PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 8 March 2007

PROCEDURE ...... 781 Acting Speaker’s Statement—Matters of Privilege Suddenly Arising ...... 781 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 781 Alola Foundation ...... 781 PETITION ...... 781 TABLED PAPER ...... 782 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 782 Plane Crash, Indonesia ...... 782 International Women’s Day; WorkChoices ...... 782 Ceremonial Trowel ...... 783 Green Cross International ...... 784 Premier’s Youth Forum on Drug and Alcohol Abuse ...... 784 Tabled paper: Letter dated 1 March 2007, from the Archbishop of to Mr Beattie relating to the Forum on Young People, Alcohol and Drugs...... 784 Service Delivery and Performance Commission, Report ...... 785 Tabled paper: Report by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission dated February 2007 titled ‘Review of the Roles and Responsibilities of The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.’ ...... 785 Crime and Misconduct Commission ...... 785 Willprint ...... 785 Tabled paper: Calling card titled Michael Caltabiano MP...... 786 Tabled paper: Community Newsletter from Ross Vasta MP dated November 2005...... 786 Tabled paper: Community Newsletters from Adrian Schrinner, Councillor for Chandler Ward, dated April 2006 and July 2006...... 786 Power Stations, Water Restrictions ...... 787 Power Stations, Water Restrictions ...... 787 Climate Change Centre of Excellence ...... 788 Douglas Shire Council ...... 788 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 23 February 2007, from Douglas Shire Council to Mr Fraser relating to the council’s response to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport...... 789

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Thursday, 8 March 2007

Tabled paper: Report by J Brady, dated 7 March 2007, titled ‘Report on the Review of the Response from Douglas Shire Council to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport’...... 789 Tabled paper: Report by GB Baker, dated March 2007, titled ‘Report on investigation into the Douglas Shire Council’s handling of the Beach Club (Port Douglas) development application’...... 789 Road Funding ...... 789 International Women’s Day ...... 790 International Women’s Day; WorkChoices ...... 791 International Women’s Day; Emergency Services ...... 791 Queensland Corrective Services, Uniforms ...... 792 Department of Child Safety, Practice Development and Support Branch ...... 792 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 793 International Women’s Day ...... 793 MOTION ...... 793 Moving of Motion and Time Limit of Speeches ...... 793 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ...... 793 Report ...... 793 Tabled paper: Public Works Committee Report No 95 titled ‘Roma Street Fire and Ambulance Station March 2007’...... 793 EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY ...... 793 Report ...... 793 Tabled paper: Public Report of Office Expenses Office of the Leader of the Liberal Party for the period 8 March 2006 to 31 December 2006...... 793 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 793 Beattie Labor Government ...... 793 Queensland Liberal Party, Electoral Allowances ...... 794 Multipurpose Community Transport ...... 794 Myths in Australian Politics ...... 795 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 795 Water Restrictions, Level 5 ...... 795 Tabled paper: Graph titled ‘QLD1 30 minute Demand and Price for period 7 March 2007 to 9 March 2007’...... 795 Tabled paper: Extract from Tarong Energy Annual Report relating to 2005-06 highlights...... 795 Tabled paper: Document relating to CS Energy key financial indicators 2003-04 to 2005-06...... 795 Macarthur Coal ...... 796 Whistleblowers ...... 797 Government Backbencher, CMC Investigation ...... 798 MOTION ...... 799 Extension of Time ...... 799 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 799 Procedure—Acting Speaker’s Ruling—Answer Relevant to Question ...... 800 Tabled paper: Campaign material from Glen Ryan, Liberal candidate for Mansfield...... 800 Tabled paper: Bundle of Liberal Party printed material...... 800 Tabled paper: Bundle of Labor Party printed material...... 800 Willprint ...... 801 Queensland Health ...... 802 Queensland Economy ...... 802 Queensland Health ...... 803 Energex ...... 803 Dental Health ...... 804 International Women’s Day; WorkChoices ...... 804 Procedure—Acting Speaker’s Ruling—Question Out of Order ...... 805 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 805 Further Answer to Question; Macarthur Coal ...... 805 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 805 Interlock ...... 805 International Women’s Day; Queensland Police Service ...... 806 Exceptional Circumstances, Rate Rebates ...... 807 Child Safety Officers, Training Program ...... 808 MOTION ...... 808 International Women’s Day ...... 808 Tabled paper: Copy of an article from The Courier Mail, dated 8 March 2007 titled ‘Toxic culture not empowering our girls’...... 816 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 823 Resolved in the negative...... 823 WHISTLEBLOWERS (DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 823 Second Reading ...... 823 PERSONAL EXPLANATION ...... 824 Government Backbencher, CMC Investigation ...... 824 DISTINGUISHED VISITOR ...... 824 Table of Contents — Thursday, 8 March 2007

