 17-kilometre, stage 2 upgrade from Beerburrum to Landsborough is in the preliminary planning stage. We have done the community consultation. We have looked at the land uses and the route has been decided. All the work for the planning of that is rolling on so that construction can continue as soon as the rail makes it to Beerburrum. It will then continue to roll out to Landsborough. It is vital that we do this because being a single track it has limited capacity. We currently run a rail bus which I understand the member for Nicklin, Peter Wellington, was very instrumental in getting up quite a few years ago. That provides the additional services that cannot be provided on the railway line. This government identified that many years ago and is building it as we speak. The residents living between Landsborough and Nambour can now have their say on a study of the proposed upgrade of the 22-kilometre section of the north coast rail line. The Landsborough to Nambour rail corridor study will examine a double-track railway along a predominantly new route starting at Landsborough station and extending north to Nambour. The study is beginning with a comprehensive community values and transportation survey of communities within the study area. This rail corridor study is in the early phase of an overall $600 million Landsborough to Nambour rail project. It is going to make a big difference to local residents. It will improve efficiency, service frequency, reliability and operating speeds of trains and cater for increasing demand for rail services in the corridor caused by population and freight transport growth. There are many other public transport studies in the region including the CAMCOS line between Beerwah and Maroochydore which will also help service Australia Zoo. This will move more tourists off the road network and onto trains, which will be great. This government is committed to ensuring residents in the Sunshine Coast region are provided with the transport solutions they need to continue enjoying their unique way of life. Let me tell members about the National Party’s record in my area. There has been a limited investment in the rail network. From the mid-1980s to the end of the 1980s there were four-hour waits between trains to get from Caboolture to anywhere. Is the National Party calling that good infrastructure? It did not put any money into it. Since the election of the Goss government in 1989 and the re-election of the Labor government with Peter Beattie as Premier in 1998, we have invested in our rail network. We now have regular and timely services on the north coast line. For the last five years my husband has worked in Brisbane and he travelled every day on the railway line. It was reliable, fast and efficient. Queensland Rail staff were always helpful. We are eliminating OLCs to ensure we do not have cars mixing with trains. We are doing a major project at Beerwah that we have brought forward by about seven years so that we can facilitate public transport in the area. Bruce Flegg talked about roads. Let me tell the House about roads. When the National Party came to government in 1996, the first thing it did was get rid of our northern bypass. It was planned and ready to go. It had money allocated to it by the Goss government and the National Party came in here and scrapped it. This government is building it. We have done the first stage. The second stage is a year ahead of the planning and is due to be opened in November this year. It is an amazing piece of work. It was the Beattie Labor government that started it and it is the Bligh Labor government that is going to finish it. This government cares about the people of Caboolture. It cares about road and rail transport. Mr Johnson: When are you going to start? Ms MALE: You were one of those who took that away. I saw you do that. 10 Oct 2007 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 3399

Mr Johnson: What is that? Ms MALE: You did that as the minister for transport. Mr Johnson: What did we do? Ms MALE: You took away our road— Time expired. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 49—Attwood, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones NOES, 27—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 49—Attwood, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones NOES, 27—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.40 pm to 7.40 pm.

TERRORISM, ORGANISED CRIME AND ANTI-CORRUPTION SURVEILLANCE BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 15 March (see p. 1091). Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (7.40 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 2007. Let me say at the outset that the government will not be supporting this bill. Despite its name, this bill is not about terrorism, it is not about organised crime and it is not about anticorruption, just as the opposition’s strikingly similar Terrorism and Organised Crime Surveillance Bill 2004 was not about terrorism or organised crime. This bill is about one thing only. It is about telecommunication interception powers. This issue was discussed at length in this House in August in the course of the debate on the Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 and I frankly do not think that I need to repeat all that was said then. It continues to be our government’s view that we should have telecommunication interception powers to give our law enforcement agencies, the police and the CMC, effective powers to combat crime in all its forms. It is absolutely essential, however, that these sorts of strong powers are accompanied by appropriate checks and balances to protect the people of Queensland against an abuse of these powers. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, any Queensland telecommunications interception powers have to be consistent with the Commonwealth’s Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The Commonwealth government agrees that checks and balances are essential. The sticking point is that we do not agree on what those checks and balances should be. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, has clearly stated that the back-end monitoring provided for in the Commonwealth act is enough—that is, monitoring of interceptions after a warrant has been obtained. We are not seeking to replace those measures just to strengthen them with some tried and tested front- end monitoring of the process by which the warrant is obtained in the first place. Queensland is already equipped to make this happen through the involvement of Queensland’s Public Interest Monitor. The Public Interest Monitor was introduced by the coalition government and—I am happy to give credit where it is due—it has worked extremely well. It has worked extremely well here in Queensland for many years to ensure that our already extensive surveillance powers operate effectively and appropriately. The Public Interest Monitor role simply provides an extra safeguard in the form of independent comment which assists the court in considering the validity and purpose of applications for warrants. 3400 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 10 Oct 2007

The PIM’s ninth annual report tabled in this House on 14 November last year reports comments from the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate that judges and magistrates get much assistance from the Public Interest Monitor in relation to surveillance warrant applications. It is certainly in the public interest that the PIM also be involved in phone tapping. We have continued to negotiate with the Commonwealth about this important issue. To be honest, I do not think that we are too far apart in terms of principle. It is just a question of nutting out the detail and ensuring we can find agreement on the checks and balances. As soon as we reach an agreement we as a government will take steps to introduce legislation to provide the police and the CMC with telecommunication interception powers that will help protect the people of Queensland. I want to stress that I intend to continue this government’s practice of being tough on crime, including organised crime and corruption, and tough on the causes of crime. We will continue to be constantly vigilant and proactive in doing all that we can to protect the community from terrorism. Just two months ago our suite of legislation dealing with terrorism was even further enhanced with the passage of the Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I commend the opposition for supporting that bill. In 2005 Queensland was one of the first Australian jurisdictions to introduce preventative detention legislation. Since that time the legislation has been continually reviewed and, where appropriate, strengthened. Under the recently passed Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 police now have the power to search a person under preventative detention at the time they are taken into custody without the need to obtain a warrant. Police powers are even wider during a declared terrorist emergency situation. I should also note that the police and the CMC already have broad powers to use surveillance devices including listening devices, visual surveillance devices and tracking devices. As I have mentioned, the Public Interest Monitor plays a vital role in the exercise of those powers and the system we currently have in Queensland works well to protect the interests and rights of Queenslanders. I conclude by reiterating that my government will support telecommunication interception powers but we will not rush in with a bill like the one introduced by the opposition tonight before reaching an agreement with the Commonwealth government that satisfactorily addresses all reasonable concerns. As I said earlier, this is not the first time we have seen this debated in the House. Our position remains unchanged. These are important powers. We accept that but they are very extensive powers. They are a very significant intrusion into the private lives of citizens. They are powers that we believe ought to be exercised in the context of appropriate checks and balances. The check and balance that we propose is not one that we will invent or one that has not had some road testing. It is a public interest monitoring role that has been in place for years in Queensland operating effectively without causing any delay in the operation of the work of the police or the CMC. I am not aware of any concerns within the Queensland Police Service or the CMC in relation to the way the Public Interest Monitor works. I think that is testament to the strength of that check and balance. It is one of the reasons we are so keen to ensure that this part of our system is preserved in relation to any further extension of these sorts of powers. As I said, the government will not be supporting this bill tonight. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (7.46 pm): I am sure that all members of this House want the police to have every possible tool available to them to investigate organised crime and terrorism in Queensland. A number of years ago the National and Liberal parties did a good thing. They introduced into Queensland the Public Interest Monitor. The Public Interest Monitor is currently involved when the police have an application before the court to install a listening device or a tracking device or to undertake a covert search. I congratulate the National and Liberal government of the time for introducing that initiative. It is a good idea and it is working. We then move forward a few years to the position we have now. In my opinion the position of the current opposition, the current National and Liberal parties, can only be described by the word hypocritical. If the National and Liberal parties believe that the PIM is effective front-end protection for civil rights in Queensland then they cannot support the bill that they have brought before the House because it does not have front-end protection. If they believe in their hearts that the Public Interest Monitor is a hindrance, is not working and should not exist as front-end protection of civil liberties then they must introduce a bill into this House to remove the Public Interest Monitor requirement from applications to install listening devices or tracking devices or applications to undertake covert searches. That is the only consistent position those opposite can have. They either believe in front-end protection via the PIM or they do not. I can understand the position they maintain which is that the PIM has an important role to play when police want to install a listening device or a tracking device or undertake a covert search but it does not have a role to play when police wish to undertake a telephone intercept. In my opinion that is an inconsistent and hypocritical position. 10 Oct 2007 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 3401

I support telephone intercept powers for the Queensland Police Service as long as there is front- end protection via the Public Interest Monitor. I would urge members opposite to take this up with their federal colleagues. We could have had telephone intercept legislation through this parliament 12 months ago if they had convinced their federal colleagues to allow us to install front-end protection. As the Premier said, there is very little difference between our positions. We both want the police to have the tools needed. I urge members opposite. They have wasted enough time. We want telephone intercept powers. They want telephone intercept powers. I ask them to take the issue up with their federal colleagues to allow us to install that which they thought was so invaluable—front-end protection. It was their idea. We wish to replicate it. So I ask them to lobby their federal colleagues to come to the party to allow us to install that front-end protection. If they do, it will happen here in Queensland. I cannot support the bill in its current form. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (7.50 pm): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill. The purpose of this bill is to establish a recording, reporting and inspection regime to complement the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 so that the Queensland Police Service and the CMC can use telecommunications interception as a tool for the investigation of serious offences. Under current Queensland legislation, our own state law enforcement agencies cannot intercept telephone conversations without federal government guidance and supervision. The Queensland Police Service and the CMC have for almost a decade—at least since 1999 with Project Krystal, a strategic assessment of organised crime in Queensland—been calling for these important reforms. It is now 2007 and there has been a revolution in the telecommunications industry. People now have computers, faxes and all sorts of telephones with various communications functions, particularly with the prevalence of mobile phones. With new telecommunication technology comes the opportunity for more people to do amazing things, but it also brings with it a greater capacity to engage in corrupt and criminal behaviour. In a globalised interconnected world, advanced telecommunication is not only an important tool for the illegal narcotic industry and terrorists but can also be a weapon to fight against corruption, organised crime and terrorism. Our own Queensland law enforcement officers need legislative powers to investigate, intercept and then prosecute unlawful behaviour. This relies on advanced communication technology and the capacity to intercept communication of criminal activity within Queensland’s borders as well as outside them. It raises the question of whether the Bligh Labor government is serious about dealing with the local narcotic industry, the Gold Coast being the amphetamine capital of Australia. One wonders if perhaps it has become the place of choice to do this sort of business because this is the state that does not give its law enforcement agencies the powers to undertake proper surveillance. Is the Bligh government serious about suburban crime like local amphetamine labs and other drugs like speed, ecstasy, ice and crack? Is the Queensland government serious about letting the Police Service do surveillance and intelligence on bikie gangs? This is a serious matter because the other states have this capability while Queensland does not. If one wants to set up a crime activity of this type, where are they going to go? Queensland will be their state of choice. The introduction of Queensland legislation to provide telephone interception capacities is essential to the effective disruption of organised crime, suspected terrorist activities and corruption in government, especially with the advances and availability of affordable mobile phone technology. Communication interception technology is more selective and less intrusive than the listening device capabilities currently available to Queensland law enforcement agencies. All other states in Australia now have these powers for their law enforcement agencies. We have heard the lame excuses from members on the other side. The reality is their fellow Labor governments in other states saw the importance of this and were prepared to allow their law enforcement agencies to have this power. Clearly, they are using this as an excuse. I remind the House again that the Queensland Police Service and the CMC have for almost a decade been calling for up-to-date police powers to compete with technological advances in communication. Recent activities in the WA Corruption and Crime Commission have revealed the importance of telecommunication interception powers which have been key to exposing high-level corruption by state Labor party ministers and members of parliament, including a former Labor Premier. In Queensland we have our own recent history where, had our law enforcement officers had the appropriate powers of interception, there could have been incontrovertible evidence—certainty, not hearsay, politics or spin. What would have been the result if the Shepherdson inquiry had had the evidence these sorts of powers may have produced? Would there still be a shroud of confusion over a former Premier’s dealings with one of his ministers if these sort of intercept powers had been available to Queensland, as they would have been in any other state? I remind the House again that the QPS and the CMC have asked the state government to remove the legislative shackles that prevent them from executing their duties in investigating and gathering evidence against highly organised illegal activity. They need the legal constraints to greater technical capacity removed. 3402 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 10 Oct 2007

I also refer the House to the 25 July 2006 position of the Queensland government and remind the House that the minister for police and corrective services said that telephone intercept powers for Queensland police would greatly assist the police in their fight against crime. The coalition agrees. I congratulate the coalition leader on his initiative and question the competence that would have people saying that their police force needs these powers—must have them—in order to do their job comprehensively and then simply stop—down tools, no more work, not introduce the legislation to allow the police force in Queensland to do its job. I quote from Minister Spence’s ministerial media statement on Tuesday, 5 July 2006 headlined ‘Spence calls on Quinn’s Liberals to lobby Canberra for phone taps’. It states— Police Minister Judy Spence has called on Bob Quinn’s Liberals to support the Beattie Government and lobby their federal counterparts for police phone tapping powers in Queensland. Speaking at the National Crimestoppers Conference, Ms Spence said telephone intercept powers for Queensland police would greatly assist them in their fight against crime. She said Mr Quinn and the Liberal Party now needed to stand up for Queenslanders if they were serious about reducing illicit drug crime. If those opposite are serious about reducing illicit drug crime, they should listen to their own police minister and support this bill, because you cannot effectively police in this day and age without these sorts of powers. The minister has used stalling techniques by arguing the need for legislating to incorporate a PIM. While the acronym seems to mean ‘Public Interest Monitor’, other states have taken the view that this is the purpose of Westminster traditions of parliament and the Queensland Labor government’s PIM caveat is for ‘Political Interest Motive’. This is not about Canberra or about the Liberal Party; this is about giving Queensland police and anticorruption agencies the wherewithal to do their job here in Queensland so our state does not become the place of choice for crooks and cronies to do their business. This is about giving Queensland’s law enforcement agencies the same sorts of powers as all of the other states in Australia. If the Bligh Labor government is serious about transparent and accountable government and investigating and prosecuting organised crime, it has a responsibility to give Queensland law enforcement officers the legislative powers they need to do their job. This bill is about greater transparency and accountability in government. This is about giving our state police and corruption commission the capacity to deal with today’s issues with 2007 powers, and I support this bill wholeheartedly. We see here one government in Australia holding out because it does not want its police force or its corruption watchdog to have the sort of powers that uncovered corruption in Western Australia. If the government’s excuses were so relevant, why would every other state in Australia sign up to this initiative? Are the government’s Labor counterparts in the other states—all of them—so lame that every one of them signed up to something that is wrong? This issue is important. This state needs the protection that these powers will give the CMC and the police, yet the government is stalling; it is blocking their introduction. The problem lies with the government. It should deliver the powers that law enforcement agencies need. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (8.00 pm): First of all, in rising to speak in support of the Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill, I would like to acknowledge the dedication, decency and courage of the members of the Queensland Police Service—members who daily risk their lives to fight organised crime. Of a morning they put on that blue uniform not knowing if a morgue assistant is going to take it off them at night. A government member interjected. Mr MESSENGER: I am surprised to hear members of the government laughing about that, because that is the reality that these very courageous and dedicated human beings face. I would think that members opposite would pay a little bit more serious attention. The Queensland coalition’s Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill is a common-sense bill that is aimed at delivering the vital tools and resources that are needed to tackle organised crime and corruption. How disappointing it was to hear a brand-new Premier be so negative about such positive, proactive legislation that is designed to protect the lives of our loved ones and our family members. The Premier made all the excuses in the world for why Queensland cannot have the telephone intercept powers that this bill creates. I expect to hear more excuses. The most popular excuse is, ‘It’s the Commonwealth’s fault. We need a PIM. We need checks and balances.’ This argument is very shallow and lacks any intellectual effort or rigour at all. A year 3 student at Agnes Water Primary School, if presented with the Premier’s argument, would say, ‘Wait a minute. This legislation is working in every other state in Australia. Other Labor premiers in other states are not coming up and making the same pathetic excuses. So why are these tired old excuses being rolled out in Queensland?’ We are entitled to ask that question. Other Labor premiers are working quite well with 10 Oct 2007 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 3403 the federal government. Why has Queensland not found the ability to cooperate with the federal government over the increase in telephone tapping powers? The member for Redlands talked about front-end protection. For me, the term ‘front-end protection’ is merely code for ‘We don’t want the CMC or the members of the Queensland Police Service listening to Labor Party politicians’ telephones without Labor Party politicians knowing about it.’ That is the bald fact. This legislation would provide the CMC with telephone interception capabilities where necessary. This is not a new concept. As I have said, it is already available to all other similar bodies throughout Australia and has been for several years now. By not having telephone tapping powers that are at least equal to those that exist in other states and territories, we have become the weak link in Australia’s fight against terrorism and organised crime. This legislation would simply bring us into line with the rest of Australia. Queensland is supposed to be the Smart State, but currently we are behind the times and dangerously behind the times because the stakes can never be higher. We are gambling not only with own lives but also with the lives, the good fortune and the legacy of future generations. The Queensland coalition, along with the Queensland Police Service, the CMC, parliamentary committees and the general community have been calling for these telephone tapping powers for some time now. But this government has typically ignored those pleas and has continued to adopt a softly- softly approach to criminal law reform. I would like to refer members to a submission to the parliamentary joint committee on the Australian Crime Commission. It states— The adequacy of legislative and administrative arrangements, including the adequacy of cross-jurisdictional databases, to meet future needs. As economic and crime markets become increasingly globalised the major issues under this heading from a state perspective will revolve around the difficulties associated with investigating national activity which can be substantially hampered by jurisdictional differences. From a Queensland perspective, the absence of state based legislation allowing access to telephone interception powers continues to be a frustration. ...

The CMC and the QPS have been jointly arguing for the introduction of Queensland based telecommunications interception (’TI’) powers for the past decade. The continued absence of TI powers severely impedes the capacity of Queensland law enforcement to detect, investigate and dismantle organised crime activity in this state. TI powers, which are available to federal agencies and in all other state jurisdictions, have enabled law enforcement agencies elsewhere to secure arrests in circumstances where traditional law enforcement techniques alone would have been insufficient. TI provides an investigative capacity far advanced from the more resource intensive alternative of Call Charge Record (’CCR’) analysis. Where CCRs can be used to establish association only, TI product can establish the nature of the association. CCRs, when cross referenced against other investigative tools, can suggest a criminal course of conduct, whereas TI product can result in evidence of the criminal act able to be tendered in court. Alternatively TI can prove the innocence of an association allowing allocation of investigative resources for other purposes. Both the CMC and the QPS can currently access information resulting from TI, and TI itself, by entering into joint operations with agencies which have these powers, principally the ACC and Australian Federal Police ... and less frequently other state agencies. And this is the killer— In practice however access is not so easily obtained. The AFP and ACC have their own national intelligence and investigative priorities which consume significant portions of their resources. Requests for access to TI by way of a joint operation made by Queensland agencies must compete for resources against these national priorities. We need to have policing priorities based on our own Queensland priorities. Queensland TI legislation would allow local access to TI product in accordance with state based priorities and would ease some of the external demand for resources in terms of the federal agencies. The report states further— Organised crime in Queensland is characterised by a number of significant criminal identities who have been involved in organised crime activity for a number of years and have successfully evaded prosecution. As time progresses they become more experienced in terms of the way they operate and increasingly more difficult to investigate. Were TI powers available in Queensland it is highly likely that a number of these criminal identities would have been successfully prosecuted or at the least had their activities curtailed. Queensland has become a breeding ground for organised crime. We are the organised crime capital and training ground of Australia, because we have become the weak link in law enforcement activities around Australia. In fact, Queensland has become a laughing-stock not because of the magnificent efforts of the Queensland Police Service but because of the bungled management that is coming from the Queensland Labor Party and its inability to arm the Queensland Police Service with the legislative powers and also the physical resources that it needs. There are many reasons members opposite should support this bill. One of those may be economic. The legislation will save us money. There is a cost in human misery, in terms of health and society, that will not go away. The best that this government can do is to try to cover it up, to paper over the cracks and pretend that it is not happening. We cannot go on like this. We need every cent we can get. The Premier has just rung up $53 billion worth of debt for the next three years on the state bank 3404 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 10 Oct 2007 card. We need to crack down on organised crime so we can at least save some money because it does have a cost—not only an economic cost but a moral cost and a cost in morale within the Queensland Police Service. By passing this legislation, the government would dramatically increase the morale of ordinary rank and file members who are leaving this service in record numbers. There is an exodus from the Queensland Police Service. Mr Moorhead: It’s not true. Mr MESSENGER: It’s not true? Let us talk about the SERT teams— Time expired. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (8.10 pm): In the times I have heard this issue debated in this state parliament, I have not heard one lucid, decent, substantive argument from honourable members of the government as to why Queensland law enforcement authorities should be denied the right to have telephone interception powers. We have heard a lot of excuses but we have not heard reasons that actually stack up. If honourable members want to stand up and demonstrate clearly why Queensland should be the odd state out, then let them do so with the real reason—not with a whole bundle of grab bags of excuses. As we all know, Australia has six states and two territories. As of 2003—and the situation may even have changed since then—five Australian states and one territory had their own telephone interception power regime. The only state which did not was Queensland and the only territory which did not was the ACT. Perhaps the ACT has redressed it at this stage, but that is just an academic argument because the issue is this: why are the majority of Australian state and territory jurisdictions by an overwhelming number comfortable with having their own telephone interception powers? Let us look at how long ago some of those states gave their law enforcement agencies telephone interception powers. For Victoria Police, it was 28 October 1988, almost 19 years ago; for the New South Wales Crime Commission, it was 30 January 1989, almost two decades ago; for the New South Wales Police Service, it was the same day; for the Independent Commission Against Corruption—which may have superseded the Crime Commission down there, I am not sure—it was 6 June 1990; for South Australia Police, it was 10 July 1991; for Western Australia Police, it was 15 July 1997; for the Police Integrity Commission of New South Wales, it was 14 July 1998; and for the Western Australian Anti- Corruption Commission, it was 24 September 2001. I am not sure of the dates for the Northern Territory or Tasmania but really that is purely academic. If all of these issues about the fundamental subjugation and the lowering of the rights, standards and liberties of people at large were so great, one would wonder why there has not been a universal revocation of telephone interception powers in other Australian state and territory jurisdictions. The reason there has not been a revocation of them is that all of the arguments which have been advanced by honourable members opposite do not hold water when we are dealing with the issues of fundamental liberties of the people in the community that they are concerned about. Those jurisdictions which have decided that telephone interception powers are an important tool in the kit of their law enforcement agencies believe the benefits outweigh any disadvantages and if there are any disadvantages they can be quite properly dealt with. Let us look at how many of those jurisdictions that I mentioned are not Labor jurisdictions. Absolutely none of them. Some of them, quite frankly, have got quite left-wing attorneys-general and police ministers, in particular Western Australia. They are not running out there adhering to the mantra that they have got to abolish it, that they need to take this important tool out of the kit of the law enforcement agencies in their particular states and territories. Nowhere is that being proffered. In actual fact they are getting on with the job. Also, in actual fact, they are having some significant results in their states when dealing with organised crime and other corruption activities which need to be brought to heel. We have seen right from the late 1990s—almost 10 years ago—the then CJC, the crime commission in this state, and the Queensland Police Service jointly calling for telephone interception powers. This government has continually over that time denied their call for telephone interception powers on the very flimsy basis that it is to do with the federal government not altering the Telecommunications Act to put in place significant oversight and monitoring powers. I have always said from the time that I first introduced a private member’s bill in this place—or in actual fact going back before that when I was shadow Attorney-General in Queensland around the time Project Krystal actually reported on the need for TI powers in Queensland—that the range of issues with regard to monitoring, oversight and the protection of fundamental liberties and rights can be properly dealt with as they have been dealt with in other jurisdictions. This argument that Queensland has to be different to the other Australian states and territories and we have to get the Commonwealth government to do something does not hold water and it does not hold water for a lot of reasons. Other members on this side who have contributed to this debate have been through that. 10 Oct 2007 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 3405

Let us look at what has developed in Queensland in that time which has necessitated TI powers even more greatly today than some years ago. We have seen admissions from this state government’s own law enforcement agencies that Queensland is now the amphetamines capital of Australia. No-one is arguing that. That is a fact. Anyone who wants to shake their head at that can go and find the Queensland Police Service and the CMC’s own reports which actually point to that. The government itself has had to actually admit that. We know there are other organised criminal activities in Queensland—from money laundering through to particular ethnic gangs that are involved in certain organised criminal activities and a whole range of other things—which we could hinder with a TI power in this state. Instead of that, this government is running around deliberately tying the hands of our law enforcement agencies behind their backs. If you want to engage in organised crime in Australia, you come across the Tweed into Queensland. If you go to the other side of the Tweed and into New South Wales, you can actually be monitored by the New South Wales law enforcement agencies down there. The shadow minister for police has been through this business about joint operations with the Australian Crime Commission or the AFP very well. That process is rather turgid and convoluted and does not necessarily allow the responsiveness needed to be able to deal with issues that might strictly and normally be monitored as a state law enforcement agency. Things can be stumbled across when something is being routinely monitored and there might be suspicions about some corruption activity or some other form of organised criminal activities which, frankly, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police would probably generally have very little interest in anyway. So the nonsense about joint operations does not stand up as a backdoor way for Queensland law enforcement agencies to be able to get TI power. Let us look at what happened in Western Australia recently and again today. The activities of Brian Burke and Julian Grill would not have been exposed if it were not for their anticorruption watchdog having telephone interception powers which enabled them to monitor all this sordid and manipulative interaction between Mr Burke and his cohort and the Labor Party ministers of the day that they sought to influence. In actual fact, much has been made in that jurisdiction of the fact that they were able to get the information and the evidence necessary to be able to curtail that sort of activity. So who knows what is happening in Queensland. Who knows the primary motivation of people as they seek to stand against these sorts of things? One would hope that it would be chaste in some way. All I am asking is, why? No fundamental and legitimate civil liberties argument exists here. If it did, why has it not been evident in the other Australian states and territories that have had TI powers in their own jurisdictions for some 20 years? It is because there is no such evidence. I say to the government: stop making excuses and give the law enforcement agencies in this state, principally the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Queensland Police Service, the tools to do their jobs. Government members should be searching their own consciences about the arguments that they have been forced to use in this place but that do not hold water. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (8.20 pm): I rise to support the bill. Without doubt we live in a world where technology and the use of technology are changing at an ever-accelerating rate. Often technology produces many things for the benefit of mankind. However, on many occasions technology is used to mankind’s detriment. The same technology can and is often used in law enforcement to detect and prove that a criminal action has occurred, leading to a conviction and, in many cases, a term of imprisonment. Criminals are adept at the use and misuse of technology for their own benefit. Law enforcement must be equally up to the task. This bill will enable Queensland law enforcement agencies, particularly the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime Commission, to use telecommunications interception as a tool for the investigation of crimes described under the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. This is the clear statement of the intent contained within clause 3 of the bill. For some years it has been coalition policy to provide those agencies with the resources they need to bring to justice those who are guilty of crimes. As far back as 1999, in a paper entitled Project Krystal: a strategic assessment of organised crime in Queensland, it was held that the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime Commission should be given telephone intercept powers to enable serious crime to be tackled. At this point in time, this cannot occur unless the terms and conditions laid down in the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 are complied with. In essence, in Queensland there is a requirement that there be legislation to establish a recording, reporting and inspection regime to complement the Commonwealth act, which then opens the tools available to our police and other law enforcement agencies to tackle the serious questions we are facing in 2007 in an ever-changing and ever more complicated world. 3406 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 10 Oct 2007