WHISTLEBLOWERS (DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 824 Second Reading ...... 824 Procedure—Deputy Speaker’s Ruling—Relevance to Bill ...... 824 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 844 Resolved in the affirmative...... 844 Consideration in Detail ...... 844 Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 844 Clause 4—...... 844 Division: Question put—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the bill...... 846 Resolved in the affirmative...... 846 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 847 Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to...... 848 Clause 8—...... 848 Division: Question put—That clause 8, as read, stand part of the bill...... 850 Resolved in the affirmative...... 850 Clause 9, as read, agreed to...... 851 Clauses 10 to 14, as read, agreed to...... 851 Clause 15, as read, agreed to...... 851 Third Reading ...... 851 Long Title ...... 851 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 852 Queensland Health ...... 852 ADJOURNMENT ...... 852 Religious Education ...... 852 AusLink ...... 853 Queensland Cancer Fund ...... 853 Confraternity of Brothers Leagues Clubs ...... 854 Traveston Dam ...... 855 Narangba Valley State High School ...... 855 Election Campaign, Printed Material ...... 856 Jim Donaldson Place ...... 857 Ballistic Protection Vests ...... 857 International Women’s Day ...... 858 ATTENDANCE ...... 859 08 Mar 2007 Legislative Assembly 781 THURSDAY, 8 MARCH 2007

Legislative Assembly

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J English, Redlands) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PROCEDURE

Acting Speaker’s Statement—Matters of Privilege Suddenly Arising

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, sessional orders provide that matters of privilege may be raised as the second item of business each sitting day. Further, the morning program each day provides an opportunity for members to make personal explanations. Generally, members should utilise these two opportunities in the order of business to raise matters that involve privilege or a personal explanation. Standing orders also provide an opportunity to rise on matters of privilege suddenly arising at any time. A matter of privilege suddenly arising means just that. Firstly, it must be something that is genuinely a matter of privilege and, secondly, something that is happening or has just happened and which could threaten the proceedings of the House or the ability of members to participate in a debate or vote in the House. Examples of matters of privilege suddenly arising include a member’s inability to get to the chamber through the obstruction of strangers or the failure of the high-rise elevators or the unavailability of required papers in the House such as amendments being moved. It has been held in this parliament for some time that a matter of privilege suddenly arising also includes a member correcting the record of something that they themselves have said. Although a member may use a matter of privilege suddenly arising to correct an error or a misleading statement that they have made themselves in an earlier speech, they cannot use it to rebut, criticise or make allegations against other members’ earlier statements. It is inappropriate to use the pretence of a matter of privilege suddenly arising as a subterfuge for making a personal explanation or for raising a matter of privilege that is not urgent and could be delayed until the following sitting day, especially if no leave is sought and the member is simply interrupting the business of the House. Members seeking to abuse the rules of the House in this way are simply being disorderly and will be dealt with accordingly. A copy of this statement is being provided to all temporary speakers.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Alola Foundation

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, staff of the Parliamentary Service are currently coordinating fundraising for the Alola Foundation, an East Timorese charity that works in the fields of advocacy, employment, education, maternal and child health and humanitarian assistance. The fundraising efforts being coordinated by parliamentary staff are specifically focused on maternal and child health needs in East Timor, a country which has among the highest rates of maternal and child mortality in the world. Funds raised by parliamentary staff will be used by the Alola Foundation to purchase maternity packs for pregnant women in East Timor. Possessing a maternity pack allows women to give birth in hospital, which ultimately reduces high mortality rates for East Timorese mothers and their babies. Each pack costs $25 to supply. I am sure honourable members will agree that this is an appropriate charitable cause to support on International Women’s Day. I urge all honourable members to support these important fundraising efforts. A document has been circulated in the chamber explaining how donations can be made.