This bill itself will not permit telecommunications interception to occur. That is contained within the Commonwealth legislation. Rather, the bill will supplement that legislation to allow police officers to use both hands and both ears to deal with some of the very serious matters our society faces. It is indeed important to understand some of the reasons this legislation is required to enable the serious questions facing Queensland to be dealt with. Without doubt, TI is a far more advanced tool than its alternative, the call charge record analysis. The CCR is a labour-intensive method requiring agencies to individually inspect telephone bills in an effort to establish an association. In comparison, TI allows investigators to establish the nature of the associations whilst at the same time producing strong material to be used as evidence. In other Australian states TI has been extremely effective in securing high-profile convictions and taming gang warfare. In 2004 the Victorian Police Service was under pressure to control organised crime networks and quell the gangland wars that had erupted. The Victorian Police Service had misplaced all its intelligence on organised crime networks, leaving it with no firm evidence as to whom it was dealing with or what activities they were engaged in. Besieged by pressure, the Victorian government requested the help of the Australian Crime Commission to assist the Victorian police to investigate the 27 gangland murders and gain some measure of control over organised crime in Victoria. The Australian Crime Commission, through TI investigative methods, was able to re-establish where the crime networks were, how they worked, what activities they were involved in and who controlled them. In part, this information led to charges being pressed against Tony Mokbel, the former head of a Lebanese organise crime network in Melbourne, for the gangland murder of Lewis Moran. The work of the Australian Crime Commission and the Victorian police also led to the arrest and conviction of Carl Williams, formerly a major amphetamine manufacturer and distributor. Early this year Williams was convicted on three counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to murder. This all came about as a consequence of the Victorian government working hand-in-hand with the Commonwealth government to bring gangland crime and murder under control in that state. In Western Australia the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission has also had a great deal of success in securing convictions against corrupt members of the Public Service relying on TI powers. Since 2004 it has secured 17 convictions, the most high profile of which included former member of parliament Graham Burkett, former mayor Adam Spagnolo and Laurie Marquete, the former clerk of the Upper House. All were charged with corruption offences and all were detected by TI devices. Without TI interception powers, the Queensland police and the CMC cannot put their human resources and surveillance devices to the best use. Furthermore, criminals are keenly aware that Queensland law enforcement agencies do not have access to TI, dubbing Queensland the Florida of Australia because organised crime networks cannot be phone tapped and, with modern phone communications, Queensland is becoming their haven. We need to understand that this bill will activate the powers contained within the federal legislation and it is important to understand what the flow-on of that would be for this state. Organised crime markets in this state have grown significantly since the first strategic assessment in 1999. Organised crime has moved on from our perceptions of it, as depicted in the movies. Organised crime networks are serious business, they are orientated professionally and, above all, they are ruthless. They are a threat to our society. When one considers that those networks are involved in large measure in introducing and distributing amphetamines and ecstasy to our young people and when we understand the enormous damage that those and other drugs do, there is an obvious and clear necessity to ensure that the gangs are eradicated. Queensland does not have TI powers. If we do not move to address the issues contained in the Commonwealth bill, as this bill does, we run the risk of becoming a haven for crime organisations. Organised crime is defined in the Crime and Misconduct Act and the police powers act as criminal activity punishable by not less than seven years imprisonment, undertaken for the purposes of gaining profit, power or influence. Organised crime is not simply putting people together to rob a bank. It is more complicated, more systematic and more highly methodical than that. As the Queensland Crime Commission stated in 1999, it is the big business of the illegal economy, and law enforcement agencies are the regulatory component of that business environment. They are flexible and loosely structured, and they act in collaboration with one another. They adapt more readily to distribution in the market and adopt centralised production methods, as opposed to what we have come to understand as a strict turf based organised crime syndicate. In 2004, in its publication Organised crime markets in Queensland: a strategic assessment, the Crime and Misconduct Commission stated that the lack of large ethnic communities in Queensland compared to Sydney and Melbourne has allowed modern organised crime syndicates to flourish in Queensland, making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to track the illicit activities of 10 Oct 2007 Terrorism, Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Surveillance Bill 3407 organised crime networks. The Crime Bulletin series 6 entitled Organised crime markets in Queensland: a strategic assessment, page 38, lists a number of organised crime markets, the assessed level of risk and the market trend. I table a copy of the report for the reference of members. Tabled paper: Copy of Crime and Misconduct Commission publication, Crime Bulletin Series, Number 6, September 2004, titled ‘Organised crime markets in Queensland: A strategic assessment’. Page 40 of the report states, and members should bear in mind that the CMC made this statement only two or three years ago— The absence of TI powers severely impedes the capability of Queensland law enforcement to make serious inroads into organised crime markets and effectively target key organised crime identities. These powers, available to federal and all other state jurisdictions, have resulted in arrests that would otherwise have been impossible to obtain. Telecommunications interception (TI) provides law enforcement agencies with capabilities that are not available through any other lawful operational techniques. For example, while other techniques may be able to identify an association between an offender and another individual, TI can reveal whether the association is for legitimate or criminal reasons. If the latter is true, TI can provide valuable intelligence and evidence of offences. This evidence may in turn encourage offenders to plead guilty, thereby reducing the need for witnesses to give evidence in court. This is particularly beneficial in complex organised crime cases. If, on the other hand, the association is found to be legitimate, TI can eliminate suspects in an investigation, preserving valuable investigative resources. When we talk about organisations that deal with organised crime and crime syndicates, the CMC is right up there with them all. The CMC deal day in and day out with the dregs of society. They deal with those men and women who labour day in and day out to gain money by any unlawful means they possibly can. If the CMC believes that TI powers are essential for those at the forefront to combat organised crime, this House has an obligation to listen to that body. They are the men and women who we charge, in conjunction with the Police Service, on a day-to-day basis to put their life on the line. If they are saying to us that TI is what they want to have in this state, we are negligent in not taking that on board and taking the issue further. They are the men and women at the front. They are the ones who say to us what they need to put up the best fight. There are a number of organised crime networks operating right here in Queensland that do pose a serious and growing risk. This bill will allow modern technology to be used to detect, charge, punish and hopefully eliminate them from Queensland. The Crime and Misconduct Commission’s submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission in June this year identified a number of these bodies. The commission highlighted the existence of what it terms the South-East Asian organised crime networks which are dominant in the heroin market in Queensland and the Middle Eastern organised crime networks which are firmly established in New South Wales and Victoria and which are now moving to Queensland. The CMC is concerned that they are developing a more sophisticated drug network in this state. Additionally, there are the Romanian organised crime networks about which the CMC has received unconfirmed reports that they are trafficking high-purity cocaine directly into Queensland. And of real concern to the CMC is the outlaw motorcycle gangs that are responsible for trafficking large amounts of amphetamines and cannabis throughout this state and are heavily involved in fraud, property offences, firearms and extortion. Newspaper reports highlight the difficulties on the Gold Coast with these gangs. I have been advised that there are four chapters of different outlaw motorcycle gangs on the Sunshine Coast. In fact, in recent times the police on the Sunshine Coast have raided a number of houses across the region charging a number of people with drug offences and firearms matters. We are deluding ourselves if we do not understand and comprehend the risk these and all criminal outlaw gangs pose to the state. There is no base reason why this bill should not be put into effect to protect the people of Queensland. The legislation itself provides a protection in accordance with the Commonwealth act that will effectively deal with men and women who will take any action and any step to achieve their goals. The bill before the House, however, goes further than that. It deals with the real threat of terrorism and that of corrupt surveillance. With the latter, you only need to turn to Western Australia to understand the important role that telephone interception played in detecting, charging and bringing to justice a number of high-profile politicians and public servants in that state. The same covert operation could well be used here in Queensland to detect politicians and public servants guilty of corruption. Protections are in place in regard to privacy, but we know that in this state there have been issues of corruption going back a number of years both against politicians and high-ranking public servants that had they been detected earlier may well have saved a large amount of grief for so many people in Queensland. The other purpose of the bill is to ensure that telecommunication interception can occur to detect and prevent terrorism. It is ridiculous to hide our heads in the sand and believe that terrorism cannot occur at any time, at any place and by any person. We live in a world vastly different to the Cold War era. There the threat came from missile or an invasion launched from overseas. We have changed the face of warfare, and this change brings with it the necessity to adopt modern methods which means modern technology and modern law enforcement if we are going to be successful to eradicate this new evil. The bill has one simple goal in mind: to empower those agencies which have sought from us for so long the right to tackle the organisations, the corruption and the terrorism we know exist and which pose ongoing and significant threats to our very existence. 3408 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Friday is the fifth anniversary of the death of 88 Australians in Bali in the worst case of terrorism to ever grip the Australian nation. No-one ever wants that to occur again. Certainly as human beings we make mistakes, but the loss of 88 Australians in an act of terrorism of that nature in my opinion overrides any argument that this bill should not be passed. It is time that as Queenslanders we stood up and joined the rest of Australia. It is time that as Queenslanders and as parliamentarians of this state we stood up and said that we need to take a stand against the crime organisations and crime bodies that are robbing young people of their lives and destroying so many others in the process. This government has an obligation to enforce the laws of this state but, more importantly, to take steps to ensure its citizens are free and safe whatever their age and at whatever time of night they go out onto the streets. We have come to a point where this parliament has an obligation to push forward the boundaries to ensure the safety of its citizens, and this bill does that. It does exactly what the police and the CMC are asking us to do. In fact, they have pleaded with us now on many occasions to give them the techniques, resources, manpower and technology to tackle what we do not really understand and that is the corruption, terrorism and crime that goes on behind the facades of the suburban streets of Brisbane and indeed throughout this state. If they ask for it we should give it to them. I support the bill. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 27—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones Resolved in the negative.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (8.44 pm): I move— That general business orders of the day Nos 2 to 7 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN EMBRYOS AND PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill Resumed from p. 3389. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (8.45 pm): The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill is a contentious bill, and I would not be telling the truth if I said that I did not struggle with the rights and wrongs of this issue. If I were the parent of a child suffering from a degenerative disease or from spinal cord injuries, I am sure I would jump at any opportunity to cure my child. I recently read the story of a young man living with cystic fibrosis. His ongoing struggle for life would tear the heart out of any mother, and I accept that any potential breakthrough in medical science would appear to be a lifeline. Use of embryonic stem cells, however, has not yet been proven to do any of the wonderful things claimed by its proponents. It is wrong to create false hope about potential cures. To date, use of embryonic stem cells has not led to any breakthroughs in medical research. On the other hand, adult stem cell research has shown remarkable results in addressing spinal cord injury and juvenile diabetes. Adult stem cells are already used successfully in many human therapies. From what I have read, it would seem the advantages of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells are numerous. In particular, patients can use their own stem cells rather than those of an embryo with different DNA, which then requires a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs. I would encourage researchers to focus their attention on adult stem cells which have shown such results over recent years. Even if embryonic stem cell research were further along the road to miraculous cures, I would still have difficulty in supporting it. To me, it shows a certain disregard for human life which I cannot ignore. Of the constituents who have contacted me regarding this proposed legislation, the vast majority oppose the creation of human embryos to be used for scientific purposes. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3409

I am not a scientist. Many might consider my contribution to be uninformed and my decision based on false information. I accept that, but I cannot find anything that would cause me to change my mind. I would particularly like to acknowledge that this is not an easy issue for me, any more than it is for many of my colleagues. I would like to thank the House for the respect that they have shown to me and to those whose consciences will not allow them to support this bill. Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (8.48 pm): It is with a caring heart and an open mind that I rise to contribute to the debate on the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007. As a member just 13 months into his first term, this is the first conscience vote I have had to take part in and one which requires much thought and consideration. Firstly, can I say that the easiest option would have been to abstain from the vote, thus not to offend either side of this very emotional and complex debate. But as an elected member of parliament I do not think the people of Chatsworth would want me to sit on the fence. The difficulty that I have is that I can relate to both sides of the argument. I am Greek Orthodox and appreciate the fervent stance religious leaders have: that all life is sacrosanct and there is no single point of embryonic development at which one can rule a line. I am certainly not from a science background and have little expertise in theology, but consider this: if life as we know it ends when the heart stops beating, then does life begin when a tiny heart first beats? Scientists believe that the first vestige of humanity does not occur until day 14, with the appearance of cells from which the central nervous system eventually develops. At this point the experts tell us that the embryo is still smaller than a full stop. An embryonic stem cell is a primitive cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body such as blood cells, heart cells, nerve cells, brain cells et cetera. Some researchers regard them as offering the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the development of antibiotics. Two billion humans worldwide suffer from diseases that may eventually be treated more effectively with stem cells or even cured. These include heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer. Thus I find this vote an agonising one. I had an uncle who battled Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and dementia and a mother who died from cancer. It is here that I would like to pull up the member for Moggill who says perhaps some scientists are overselling what may eventually happen. Is it really, I ask, or is it hope? I know when mum was dying that we tried everything and anything. Shark cartilage was a radical suggestion from some people. We would have tried anything to have mum fight that battle further and perhaps even win it. I have a nephew who has Down syndrome. I have a father who is only alive due to medical advancement. I am tending to put my faith and vote in embryonic stem cell research which offers substantial opportunities for the advancement of medical treatments for a range of degenerative diseases and acquired tissue injuries and if these new treatments are discovered they stand to significantly improve the lives of millions of people. I am also a diabetic. To live I need three injections and three tablets a day. But my diabetes was adult onset. I feel for the young children who must live with the condition for all of their lives. A cure for them through stem cell research would be a miracle. I feel I owe it to them to cast my vote in the affirmative. While I am fully aware of the moral, social and ethical dilemmas raised, ultimately I have made a decision based purely on personal reasons and my own logic. As far as representing the electorate, I believe market research which shows a trend that a majority of the public are in agreeance with embryonic stem cell research and are more concerned about the potential abuse of technology and health and safety issues than religious beliefs backs up my stance. What I believe is that we all have a deep and profound respect for human life. If these embryonic cells are retrieved—for example, from surplus eggs from IVF procedures and the like—would it not be more respectful to use these eggs for the greater good? When I consider that and I look at our new science I realise that there is a new way in which we have to respect life. At the same time, we have to set boundaries, establish strict guidelines and make sure that science remains ethical. As the Smart State we need legislative change to ensure that our scientists have the same opportunities as those in other states and territories, again under the very strict control of the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee, the Human Research Ethics Committee and the Chief Health Officer. I liken stem cell research to when Edward Jenner discovered the smallpox vaccine. Smallpox had killed upwards of 500 million people until this radical, some said satanical, procedure brought an end to the virus. Stem cell research has the potential to treat and cure billions of people—people like you, me, our children and our grandchildren. Thus, to help those kids who die far too early, those who suffer from debilitating diseases and conditions and those who have no or little quality of life, I am supporting the bill. We must put our faith and belief in our own ability to heal ourselves. 3410 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (8.53 pm): I speak in this debate tonight as someone who has had close personal involvement in the benefits of stem cell research. Quite simply, I would not have the confidence in the prospect of my successful recovery from an extremely serious, life-threatening illness were I not the recipient of medical treatment informed by stem cell research. And it may well be that I owe my life to that medical treatment. With that in mind, I might be considered as a likely supporter of the legislation before the House— someone with first-hand knowledge and experience of how medical research can lead to treatments that not only improve the quality of life but actually save life and preserve life. I am not, however, a supporter of this legislation, nor do I seek to occupy a neutral position or support one side or the other without any great sense of conviction. No, I oppose this legislation, and I do so with a clear mind, with a clear set of beliefs and a clear conscience. Four and a half years ago I stood and spoke in this House in opposition to the legislation which was then being debated. The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill was introduced into the parliament in February 2003. For its debate the following month the bill was divided into two bills—one dealing with the regulation of research involving human embryos and the other relating to the prohibition of human cloning. Both bills were separately voted on and passed and then reconsolidated by resolution of the House into a single piece of legislation. In the debate 4½ years ago I opposed both bills, and my position has not changed even though in the intervening period I have encountered matters of life and death significance relating to stem cell medical research and treatment. Four and a half years ago I was not to know that in March 2005 I would be diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a virulent and potentially fatal form of blood cancer. My treatment has included stem cell therapy, which basically involves the harvesting of my own bone marrow stem cells, their cleansing and storage and their subsequent infusion back into my body following what I might describe as some fairly heavy duty chemotherapy which kills off existing bone marrow stem cells. The retransplanted bone marrow blood stem cells are able to resume the formation of blood cells. The life-saving treatment I have undergone highlights perhaps the most important distinction I draw when it comes to condoning and supporting stem cell research and stem cell therapy—and that is the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. In 2003 when speaking to the legislation I expressed my unequivocal support for research utilising adult stem cells and my unqualified opposition to research utilising embryonic stem cells. I do so again today. The reason I draw the distinction is that there is an absolute and fundamental difference between the two kinds of stem cells, and how they are created and produced—a difference that underpins my position on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are created in one of two ways—naturally, as in the case of human reproduction involving a man and a woman without medical intervention, or artificially, with the assistance of science, medicine and technology. For me, life begins at conception. A human embryo is human life, irrespective of how developed that embryo is and irrespective of whether that embryo has been created for the purpose of reproduction or for research. The use of human embryos solely and specifically for research purposes that the legislation before the House contemplates and provides for necessarily involves creating embryos which, having been created, are then destroyed. To me, this is the destruction of human life. Thus we have entered a realm of creating and destroying human life—a realm that is altogether removed from reproduction. I cannot accept such a proposition. For the record, I do not support the use of what are referred to sometimes as surplus embryos, resulting from in-vitro fertilisation treatment, for embryonic stem cell research and eventual embryonic stem cell therapy purposes. My reason for this is the same. The research necessarily involves the destruction of the human embryo when the stem cell research or its application for therapeutic treatment has been concluded. Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo in the process—destroying a developing human life. I see a clear difference between creating a human embryo for reproductive purposes and allowing the life of an unused embryo to self-terminate, as opposed to appropriating that form of human life for research purposes and destroying it in the process. To me the former is appropriate, acceptable and defensible, both morally and ethically, while the latter is not. As I did in this House 4½ years ago, I would like to advocate very strongly stem cell research and development utilising adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can successfully transform themselves into differentiated cells of organs and tissues of many kinds. This is where I believe we need to be targeting and prioritising our research efforts. I am conscious of the arguments advanced in favour of embryonic stem cell research, along the lines that embryonic stem cells offer significantly greater potential for medical breakthroughs and benefits than do adult stem cells. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3411

Embryonic stem cells, for example, would seem to have the potential to develop into almost all of the different types of cells whereas adult stem cells can only develop into the particular cell type that they already are. While I do not necessarily agree with the assertion that embryonic stem cells offer the best way forward and believe that some of the reputed benefits of embryonic stem cells are at least matched, if not outweighed, by some of the proven advantages of adult stem cells—the reduced potential for immune reaction and rejection comes to mind—even if it were true I still could not condone embryonic stem cell research and development. Regardless of what greater potential they may or may not offer, their use necessarily involves their destruction and we are thus in the business of creating and destroying human embryos, which for me is the business of creating and destroying human life—an activity that we have no business being in. In outlining my opposition to this legislation, I am conscious that there are members who do not share my views and who hold opposing views with no less moral and ethical conviction. I respect their right to hold those views. I am conscious, too, that there will be constituents in my own electorate who would support the legislation before the House and who may well ask what I am doing to represent their views. In response, I would make the point that there are also constituents in my electorate who do not support this legislation. It may seem unfair or unsatisfactory that I get to represent one view that coincides with mine but not the one that does not. In a sense, that is what a conscience vote on a matter such as this is all about—an acknowledgement that the issue does have moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be accommodated by a particular party line or prescribed policy position that has to be adhered to. Similarly, it would be neither practical nor satisfactory to expect an elected representative to try to poll their constituents on an issue such as this and then vote accordingly, even if this meant casting a vote for something that the particular member of this House did not in all conscience believe or support and in fact was morally and ethically opposed to. In conclusion, I want to restate the sentiments I outlined in this House in March 2003 when I expressed the need to make a stand against the incursions of research, technology, science and medicine on the sanctity of human life. In the intervening 4½ years those incursions have continued and we find ourselves in the position today of being asked to support a further expansion of what is deemed to be appropriate and legally sanctioned in the name of science and medical research. I said at the time— Human life is the highest life form on the planet. It deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Once we start making exceptions in the search for a so-called greater good, we have degraded the value of human existence. There is little then to separate us from other animal species. We need to take a stand now. We need to take a stand against a growing utilitarianism that devalues human life. We need to put parameters in place that respect the dignity of life. Whilst I respect the views of others who support this legislation, I must follow my conscience and cast my vote against it. I reiterate those comments tonight. Nothing has happened to change my view. To the contrary, the enlargement of the legislative frontier to accommodate expanded forms of research involving human embryos reinforces and reaffirms my view. I need look no further than the title of this bill to find the words that command my attention, and those words are ‘research involving human embryos’. In understanding what that research involves—the necessary destruction of the human embryo in question; the termination of human life—my mind is made up and my position is clear. I am therefore opposed to the legislation. Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.02 pm): I rise to participate in this debate. I will be voting against the bill. On 11 March 2003 the Queensland parliament passed two bills—the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill and the Regulation of Research Involving Human Embryos and Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. On that occasion all members exercised a conscience vote. I supported the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill and I opposed the bill on embryonic stem cell research. My opposition to this bill is on similar grounds as outlined in my speech on that occasion—for reasons of faith and science. Now as then the debate has been—and I expect will continue to be—a very mature one. I respect very much the views of those who hold, just as sincerely and conscientiously, an opposing point of view to mine. I have tried to inform myself as much as possible on the issues involved in this bill. There have been several very informative seminars and a lot of helpful written material. I believe this bill is a significant extension to what is permissible under the current law passed in 2003. Unfortunately, public debate on this bill has often been inaccurately portrayed as one about support or opposition to stem cell research. In 2003 I expressed a view that let no-one be in any doubt: I supported stem cell research using adult stem cells. If I could have answered my concerns about additional embryonic stem cell research, I would have supported this avenue as well. Opposition to this bill is not opposition to stem cell research; it is opposition to a particular source of those stem cells. However, often no distinction is drawn between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. I have reviewed the position I took in 2003 and my key reasons remain true today as they were then. I do not support the use of human embryos for experimentation as envisaged by the bill. 3412 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

No less than anyone else in this chamber, I have enormous concern for those in our community experiencing all manner of difficult health challenges. Indeed, like others, I have been confronted by the death of family and close friends who but for the absence of appropriate medical cures may have lived beyond their untimely deaths and with much better quality of life. I, too, share in the hope that medical breakthroughs will address some of these issues. In the last four years I believe there has been a significant underrecognition in the public arena of the advances in research using adult stem cells and, more importantly, in the successful application of adult stem cell treatments and remedies. This is where the research dollar and effort should be focused for the immediate benefit of mankind while at the same time in my opinion respecting human life from the very beginning. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.05 pm): I rise to speak against the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill. I believe that not only will these amendments allow scientists too much freedom in the creation of the thing most precious to us—human life—but they will further erode our respect for our fundamental belief that human life is intrinsically precious. Where a decade ago it would have been considered unthinkable to experiment with human life in whatever form it presented, in this millennium it seems that we have leapt straight into a murky world where certain forms of human life—that is, embryonic human forms—are created for the specific purpose of destruction. Laws already exist in the state of Queensland which permit scientists to use discarded IVF embryos in stem cell research. This amendment will allow scientists to actually create embryos for the specific purpose of experimentation. The gulf between utilising embryos that have already been created for other purposes and then for whatever reason marked for destruction and actually creating human life for the sole purpose of experimentation is truly enormous.

The question must then be asked: what next? From creating embryos for experimentation, will it be cloning embryos for the same purpose? Then perhaps scientists will be asking to allow embryos to grow for longer so that further research can be done on them. Then what? Every step we as a community take in the direction of experimentation with human life—and experimentation is exactly what we are talking about—draws us further and further from treating human life with the respect it deserves. If this amendment to the legislation was such a logical, ethical forward step in research, then why would the government need to place so many safeguards around it? Doesn’t that in itself suggest that this proposed research has massive potential for serious ethical problems? Of course it does.

This morning the Premier was quoted on Brisbane radio stations as saying that members of the parliament and the public should be motivated by science rather than by emotion in this debate. I wholeheartedly agree with the Premier. We should not be ruled by emotion. However, the Premier’s appeal suggests that we should just allow scientists to create and clone human life in order to conduct experiments which could possibly at some future stage—time line unspecified; and I stress ‘possibly’— provide cures to diseases, specifics unknown. The Premier tells us all that emotional arguments hold no sway in this place, yet she uses an emotive argument in an attempt to persuade us to her point of view. I respect the fact that this is a conscience vote, and what a refreshing thing it is to see members speaking from the heart rather than toeing the party line. After all, few people either in this House or in the broader community have not been touched by the suffering, sickness or death of loved ones by such terrible diseases. The gut-wrenching pain that we all feel when a child is born with cystic fibrosis, or when a husband or wife is diagnosed with cancer, or when our parents are struck down with Alzheimer’s disease, or even when friends or a neighbour dies from terrible illnesses is truly heart breaking. Who among us has not been torn apart by that very anguish? As a parliament and as a community, we want to find cures for all diseases. Of course we do. But is this legislation necessary in order to provide those cures, particularly when the existing laws already allow scientists the right to use surplus human embryos for experimentation? Whilst I am unashamedly approaching this debate from an ethical perspective, which states clearly that experimentation with human life, for whatever purpose, should at the very least be scrupulously monitored with stringent guidelines put into place and adhered to, there are other considerations—chiefly, economic and therapeutic benefits to the community. It is to these considerations that I will address the balance of my argument. The Premier has told us that this legislation is absolutely necessary if Queensland is to attract and keep top scientists; that if we are to keep apace with the rest of Australia, we must allow scientists the right to take stem cell experimentation a step future and to actually create human life for the purpose of experimentation and perhaps further again to clone human life for the purpose of experimentation. If the economic argument is so pressing, why was the major Singaporean-Australian company ES Cell International reported in the Courier-Mail on 26 July 2007 as having abandoned work on embryonic stem cells owing to a lack of success and soaring costs and because—and I emphasise this—‘the likelihood of having products in the clinic in the short term was vanishingly small’? 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3413

The further erosion of our great state’s collective ethical approach to the respect of human life will come at a cost that cannot be quantified merely in dollars and cents. However, motives aside, scientists already have the freedom to pursue stem cell research. They are only restricted from the creation of embryos, not the use of embryos. Although the therapeutic benefits of using adult stem cells to achieve clinical outcomes have been proven absolutely, including assisting with the treatment of, but not necessarily the cures for, diabetes, leukaemia, kidney cancer via bone marrow transplants, so far there have been no significant successes in the use of embryonic cells for the treatment of disease. The promise of a potential cure does not necessarily equate to an actual cure any more than the promise of getting your home loan paid off equates to being able to tear up your mortgage. Theoretical is theoretical. Embryonic stem cells have been wildly reported in the scientific community as being entirely unusable in humans because they form tumours in animals. According to the journal Nature Biotechnology, 80 human medical conditions are being treated by using adult stem cells. To date, adult stem cells are the only stem cells that are used to treat humans. In August alone, three major announcements of the successful use of adult stem cells in the treatment of disease in Australia were made by the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, which most of us would respect highly, the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle and Mesoblast in Melbourne, which is a company that has American FDA approval for use in treating adults in the USA who have suffered heart attacks. The use of adult stem cells has been stunningly successful and the research goes on, but there is a yawning cavern of difference. I notice that some members earlier talked about how religious people had become paranoid about IVF. I submit that there is a yawning ethical and moral chasm between IVF, which is essentially a technology designed to create human life, and this bill, which sponsors a technology that is designed specifically to destroy human life. That point cannot be made too strongly. In his submission to the Lockhart inquiry, James L. Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at MIT, wrote that parliamentarians would not be aware of— ... a basic biological principle that makes false the commonly pronounced claim that research with cloned human embryos has the potential to lead to new therapies for diseases in children and adults. He wrote further— For— Embryonic stem cell— success, any proposed approach to disease therapies for tissues in children and adults must be able to sustain the essential renewal process of adult tissues. Only adult stem cells can accomplish this feat. Embryonic stem cells cannot, because they lack the property of asymmetric self-renewal. ... Therefore, embryonic stem cells can never be used to develop effective cellular therapies for mature tissues and organs. In a further damning statement against creating and cloning embryos for therapeutic research, leading Australian stem cell researcher Professor Alan Mackay-Sim told a recent Senate inquiry that the purpose for using therapeutic cloning can be achieved with adult stem cells. The ongoing drive to cure diseases and alleviate suffering are very noble pursuits. Stem cell research has shown great promise in the fairly new field of regenerative medicine and many groups are actively pursuing new ways of harvesting stem cells and testing the cells’ plasticity—the ability to form a wide variety of mature cell types. However, most of this successful research has occurred with the use of adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells, and certainly not with cloned embryonic stem cells. The most important question concerning stem cell research is not is it legal or is it cost effective, but is it right? Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from human embryos. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells an embryo must be destroyed. The international consensus of embryologists agrees with scripture in that life begins at fertilisation. It is my personal belief that at the moment of conception the embryo is 100 per cent human with all 46 human chromosomes and a fully functioning unique genetic code. To say that human life does not begin at conception is a bit like saying that a train journey from Cairns to Brisbane begins at Townsville. The alternative is to try to guess when human life begins by a number of inexact measures. Once you believe that a life is not a life at conception, you are like a lifeboat drifting on an ocean of moral relativity. I find it disappointing that people who have ethical concerns about cloning are often pilloried and portrayed by the media as being banjo-picking, gun-toting, flat-earth Luddites. I will defend forever the democratic right of people to express their opinions, even if they differ from mine. But conversely, I urge members present and those listening not to flush ideas down the intellectual toilet just because they are proffered from a pro-life position. Regardless of when you believe human life begins—whether that be at conception, viability within its mother’s womb or at birth—research using embryonic stem cells is a disturbing development in the race to find cures for diseases. No amount of promised benefit to society or to medical knowledge can justify the killing of a human being for spare parts. We are more than simply a collection of organs and tissues with our bits to be harvested, carved up and inspected at will; we are human beings. 3414 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Either human life is precious or it is not. We should not be choosing degrees of value on human life. We most certainly should not be allowing scientists to dictate such an important ethical value to us. The end does not justify the means. It is never ethical. In fact, it is morally reprehensible to mark people for death in order to conduct utilitarian experiments on their body parts. At this stage of stem cell research, the health improvements are only a vague promise. However, the killing of embryos for experimentation is not a promise; it is a fact. In the federal parliamentary debate on the issue of cloning in 2006, Senator Andrew Bartlett stated— However, I am very uncomfortable with the prospect that our society could legally institutionalise a notion that some embryos have greater intrinsic worth than others depending on the method of their creation—whether they were created through cloning techniques or through an egg and sperm. I am very uncomfortable with the fact that the very first step our nation takes towards legalising the creation of a human embryo through cloning should be accompanied by a very specific assessment that this embryo has a lesser status and a lower intrinsic value than a human embryo produced by an egg and sperm. His subsequent decision to vote for the bill was later regretted. Had he followed his conscience and voted against the bill, we would not be discussing the Queensland bill at all. I believe that it would be appropriate to comment on the research committee of experts set up to prepare this legislation. The Minister for Health stated in his introduction— The committee comprised highly qualified and experienced individuals from the fields of law, science, medicine and ethics... However, Lockhart committee members were neither highly qualified nor experienced in the very specialised and newly emerging field of stem cell research. Comprising two lawyers, two members of the medical profession and two scientists, none of these people had specific ties to stem cell research. Any decision they made, therefore, was not based on their own understanding of the subject; they chose between the differing knowledge claims of others without the obvious benefit of personal subject expertise. In closing, before this parliament continues with the amendment to the existing legislation, it would be prudent to first ask ourselves what community benefit such a change will have. The ongoing domino effect of this legislation will have negative repercussions for generations. If we approve this amendment tonight, then we are opening the door for human embryos to be created specifically for research, we will allow the cloning of human embryos for other reasons and so on it goes. Where will this most vital of decisions lead? Many people in this parliament have had their lives torn apart by terrible medical tragedies. My son Joshua was killed at three years of age and we faced the agonising decision at that time as to whether to donate his organs for the benefit of other people. We chose to do so and that is a decision I have come to value. I am really glad that I made that decision, as tough as it was. We are all concerned for cures to be found. I guess what I am saying is that it is just poor science when we have adult stem cell research which is definitely right here and now delivering those benefits as opposed to experiments and perhaps benefits that come at the cost of destroying a human embryo for spare parts. At what point do we as a community approve such changes without any solid evidence of benefits or achieved outcomes? I repeat: a vote against this amendment is not a vote against stem cell research. The outcome has already been achieved by federal government laws in 2006. Scientists are still able to conduct their research and strive for cures to diseases and illnesses without this legislation. None of those things will be prevented. I ask that all members stand with me in opposing this further erosion of the respect that we have allocated for human life. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (9.23 pm): I rise to speak on the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007. This bill aims to bring Queensland’s legislation regarding human embryo research in line with the Commonwealth legislation. After the Lockhart review committee’s 2005 review of the Commonwealth legislation regarding human embryo research and prohibiting cloning, amendments were made to the Commonwealth acts to give effect to most of the committee’s 54 recommendations. These amendments took effect as of 12 June 2007. Queensland, as we know, signed an intergovernmental agreement back in 2004 after the initial Commonwealth legislation was passed in December 2002, and the subsequent Queensland state legislation was passed in March 2003. The intergovernmental agreement recognised a cooperation to facilitate a nationally consistent legislative scheme. On 12 April this year the Commonwealth, states and the Australian Capital Territory signed a notice of variation to the intergovernmental agreement to reiterate their commitment to providing a nationally consistent legal framework for the regulation of human embryo research and the prohibition of human cloning. All states and the ACT agreed to utilise their best efforts in order to introduce legislative amendments that bring their respective state legislation in line with that of the Commonwealth by 12 June 2008. This is what brings these legislative amendments before the House today. Before I address the bill proper, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the intense emotion and lobbying that has preceded debate of this bill in the House. Like all other honourable members, I have received a vast amount of correspondence containing documents and arguments with regard to the contents of this legislation. As this is the first conscience vote that I have had the opportunity to take 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3415 part in since my election in 2004 and one that is not taken along party lines or in accordance with the behest of my electorate, I must say it has caused me to consider this deeply and even caused some sleepless nights as I have weighed up the ethical, moral and personal ramifications of the decision I make here in this House tonight. I want to thank everyone who corresponded with me on this piece of legislation, and it is legislation that has stirred emotions more than any I have encountered to date. I did read them all and I took on board the comments, facts and beliefs. I would like to recognise those people here: Dr David Molloy, Dr David van Gend, the Family Council of Queensland, the Festival of Light, Hands Off Our Ovaries, Medicine With Morality, the Most Reverend John A Bathersby on behalf of the bishops of Queensland, Peter Kavanagh, Professor Warwick Anderson, Professor Melissa Little, Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, Professor Michael Good, Professor Loane Skene, Queensland Baptists, Queensland Right to Life, the Australian Family Association, Women’s Forum Australia and a number of individuals. As shadow minister for child safety and women, I only wish I received similar correspondence from family groups, stakeholders and religious entities with suggestions on how to better protect our women from domestic violence and our children from all manner of abuse. I would genuinely welcome their input. The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007 is quite detailed but in summary there are a number of previously prohibited activities that are now permitted if licensed by the National Health and Medical Research Council Embryo Research Licensing Committee. Clauses 3 and 4 amend the short and long titles of the Queensland act while clause 5 amends the object of the act to reflect that embryos can be lawfully created other than via assisted reproductive technology, otherwise known as ART. Clause 6 clarifies a number of terms used in the Queensland act. Clause 7 repeals part 2 of the Queensland act and replaces it with a new part 2 containing two divisions. Division 1 outlines a number of practices that are completely prohibited, and I will not go into that detail tonight. Division 2 also outlines practices that are prohibited unless authorised by a licence granted by the Embryo Research Licensing Committee. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Order! There is too much noise in the chamber, especially from members of the opposition who have a member of their party speaking. I think this is an important debate and everyone should be a bit more respectful. Please continue. Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you. While part 3 of the bill contains further provisions regarding the regulation of the use of excess ART embryos, other embryos and human eggs, at this point I take the opportunity to focus on some of the more contentious issues the proposed legislative amendments raise. Arguably the most controversial proposal under the bill is permitting the creation of human embryos using a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, under a licence for the purpose of research. SCNT involves the removal of an egg cell’s nucleus and replacing it with the nucleus from another cell, usually a somatic cell. A somatic cell is any body cell at any stage of development except a sperm or egg cell. A stimulus is then used to encourage the egg cell and its new nucleus to fuse together and create an embryo from which embryonic stem cells may be derived. Essentially, SCNT does create a human embryo clone. Most of the argument against the use of SCNT revolves around the fact that, in order to obtain an embryonic stem cell, the embryo is effectively destroyed by being left in a stage from which it can no longer develop. However, the Lockhart review committee brought forward a number of counterarguments in its rationale for its recommendation to allow SCNT. Firstly, embryos created through SCNT differ from those created through conventional fertilisation. The purpose of SCNT is to derive embryonic stem cells for the sole purpose of research and hopefully one day therapeutic treatments. These embryos may not be developed longer than 14 days and may not be implanted into a woman. Furthermore, SCNT embryos consist almost entirely of DNA from the donor cell and should therefore be considered as a cellular extension of the original subject. As such, the moral significance of an embryo created through SCNT is more closely linked to its medical research potential than to its potential as a human life. Secondly, the Lockhart review committee argued that the creation and destruction of embryos created through SCNT is akin to the creation and destruction of excess ART embryos. This is a process permitted by legislation today, so to allow this in relation to ART embryos and not SCNT embryos would appear inconsistent. This inconsistency could be seen to devalue the treatment of diseases and conditions that may be helped by stem cell research whilst placing a higher importance on the treatment of infertility. In a conversation that I had this week with the National Centre for Adult Stem Cell Research, which operates out of the Griffith University’s Nathan campus, two scientists specialising in cell and molecular therapies provided the following information. Theoretically, SCNT can create a human embryo clone. However, to the best of their knowledge, no-one in the world has done it. Secondly, if one 3416 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007 were to be produced, it would be likely to have severe genetic problems probably including, but not limited to, an increased rate of ageing, such as with Dolly the sheep. Thirdly, they acknowledged that the use of SCNT in therapeutic treatments is still in its infancy. In choosing to debate this bill, which clearly raises some sensitive issues, it is important that honourable members refrain from criticising each other, whether our vote is based on personal ideals and philosophies or religious beliefs that affect our conscience. I am pleased that so far in this debate the tone we have heard has been extremely compatible with that. Even though this legislation is aligning with existing federal legislation, it does not dilute the genuine sentiments of those who oppose it for their own personal reasons. I do have some concerns regarding women being coerced or paid to have eggs harvested and the medical dangers that this process has the potential to create. I agree that the mass harvesting of eggs procured this way is totally unacceptable as it affects women’s health and places them in vulnerable situations. Women’s Forum Australia has raised such this issue in its document titled Where will all the eggs come from? It makes a valid case regarding the issue of egg supply, claiming that as most of the women who will be accessing artificial reproductive technology will be over 30 years there is a question as to whether their eggs will be of adequate quality given that prime eggs come from younger women. I note that commercial trading in human eggs is prohibited in this legislation. However, even if this bill passes there is a real chance scientists will not be able to access enough left-over eggs anyway, such is the uncertainty of science. With my nursing background and long marriage to a medical doctor, my views are no doubt partially influenced by the approach medicine takes and the wonderful discoveries by scientists who are committed to finding cures for diseases that present to us in the 21st century. Medical research has a long history of bringing to society’s attention and its conscience bold and somewhat frightening challenges as boundaries are removed and new frontiers are created. Also influencing me is my Christian upbringing, being baptised and confirmed in the Anglican Church, teaching Sunday school and living my life as best I can by the Ten Commandments. Then there are those who have come into my life and made a lasting impression, such as Perry Cross. Let me take a couple of minutes to tell the House about the courage and persistence of a young man now in his 30s who has been an inspiration to me for almost 13 years. His name is Perry Cross and he is truly a remarkable young man and one with whom I have formed an unbreakable bond. Perry was a top sportsman. In fact, he lived for his sport. An outgoing 19-year-old full of potential, Perry enjoyed an active social life and satisfaction with his career. The future looked good. On 17 April 1994 Perry faced his biggest fight yet—the fight to live, then to talk and to live outside hospital on life support. A Rugby tackle left him a quadriplegic attached to a respirator that measured his every breath. But Perry, in his indefatigable way, decided he wanted to try a new sport—public speaking. As Perry’s speaking coach I was blessed to share some intimate stories and moments with him. Within a year of meeting Perry I came close to being in a similar situation when I was seriously injured in a near-fatal car accident and suffered a fractured spine. The accident brought us closer and made me realise just how lucky I was to have escaped permanent disability. Nonetheless, Perry has broken down the barriers caused by his limitations and was named Young Queenslander of the Year in 1997. He has completed a university degree, spoken to audiences across Australia and some internationally, including our defence forces and the Australian cricket team. For several years he lobbied hard with his friend and mentor, the now deceased Christopher Reeve. As head of the Perry Cross Foundation, which is dedicated to finding and assisting with funding for a cure for paralysis, he believes that researchers will also find remedies for diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and cancers. A long time ago I made him a promise that I would never hesitate to go in to bat for him, and when he joined with Christopher Reeve, known to many of us as Superman, to search for a cure for their respective injuries, my promise remained. Little did I realise years ago that I would be here as a member of parliament making this highly important and tough decision. Perry prays for the day that new discoveries will heal conditions that afflict him and others. He cannot move, breath or feel sensations. He is in a truly terrible situation every day, yet rarely do you ever hear him complain. So for me the question is: why should Perry and so many others have to suffer? What happened to Perry could so easily happen to any of us. Perry literally lives in hope, speaking to groups and uplifting them, making them aware of their full potential and challenging them to use it. Just a few weeks ago when we were discussing this bill I realised just how damned hard it must be for him to always put on a brave face, smile and go out and inspire others. When I asked him what he would like me to relay to my parliamentary colleagues, he asked me to try and imagine what just 24 hours in his situation would be like. Well, I could not imagine what it would be like to be Perry for four hours let alone 24, and I do not think that many members in this House could either. Perry, after all these years, my promise still stands. I will not be abandoning you now. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3417

In another recent conversation Perry said that because some other countries are doing some freaky things we must make sure that we legislate properly. We cannot allow for any relaxations to what we have before us in the House. Strict adherence is essential. I would not be supporting any attempted weakening of provisions in this bill, and from its report neither would the Lockhart review committee which, in supporting the current legislation, stated that it should remain a crime to use technology to breed identical people or human/animal hybrids and implantation is prohibited. Also, it should remain a crime to sell human sperm, eggs and embryos. On top of the promise to Perry and in order to thoroughly satisfy my conscience, I had to make a decision about what I believe constitutes a human life. Is it a mitotic cell division that will not be allowed to develop past 14 days? I decided that it was not and my conscience is comfortable with that. I would particularly like to commend the shadow minister for health for his poignant and well- balanced speech at the start of this debate and all who have had the desire and courage to contribute in the spirit of parliament. However, I would not be telling the truth if I said I do not have any reservations about this bill. However, I have a large degree of faith in the standards and ethics of Australia’s medical research fraternity. The member for Rockhampton mentioned the wave of consternation surrounding in-vitro fertilisation, IVF, all those many years ago. Yet look at the acceptance today. A friend of mine was a young brilliant female scientist who worked on this world first that notably was hatched in Melbourne, Australia. To this day she still remembers the enormity of what was happening in a flurry of angry protests amid cries of joy. Professor Ian Frazer’s major breakthrough with Gardasil is another example of breakthroughs that benefit our society, not to mention organ transplants which today we cannot access enough of despite the risk of rejection of the donor organ by the recipient. Still we have not got it perfectly right with organ transplants. Such is science. By voting in favour of this bill, which has extracted much emotionally charged debate, I dearly hope that this research will bring not only hope but also cures for thousands of individuals who suffer from debilitating illnesses and for their families. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (9.40 pm): In rising to speak to this Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill, at the outset I extend to the people of my electorate my personal beliefs and the reason I will be opposing this piece of legislation. When I was first elected in 1989 I gave the assurance that I would represent all people of the Gregory electorate to the best of my ability in every way, shape and form, but tonight I know that there will be people in my electorate who will not agree with what I say. I apologise to those people. It is my own personal convictions that I want to convey to those people. I believe that is the intent of the conscience vote that we will be exercising in this House over the course of the next day or so. Degenerative disease is part of the process of life. We are blessed in our state of Queensland to have some of the best medical research scientists and medical professionals in the world who are at the coalface of medical history in research, with cures happening every day. The question I ask myself is: where does human life start? I have always been taught, and I believe, that it starts at conception. A human embryo is growing through this beautiful part of life and the waiting period of the expectant mother’s pregnancy. It is the start of a human life. The 14-day factor is inexcusable, to say the least. Do we dispose with one human life to spare another human life? We hear of the thousands of people on a daily basis who are suffering acute diseases and yearn for a cure. I know this is sad and I know that it is happening to the loved ones of people probably in this chamber today and in our state every day. I feel for those people. It has been said to me that if Queensland is to continue to be the Smart State we must not support this legislation. I, too, do not believe that it is smart and in the best interests of technology and people to be going down this line. Human life is absolutely sacred; it is not negotiable. I cannot support a field of work, regardless of its scientific brilliance, that will use a life to spare a life. Going back some 60-odd years, the world abhorred the experiments that were conducted in Nazi Germany during World War II. Experiments that were undertaken on some people during that horrible regime were never condoned. We have moved on into an educated, intellectual, Westernised, democratic society where we enjoy quality of life. We will all become people of the past in years to come, and I believe that the prolonging of life is something that we cannot do anything about. It is natural to be born; it is natural to die. This is not because of my Christian beliefs, but rather because I believe it is truly wrong to be experimenting with human embryos and human sperm in a way that is going to prolong somebody else’s life. I am the father of three children and the grandfather of four beautiful little granddaughters. I just love those young people to death. There are many people in this chamber who have family as I do and who have probably lost family as all of us have, and we would love to see some cure that will prolong life or help cure our loved ones. One of the most courageous, honest and open displays of courage that I have ever witnessed in my 18 years in this parliament was delivered this evening by the Minister for 3418 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

Main Roads and Local Government. It was truly from a man who knows what it is like to be on the other side. I congratulate Warren Pitt. I have immense admiration and respect for Warren Pitt—I always have and always will. He showed true courage this evening when he spoke from the heart and spoke exactly and precisely about his feelings. If I were in the same predicament as Mr Pitt, I would be saying exactly the same things tonight. Going back 37 years ago this month I lost my own father. Perhaps if we had some of the medical science that is available to us today he would be still living. That may be applicable to a lot of people in this chamber and in Queensland. The fact is that we take the hand we are dealt, we live with the hand we are dealt and we work with each other to get through life with the hand we are dealt and to take each other with us. There are people on this side and the other side of the House who will not agree with me this evening. From time to time we do not agree with each other, but that is the democratic process. I do respect the opinions of those people who will be supporting this legislation. I take on board the very professional speeches that were delivered here this afternoon, especially by the opposition health spokesman, the member for Surfers Paradise, and my own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Callide. We also heard a brilliant presentation in the affirmative from the member for Currumbin. I respect those people and I respect their point of view, but at the same time I cannot support this legislation. It concerns and greatly distresses me how greedy we have become in this educated and intelligent society in which we live in the Western world and which we enjoy. Are we challenging the supreme being to gain a few more months or years of life? Adult stem cells are assisting people now in a way that is helping them to get through illness. I do not believe that there is any scientific proof—and I have a list of doctors who say there is no scientific or medical proof—that embryonic stem cell research has cured anyone yet. I cannot condone the indiscriminate destruction of human life to experiment in a field of trial and error. It will not matter how many errors are made—these are human lives just like yours and mine that are being destroyed for the sake of what? I say ‘for the sake of what’ because I believe that as human beings in this Western world we have the honour and obligation of trying to help each other through life, not to destroy life to prolong somebody else’s life. It shocks me to know that we are discussing this bill. I know how the federal government dealt with it. I have some written evidence from professional people who certainly speak of the issues as they see them relating to the federal Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill. They say that advances will come from effortlessly obtained and scientifically superior stem cells which are currently being used in more than 1,000 human trials worldwide. Adult stem cell research is actually curing many patients with serious illnesses today. But at the same time the embryonic stem cell research has not cured one patient of anything and even animal studies have not shown promise. If we are truly concerned with obtaining these miracle cures as quickly as possible, the limited funding available should be directed to the successful and exciting area of adult stem cell research. The doctors belonging to Medicine with Morality state very clearly that we should never create human life for the purpose of destruction, whether for research or for stem cells or for organ transfer. The doctors of Medicine with Morality state very clearly that in the field of medical science we should never sacrifice one human life for another. This afternoon I witnessed a very professional address from the member for Moggill, the Leader of the Liberal Party, a medical practitioner and a doctor of medicine. I hung on every word he said. I believe that when we hear a professional man of the ability and integrity of Dr Flegg we should be taking account of his comments on what the medical profession is thinking about what is being debated in this House this evening. I appeal to the many people in the House who have not spoken to think clearly and be honest with themselves. It is a very difficult situation that we have been subjected to. I just hope and pray that those people who have not made up their minds yet will clearly identify that embryonic stem cell research is not going to cure anybody. As I said earlier, I respect the points of view of the people who have spoken in favour of this legislation. I have had numerous representations made to me by church groups and other groups opposed to this legislation. Whilst I support those groups and congratulate them on the work they are doing, when we look at some of the figures that have been quoted for and against, we can see that only 29 per cent of respondents support the cloning of human embryos as a source of stem cells while 51 per cent opposed the cloning of human embryos for stem cells. This increased to 55 per cent when it was clarified with respondents that these embryos are destroyed in the process of obtaining stem cells from them. Some 43 per cent of respondents were not previously aware of this fact. I think the people who are ill informed are the ones who a lot of times do not know the real facts. I am not a medical professional. I do not profess to be. But I believe the ethical thing to do is to let human nature take its own course. In this case I believe, as I said earlier, that we have a wonderful medical history of scientific study and medical research and cures and outcomes in this country. 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3419

Every day our medical profession is having breakthroughs that are unmatched on the international stage. We should not be spending money on this sort of business; we should be further assisting research personnel in the field of scientific and medical study to find other outcomes in areas of research to give people prolonged life and to cure some of those diseases. I say here again that I do not support this legislation. I hope and pray that the outcome of this legislation is not something that we will all be guilty or embarrassed about in years to come. I hope it does not come back into this chamber in a short while and we have to debate it again for some unknown reason. This is about us. It is about our families; it is about what we have now; and it is about supporting the medical profession to get better outcomes from scientific investigation and finding other methods, not the exploration and violation of the human body. When I say ‘violation of the human body’, the most sacred thing we have on this planet is our mothers. We have all had a mother. The female body I believe is the most sacred of all humankind and something that is put on this planet to be absolutely respected. It is not negotiable. It is something that I have been brought up to respect and always will till the day I die. I do not want women to be a vessel for the purpose of medical research that is not going to have a genuine outcome. Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (9.53 pm): I rise to speak to the Research Involving Human Embryos and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Amendment Bill 2007. I would first like to express my appreciation to the Premier and cabinet for allowing this debate to be settled as a matter of conscience. This in itself is an overt display of both compassion and leadership, which I appreciate. I have listened intently to the arguments put forward in this House on this very controversial and emotional matter. I appreciate the scientific arguments put forward, and they seem very compelling. I also appreciate the emotional cases put forward by many members. I appreciate that they are very real and very close to them. I, too, know many people who are suffering with debilitating diseases. I have two uncles who live in Townsville and both of them suffer from advanced Parkinson’s disease. I have seen my fair share of the impacts of these diseases on many families with my association with Camp Quality and the diseases that affect the children. I have seen many of those children pass away, and I have seen the anguish that the families suffered watching and hoping that something could be done about it. I listened to members extolling the virtues of the potential of this research to help many people. Knowing all this does not make my decision to oppose this bill any easier. I have researched this topic in an effort to fully understand the implications of the past. I have canvassed opinions from people I know who are sympathetic as well as those who oppose it. I have discovered that there are very strong arguments for and very strong arguments against the subject currently under debate. I am extremely cognisant that the majority of people I spoke to, particularly in my electorate, asked that I oppose this bill. I have looked at the scientific, social, emotional, ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of this debate, and I have weighed the probable and potential outcomes for the research. The one point that continually emerged in my mind was that I could not avoid the fact that this is about the creation of life for the purpose of experimentation and subsequent destruction 14 days later. I, like the member for Kawana, who spoke earlier, have had a Catholic upbringing. I was an altar boy just like he was and I was educated at Christian Brothers colleges. I maintain my strong Christian beliefs today and, although these beliefs weigh heavily on my decision-making process, they are not the sole contributor to my decision. I will say now that I am not opposed to stem cell research per se. In fact, I would welcome further advancements in the realms of adult stem cell research, and indeed the harvesting of stem cells at birth and from the umbilical cord. I am not convinced that all options with regard to this form of stem cell research have been fully explored. I would prefer to finish and understand the potential of one aspect of research before beginning another. It is on this current research that I pin my hopes for those in my electorate who are suffering from debilitating diseases and for those who will suffer in the future. I am not convinced that the creation of life for the purpose of experimentation and subsequent destruction will be the panacea for those debilitating diseases. I love my uncles dearly, but I cannot in good conscience give them false hope based merely on a supposed potential that a particular research may one day provide some relief for the diseases they are suffering from. I accept that there are strict safeguards embedded in this legislation, but I am also aware that those safeguards can one day be changed, as the previous safeguards are being changed by this bill. The cliche ‘the thin end of the wedge’ has been used as an argument in this debate. The reality is that we are at the thin end of the scientific wedge and we do not have a firm grasp of where it will lead us. Again, in my mind this is not good enough. The one thing I am sure of in this debate is that each person who speaks on this bill will honestly believe they are right in what they say and believe. I respect their opinions and sympathise with those who have agonised over which way to vote. 3420 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 10 Oct 2007

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle said that men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting in a particular way. You become just by performing just actions; temperate by performing temperate actions; brave by performing brave actions. Soon I will be required to make a decision that could place me contrary to my government’s position. This is not a decision I make lightly. I believe the only thing that you can fully control in your life is the level of your own integrity. Making informed decisions without compromising that integrity I believe is a measure of a person’s character. I am very comfortable with my decision to oppose this bill. I am no less hopeful for those people suffering debilitating diseases that science will somehow deliver respite from those illnesses. It is just that I am not convinced that the creation of life for the purpose of scientific research is the way forward in that regard. Therefore, with great respect, I do not support this bill. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (9.48 pm): Today we are being asked to vote according to our consciences on the question of whether or not we allow human embryos to be cloned, experimented upon and then destroyed. I think it was federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, who summed up the significance of this debate when he described the Commonwealth’s consideration of similar legislation as an ethical threshold. I agree with him. For me, this is not a threshold that I will willingly cross. I will not be supporting human cloning. I will rigorously oppose this legislation because I do not believe that we should ever create human life for the explicit purpose of experimentation and destruction. It is simply wrong to destroy the weak to benefit others. Human life should never be an industrial material. Human life should never be an industrial commodity. Human beings are an end in themselves not a means to an end. The prospect of creating new human life solely to be exploited and destroyed in the way proposed by this legislation, in my view, indicates a profound mistreatment of and disrespect for that human life. This is unnecessary. There are many scientific achievements in the area of adult stem cell research which provide fruitful, ethical alternatives to the approach proposed by this legislation. I think we all in this parliament want to find cures and treatments for the many diseases and conditions that affect millions of people in the world but there are better and smarter approaches than the research proposed by this legislation. I agree with Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, a neuroscientist and Queenslander of the Year in 2003. He said that adult stem cells can do everything that it is hoped embryonic stem cells might be able to do. Adult stem cells are superior because they do not carry the genetic damage caused by the cloning process. For the record, embryonic research is not new. It has in fact been around for almost two decades. Yet there are not new treatments for disease from this lengthy research. Conversely, the completely ethical and non-controversial adult and other non-embryonic stem cells like umbilical cord blood have already been shown to have clinical applications for over 70 types of diseases including ovarian cancer, leukaemia, breast cancer, juvenile diabetes, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell anaemia and spinal cord injury. There are many more diseases and conditions that are already being assisted with treatments derived from adult stem cells. It is a long list. I seek leave to incorporate this list into my speech. Leave granted. Cancers Brain Cancer Retinoblastoma Ovarian Cancer Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma Testicular Cancer Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Acute Myelogenous Leukaemia Chronic Myelogenous Leukaemia Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukaemia Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukaemia Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy Multiple Myeloma Myelodysplasia Breast Cancer Neuroblastoma Renal Cell Carcinoma Various Solid Tumors Soft Tissue Sarcoma Ewing’s Sarcoma Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis POEMS syndrome Myelofibrosis 10 Oct 2007 Research Involving Human Embryos & Prohib. of Human Cloning A’ment Bill 3421

Auto-Immune Diseases Diabetes Type I (Juvenile) Systemic Lupus Sjogren’s Syndrome Myasthenia Autoimmune Cytopenia Scleromyxedema Scleroderma Crohn’s Disease Behcet’s Disease Rheumatoid Arthritis Juvenile Arthritis Multiple Sclerosis Polychondritis Systemic Vasculitis Alopecia Universalis Buerger’s Disease Cardiovascular Acute Heart Damage Chronic Coronary Artery Disease Ocular Corneal regeneration Immunodeficiencies Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries Parkinson’s Disease Spinal Cord Injury Stroke Damage Anemias and Other Blood Conditions Sickle Cell Anemia Sideroblastic Anemia Aplastic Anemia Red Cell Aplasia Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia Thalassemia Primary Amyloidosis Diamond Blackfan Anemia Fanconi’s Anemia Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection Wounds and Injuries Limb Gangrene Surface Wound Healing Jawbone Replacement Skull Bone Repair Other Metabolic Disorders Hurler’s Syndrome Osteogenesis Imperfecta Krabbe Leukodystrophy Osteopetrosis Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy Liver Disease Chronic Liver Failure Liver Cirrhosis Bladder Disease End-Stage Bladder Disease Mr LEE: I do wish to place on the record my admiration for the great adult stem cell work being done at Griffith University by Professor Alan Mackay-Sim and his team. Using olfactory tissue to produce adult neural stem cells, Professor Mackay-Sim is working to repair nervous system damage. The professor and his team use olfactory stem cells to develop cellular models of diseases including schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease and motor neurone disease. Perhaps though the most impressive achievement of this research is the use of olfactory ensheathing cells from the noses of people with traumatic spinal cord injury. These cells are taken from the noses of patients and are grown in the lab and then transplanted into the injured person’s spinal cord. This is incredibly exciting research and it has been undertaken using adult stem cells here in Queensland. 3422 Adjournment 10 Oct 2007

What I am saying is that embryonic stem cell research is not only ethically controversial but also in fact unnecessary. My further concern is that the dry gully that is embryonic stem cell research will act like a funding sponge, soaking up limited and precious research funds that should be invested in adult stem cell research. In essence I fear that we are backing the wrong horse. There is a significant economic issue here. We know that there are stunningly good scientific breakthroughs coming almost daily from adult stem cell research but we continue to squeeze adult stem cell research funding. We need to dramatically increase state and federal funding for adult stem cell research. This debate should not be a battle between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. The debate is really about the source of the embryos. This legislation allows for human embryos to be created by cloning only then to be experimented upon and destroyed. This I cannot support. I urge others to join me in saying yes to increased funding for adult stem cell research and no to human cloning. Debate, on motion of Mr Lee, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.04 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

National Stroke Awareness Week

Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (10.04 pm): It is very fitting that I make this adjournment speech about stroke tonight. Stroke is Australia’s second single greatest killer and the leading cause of disability. Every year 53,000 Australians will suffer new and recurrent strokes. That is one every 10 minutes. A stroke occurs when the brain is deprived of oxygen. The signs of a stroke can be one or a combination of many factors.

The acronym FAST is an easy way to recognise these signs. F is for facial weakness, A is for arm weakness, S is for speech difficulty and, if these symptoms exist, it is T for time to act fast and call 000 immediately. Prompt action can prevent further damage and help with recovery. The risk of a stroke can be reduced by eating healthily, exercising, not smoking and maintaining a normal blood pressure level.

The Bundaberg Stroke Support Group recently increased my awareness of the difficulties of stroke victims during National Stroke Week from 17 to 23 September. This included being strapped in a wheelchair and trying to make my way through the main street of Bundaberg. The Bundaberg Stroke Support Group has approximately 30 members, all of whom are either stroke victims themselves or directly affected through a spouse, child, parent or friend. Some are or have been carers, but they are all caring people who are dedicated to supporting stroke victims, enhancing stroke awareness within the community and promoting initiatives to reduce the risk of stroke.

This dedicated and hardworking group is headed by president Debbie Keena, secretary Jocelyn Scott-Wright, treasurer Jo Dunn, assistant treasurer Pauline Langford, publicity officer Denise McGaw and Dianna Hardy. This group meets monthly, providing important fellowship with others who have had similar experiences as themselves. They have regular guest speakers at their meetings from such organisations as Home Assist and Centacare as well as motivational speeches from local psychologists. This dedicated group of caring members also make frequent hospital visits to talk to new stroke victims, providing them with friendship and support and offering help in whatever way they can. During National Stroke Week the Bundaberg group spread the word to many people throughout the Bundaberg district. One display in the Bundaberg CBD provided a free sausage sizzle for the public as well as promoting published and verbal information about strokes and its effects. One radio interviewer received phone calls from 20 people who had suffered stroke, six of whom had also experienced a subsequent heart attack which sadly can all too often follow unless prompt and professional treatment is carried out.

I also learnt that a stroke can happen at any age. One could only be inspired by the presence of 19-year-old Ryan Rohan whose life was changed forever by a stroke last year. Ryan was also happy to attend the public displays with his mother, Debbie, relate his story and help create greater awareness of the effects of a stroke and how to best deal with its aftermath. I sincerely thank this passionate group for their continual efforts in promoting stroke awareness. I ask all members here this evening to spread the FAST acronym message. 10 Oct 2007 Adjournment 3423

Acacia Ridge, SkillsTech

Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (10.07 pm): Last week I turned the sod on the new foundry at the new trade and technical skills institute, SkillsTech—the main campus being in my electorate at Acacia Ridge. SkillsTech Australia is a world class trade training centre and is also well positioned to become the lead centre for foundry training in the Asia-Pacific region. The new foundry and pattern- making facility is expected to open around April or May 2008.

When the foundry closed at Yeronga in 2002 there were 22 apprentices. Now there are approximately 120 apprentices and it is expected that this number will grow by about 15 to 20 per cent per year over the next five years. Although we currently only service apprentices from Queensland, the facility has the potential to service apprentices from all over the country as well as New Zealand and the Pacific region.

I was pleased to meet the quality staff and members of the board of SkillsTech last week. A standout staff member was Les Johnson. Les commenced as an apprentice engineering pattern maker in Brisbane in 1966. He has had over 41 years as a pattern maker, business owner, trade instructor and TAFE teacher. He was the first apprentice at the then new training facility at Yeronga in 1967.

A great TAFE reform in Queensland in recent years is the extensive industry involvement in TAFE. Les chairs the local advisory working group, meeting with industry monthly to develop best practice in teaching and to develop resources. The SkillsTech centre is part of the Bligh government’s plan to address skill shortage trade training areas including in engineering, building and construction, automotive, plastics, air conditioning and refrigeration, foundry, transport and logistics and paraprofessional and other post trade training areas.

Our billion-dollar Queensland Skills Plan is working. Figures released in June 2007 show that 57,500 Queenslanders started their apprenticeships or traineeships in the 12 months to December 2006. That represented a nine per cent increase in Queensland compared to national growth of 1.7 per cent. Queensland has the highest number of school based apprentices and trainees, 40 per cent of the national share. We are committed to doubling this over the next few years. I encourage all young people and their parents to value a trade career and try a trade at SkillsTech at Acacia Ridge. I am very confident that they will be amazed at what is on offer at SkillsTech.

Local Government Reform

Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (10.09 pm): I am deeply concerned about the future of the Sunshine Coast and the impact on my constituents of the decisions being made by this government. Council amalgamation has been forced on Noosa, Maroochy and Caloundra. This has caused great anxiety to many people who are rightly concerned about what impacts this change will have on their communities. One of the strengths of a local government has always been the accessibility of elected representatives. Now that councillors will have much larger divisions, how will they be able to assist individuals and small community groups as they have done in the past? Local government should be about solving local problems and looking after communities. I am concerned that what we will have in the future is more bureaucracy and less personal contact.

The costs of amalgamation are also significant. There will be massive structural changes involving every aspect of local government, from staffing to council buildings and computer software to name just a few. These changes will have to be paid for. What impacts will they have on the new regional council’s budget and on its ratepayers? To top off amalgamation, south-east Queensland councils face a loss of revenue from the supply of water. The Sunshine Coast councils worked hard and made the investments necessary to provide good water infrastructure for their communities. That infrastructure is to be taken over by the state government, which is disputing the independent valuation of those assets. If the government does not reimburse councils fairly for water, how will the revenue shortfall be met?

There are two possible answers to this: increased rates and reduced services, or perhaps both. The government has already admitted to a likely cost increase of 150 per cent in water charges. This will be on top of the recent rise in electricity prices. If rates are also going to increase dramatically, what impact will that have, particularly for young families, mortgagees, retirees on fixed incomes and pensioners? Many pensioners are finding that they cannot afford private health insurance and are being forced on long waiting lists for even the most basic health services like dental care. How will they manage further cost increases on other essential services? What could be a more basic service than water? These are people who over many years have helped pay for the Sunshine Coast’s water assets through their council rates. They deserve better and face dramatically higher charges. 3424 Adjournment 10 Oct 2007

Of equal concern is the potential for the reduction in council services. In a fast-growing area like the Sunshine Coast, we already have a problem with infrastructure and services keeping up with demand. We need financially strong local government, not one that is burdened with debt and lacks resources. If the government wants the new amalgamated Sunshine Coast council to succeed, it must ensure that it is financially viable and able to meet the future challenges. Providing fair compensation for the loss of water revenue is just the beginning. Oxley Quarry Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (10.12 pm): Last Thursday night I organised a community information evening at the Oxley Bowls Club in relation to ongoing community concerns about what is locally known as the Oxley quarry. I was pleased that over 100 Oxley residents attended this evening. The Oxley quarry is an old clay mine site that has been operating for 50 years and occupies 15 hectares bordering Douglas Street and Jutland Street. The site is significant in size and owned privately by Austral Bricks. However, Austral has obligations to ensure that the rehabilitation of this site complies with state government legislation. As part of the information night I organised two representatives of the EPA to attend—Mr Brendan Lee, the Operations Manager of the Mining and Extractive Industries Unit, and Elisabeth Dunlop, Environmental Officer and Project Manager. I want to place on record my thanks to the minister for allowing both of these EPA representatives to attend on the night. Brendan Lee explained to the residents the need to rehabilitate the site and to stop any erosion, as there have been landslips around the site in the past. The information night was about the state government requirements and not about any council rezoning matters, which a lot of residents had concerns about. This community information night was to highlight the conditions currently under mining lease 1167 and what Austral must do before it submits a zoning application to council. I have met with local residents and the most logical zoning I can see is for it to be zoned residential with community access. Developments these days are ensuring that buffer zones are kept and integrating things like walking and bike trails for the use of not just the residents but the community at large. The Environmental Protection Agency also highlighted the need to ensure that a wetland habitat is retained and other requirements as outlined under the Environmental Protection Act. But how did this information night come about? I have met with residents and had a personal overview of the site with them. I have read the many letters that residents have sent to me by email and also sent to my office and the photos that they have taken over the years. People in my electorate feel very passionately about the area, particularly in relation to the birdlife. I posted a letter to every resident living around the site. I invited the council to the meeting to explain the zoning issue and this request was refused. I invited someone from Austral Bricks to attend this meeting and this request was refused, and I express my disappointment. The outcomes of the meeting were that the site has to be rehabilitated due to the erosion and there have been concerns about the removal of the trees and the residents will form a subcommittee to put together a petition that I hope to table in parliament in the near future. There was unanimous agreement that the residents do not want the area zoned light industry. There was unanimous agreement that the residents want the site zoned residential in line with other developments in the local area such as Edenbrook. I also undertook to have a meeting with Austral over the next couple of weeks to let it know the outcome of the meeting. I thank the residents for bringing this issue to my attention and I will continue to pursue it with passion for them to get the best community outcome for the site. Kuranda Range Road Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.15 pm): The tablelands population has significantly increased over recent years and it and the far north in general have been waiting almost 10 years already for the promised upgrade of the Kuranda Range Road. This Kuranda Range upgrade was identified as far back as 1998 as necessary to meet the mounting transport needs of the growing population, industry and economy of not only the tablelands, the gulf and the cape but also the Cairns urban area, particularly these days when taking climate change into consideration. In 1998 three options were presented to the public and there was a great deal of debate over about a three-year period to decide on the best option. At the end of the debate the ALP state government loudly endorsed in 2001 the decision to upgrade the road to four lanes with an estimated price tag of some $500 million, which naturally would increase over time. There is absolutely no question that this road is in desperate need of upgrading as it is frequently blocked and is the scene of a growing number of accidents as the traffic burdens soar. I believe there is a duty of care on this ALP government to address these issues and to upgrade this road as a matter of urgency. Just last month the Wet Tropics Management Authority issued the last in a long series of necessary approvals for this project. It is understood that this was the final hurdle before actual work in the form of detailed design preceding construction would begin. I was very concerned when I read in 10 Oct 2007 Adjournment 3425 today’s local media that the new minister for main roads, the Hon. Warren Pitt, is reported as having virtually ruled out this long-awaited project despite the money being earmarked in state budgets for years and years. If this is so, where will that money now be spent and how can anyone trust budget promises made by this ALP government in the future? Despite the near decade of Labor Party promises, despite the economic and social costs and despite the deaths and injuries on the existing inadequate road, this new minister is quoted as saying— Now for $1 billion for this road you’ve got to ask yourself is it really worth it?’ He would just have to ask the families of the dead and injured from accidents on this road; ask the sick, the hurt and the pregnant women trying to get to the Cairns Base Hospital for services no longer available on the tablelands; just ask the people held up by yet another road closure; and ask the businesses, including tourism industry leaders and other community interests. I believe each and every one of them will tell him it damn well is worth it. This government knows the traffic burden will keep getting heavier, especially as it has closed down so many of our rail services as well. Yet this new main roads minister—himself a northerner to boot—apparently does not think so. I believe that if the Kuranda Range Road upgrade to four lanes is not commenced in the near future it will be seen as a massive about-face and a betrayal of epic proportions. It will be seen as an ALP betrayal that will etch itself deep in the memories of far northerners, just as the National Party’s betrayal on the Tully-Millstream Dam did 11 years ago. Mental Health Week; Mirikai Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (10.18 pm): This is Mental Health Week and today is World Mental Health Day, which is celebrated every year throughout the world on 10 October. The theme this year is ‘Everybody’s Life is a Hero’s Journey’. Mental Health Week is about promoting what it means to live a mentally healthy life—to have healthy relationships, a healthy physical self and a healthy attitude to life. These are not always skills that come naturally and very few of these skills are taught. Good mental health is essential to one’s wellbeing and it is important to recognise the need to seek help if things are not going as well as we might like. For many of us—the worried well—it is important to have a family member, or more often a friend, who will listen without criticising, who will offer advice when asked but not volunteer it. But for those with more serious mental health issues, the most important thing is to be able to get help when they need it. I would like to particularly recognise the Gold Coast branch of the Mental Health Association of Queensland. That branch does a wonderful job on a very limited budget—responding to inquiries and providing advice on a wide range of issues related to mental health in a professional and caring manner. I acknowledge Tennille and her team for their commitment to those who access their services. The Gold Coast Drug Council’s residential facility, Mirikai, offers a specialist alcohol and other drug treatment program for up to 40 clients. However, it has expanded its services to meet the needs of an increasing number of clients who present with a dual diagnosis—that is, clients who have both substance abuse and mental health problems. This is putting a huge strain on their resources. The driving force behind this facility is Mary Alcorn, who recently celebrated 20 years at Mirikai. Ms Jones: Mary’s a saint. Mrs SMITH: Mary has touched many people’s lives, including my own, in a profoundly positive way. In the past 20 years thousands of young people with serious drug problems and mental health issues have come into contact with Mary. Most will tell us that they owe her their lives. Mirikai was quality accredited by the Institute for Healthy Communities for the first time in 2001. That was a significant achievement as it was the first residential rehabilitation facility in Australia to receive a three-year accreditation. It was reaccredited in 2004 and just last month received accreditation for a further three years. That is a remarkable achievement. Mary has worked tirelessly and effectively for greater funding for Mirikai and the results speak for themselves. As the member for Ashgrove just said, Mary is a saint. Equine Influenza Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (10.21 pm): I want to address the issue of equine influenza. Equine influenza has been a scourge on the equine industry in Queensland. Whilst in some areas the equine influenza outbreak has been managed properly, in other areas it has not been managed properly. I want to pay tribute to Brian Timms from the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, who I found at all times during this event to be always accessible on the phone and able to come back to you with updates as to what is happening. I want to touch on the issue of the plight of the racing industry in western Queensland. We have seen the whole of our state’s racing industry virtually shut down not only in western Queensland but also in the south-east corner. The bloodstock industry is at a standstill. But a lot of people forget that other 3426 Adjournment 10 Oct 2007 parts of the industry are affected as well and they are the working horse industry, the pony clubs, the rodeo people, the campdrafters, the endurance riders—the whole lot. The point that upsets me greatly is that parts of this state could have been quarantined but were not. Racing events such as the annual Birdsville Races and races at Bedourie, Betoota, Quilpie, Isisford and Junda, which are all in western Queensland, were affected. A great deal of the money that is generated by those race meetings goes towards the Royal Flying Doctor Service. For many years the importance of racing in western Queensland has been an ongoing issue. For many places, it is the one social event of the year. Whilst those horses were quarantined for up to three or four weeks, they could have quite easily been able to race. They were probably 1,000 kilometres from the nearest horses that were at risk of being infected by equine influenza. I believe that is one part of the issue that was not managed properly. There was a lot of panic about the outbreak of equine influenza. One thing that we have to learn from this experience is that we should not panic. We also have to look at how good our biosecurity techniques are. A couple of years ago the citrus industry at Emerald was wiped out because of an outbreak of citrus canker. Now we have the outbreak of equine influenza in the horse industry. We certainly do not want to see some exotic disease come into this country. If foot-and-mouth disease comes into this country, it will wipe out our livestock industry. Our livestock on our island continent will no longer be safe. We are the best farmers in the word. We produce the best goods in the world. We have to take a bipartisan approach to this issue and make absolutely certain that we learn from the mistakes that have been made in recent months from this outbreak of equine influenza and make sure that it never happens in this state or nation again.

Mount St Michael’s College Action Day

Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (10.24 pm): Recently I was invited to Mount St Michael’s College at Ashgrove to participate in the Action Day organised by their year 8 SOSE students. Groups of around five to six students were required to choose an environmental issue that concerned them and research it so that they could hold information booths. If members are interested, I have some brochures on some of the issues that were covered—Saving our mangroves, Don’t be a litterbug, illegal fishing and saving our icecaps from climate change. Mr Pearce: Can we have a copy of those? Ms JONES: Absolutely, the member can have a copy. A specific requirement of the students’ assessment was to undertake actions that would help address their particular environmental concern. As part of that assessment, five enterprising students decided that, for one of their actions, they would invite their local member of parliament to inspect their stand. Kayla, Bridget, Chelsea, Millie and Amy had chosen the erosion of sand dunes as their topic. It was evident from the professional standard of their display that the girls had researched and worked extremely hard. At the stand they also had a commitment book where visitors who came to the stand had to nominate an action that they would undertake to help stop the erosion of our precious sand dunes. I undertook to make a speech in this chamber to help raise the awareness of other members of parliament about this vital issue. In Queensland our coastal dune masses are made of silica sand washed down from the large rivers of south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales. These dunes form the largest sand islands in the world and are some of the highest dunes, up to 300 metres high. Our coastal dunes are home to many unique species of animal and plant wildlife. The most unusual is probably the marsupial, the golden mole, which has no eyes or optic nerves so that it can swim through the dry sand. If we do not protect our coastal vegetation then we risk further damaging and destabilising Queensland’s sand dunes through blow-outs and erosion. Sand dunes act as barriers against the action of waves, tides and the supply of sand for eroded beaches, such as those on the Gold Coast, as the member for Mudgeeraba would be aware. They protect areas behind them from wave damage and saltwater intrusion during stormy weather. Dune systems can be damaged by natural forces, human activity or both. The failure to trap fresh sand blown up from the beach and the continued loss of sand from the degraded dunes owing to wind erosion decreases the effectiveness of the coastal barrier and causes the dunes to become unstable. I would like to thank the girls for inviting me to the school. I congratulate Mount St Michael’s for ensuring that the girls—the adults of the future—are fully aware of the issues that we face in terms of protecting our environment. In particular, I congratulate the principal, Alison Terrey, who does a fantastic job. Every time I go to Mount St Michael’s I am always overwhelmed by how happy and excited the girls are to be at school. They do a fantastic job there. 10 Oct 2007 Adjournment 3427

Victim Liaison Officers Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.27 pm): I rise to speak about the issue of victim liaison officers who are employed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. These officers are important to the criminal justice system in that they provide support to victims of crime and their family members as they wind their way through our criminal justice system. They are important because in many ways they are the buffer between the rigours of that system and the pain and suffering experienced by those victims and their families. Those people offer support, counselling, advice and tell the victims of crime and their family members the next step in that process, which is so critical for them so that they understand what is happening and, more importantly, when the matter will be dealt with by the court. In my opinion it is critical that these officers are well trained, well funded and in numbers that support the number of victims who come before our legal system. As at 30 June 2005, 16 victim liaison officers were employed by the Office of the DPP. As at 12 September 2007, that number had dropped to 15.5. Although that is a reduction of only .5 of an officer, in the context of the employment by that office of other legal officers, the number of support officers has increased by 47.7. These officers have to undertake additional work as the number of matters appearing before our justice system and which are dealt with by the DPP increases. We also have to understand that these officers deal with victims of crime who are involved in the most horrendous of crimes—murder, manslaughter, sexual abuse and others. The number of trials and sentences in 2004-05 conducted by the DPP was 5,884; in 2005-06, that figure rose to 6,058. The number of sexual offences with child victims referred to the DPP in 2004-05 was 511; in 2005-06, that figure rose to 555—an increase of 44. So the number of matters going to the DPP and the number of accompanying victims of crime has increased, supported by an increase in legal officers of 47.7, but the number of people who are dealing on a daily basis with the men and women who have been through the crime has in fact decreased. If we are going to care for those people who suffer, it is incumbent on us to provide the resources, the manpower and the funding for those organisations who care for those people, who provide the succour and the necessities to get them through what is perhaps the most gruelling time of their lives— that is, a court process which may bring back horrendous and ongoing memories. We also need to pay tribute to these men and women because they deal with the worst situations that human beings can face. I urge the government to consider additional funding to these officers. Time expired.

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (10.31 pm): The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 provides that one of the key focuses of our workers compensation system is that workers should be rehabilitated and returned to their work as soon as possible. This is achieved through two key measures—the first is requiring employers with more than 30 employees to have rehabilitation coordinators and the second is requiring employers to have certified rehabilitation plans. Most rehabilitation coordinators perform an invaluable role in the workplace and do so in an ethical and professional manner. At present, a person can only be appointed as a workplace return to work coordinator if they have completed an accredited course by Q-Comp and been subsequently accredited. However, there is a problem in that Q-Comp does not have the power to investigate complaints of unprofessional behaviour by rehabilitation and return to work coordinators. I have had raised with me allegations that some rehabilitation and return to work coordinators have used their position of trust within their company to the disadvantage of the workers whom they are there to serve. I have had raised with me allegations that Ms Helen Weber of Wham Solutions has been engaged in practices that are inappropriate and unprofessional. In particular, the allegations raised relate to Ms Weber misusing the trust placed in her by workers in her capacity as a rehabilitation coordinator. Ms Weber has acted as a rehabilitation coordinator for a number of manufacturing employers in the Brisbane area. In carrying out this role, Ms Weber has on a number of occasions gone beyond the role of a rehabilitation coordinator and taken an active role in defending workers compensation processes for her clients—that is, the employers. This has included Ms Weber insisting that she attend doctors appointments with injured workers and insisting that she be present during the consultation. The medical information obtained during these appointments has later been used to provide submissions to WorkCover on behalf of the employer for complaints to be rejected. Ms Weber has advised workers to accept statutory lump sum payments from WorkCover rather than seeking independent legal advice. Ms Weber has even attended a medical assessment tribunal as a support person for a worker who has made a claim against the employer by whom she has been engaged. 3428 Attendance 10 Oct 2007

Conduct of this nature would clearly disqualify a person from acting as a legal practitioner in Queensland but at the moment it cannot affect a person’s ability to be a rehabilitation coordinator. As well, Ms Weber does not even have professional indemnity insurance to defend any claims made against her. I have raised this matter with the minister for industrial relations and I understand this matter is currently being reviewed by the parliament. I call on the minister to ensure that an appropriate accreditation process is put in place for workplace rehabilitation coordinators so that behaviour like Ms Weber’s does not continue in the future. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.35 pm.

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