PETITION

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

Mount Crosby State School, Extra Rooms

Dr Flegg from 397 petitioners requesting the House to provide a new modular or demountable building comprising of two classroom areas and a withdrawal room to the Mt Crosby State School as a matter of urgency. 782 Ministerial Statements 08 Mar 2007

TABLED PAPER

The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport (Mr Fraser)— • Response from the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport (Mr Fraser) to a paper petition (707-06) presented by Mr Cummins from 57 petitioners regarding the Maroochy Shire Council’s handling of water quality issues within Chancellor Park.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Plane Crash, Indonesia Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 am): I want to put on the record the sympathies and condolences of this House to the friends and families of Australians tragically killed and injured in the recent Indonesian plane crash, and indeed I would like to extend that to all victims of that crash. Latest reports confirm at least one Australian has been killed, with grave fears held for four more who are missing. At least 22 people were killed when the flight from Jakarta burst into flames on landing at Yogyakarta airport. It is reported that up to 10 Australian diplomats, journalists, RAAF personnel and Federal Police were on board. Our hearts and prayers go out to all those affected. As we have seen in the aftermath of the Bali bombings, the Asian tsunami and Cyclone Larry, tragic times like these see countries band together, and Queensland as always is on standby to play our part. Queensland has a team of five on standby ready to be deployed at an hour’s notice, including a senior burns surgeon and nurse from the Royal Brisbane Hospital, a senior anaesthetist and ICU nurse from the Princess Alexandra Hospital and Dr Mark Elcock, who is the director of Queensland’s retrieval services. Queensland will be the first state to deploy a team. Dr Fiona Wood, one of ’s leading burns surgeons, has left to assess the situation and will advise if our people are needed. Additionally, 20 ICU nurses have been made available to travel to Darwin if needed. I have instructed that the government jet be on standby for deployment if required by the Commonwealth, and Queensland Health has made a number of burns and intensive care beds available if needed. The John Tonge Centre has been placed on alert and may be tasked to provide disaster victim identification support and the Queensland Blood Bank has also been placed on alert. I would like to specifically acknowledge Queensland Health’s commitment and expertise in emergency management which is widely regarded in Australia and overseas. I know all members of this House will agree that in these circumstances it is important to work together and offer as much assistance and support as we possibly can, and that is what we will do. International Women’s Day; WorkChoices Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 am): Today is International Women’s Day. The industrial relations minister, John Mickel, will today announce an important initiative to protect Queenslanders’ rights to equal pay in the face of the WorkChoices onslaught. This is significant on International Women’s Day, a time when we recognise women’s achievements in the Smart State. As Mr Acting Speaker knows, there are 30 women members of this current parliament, with five being cabinet ministers—and very good ones, too—and four parliamentary secretaries. As head of government I also acknowledge the important professional contributions made by the six women directors-general that we have. Queensland’s theme for International Women’s Day is ‘Women at Work: Know Your Rights, It’s Your Future’. My government continues to advance the status of women in many ways by encouraging and promoting talented professional women and providing access to support services. The Queensland public sector is leading by example on the important issue of work/life balance. There have been increases in paid parental leave, extended purchased leave arrangements, long service leave at half pay for any purpose and minimum long service leave has been reduced from two weeks to one week. Looking forward, the Women on Board Strategy being run throughout 2007 will see more Queensland women represented in leadership positions and on government boards. Over the next few years we will also be appealing to more women and girls to get involved in emerging industries and careers through the Women in Hard Hats Strategy and our Science, Engineering and Technology Action Plan. To help Queensland celebrate International Women’s Day, the has provided grants to 35 organisations and distributed more than 180,000 promotional resources around the state. Because of the importance of this day, I seek leave to have the rest of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. In other areas, I can report that over the past five years, the Office for Women has helped more than 70,000 women through its free statewide Infolink line. 08 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 783

In 2005-06, $192,766 in grants were awarded to community organisations for projects benefiting Queensland women. In the last financial year, Smart Women—Smart State Seminars gave more than 1,000 women information about important issues like superannuation, Indigenous women’s leadership, and work/life balance. Queensland Health’s Cancer Control Reform initiative has delivered women’s health programs to 74 communities in 2005-06. The Government’s Young Women and Anti-smoking strategy is another success story. The “Feeling Good” campaign attracted over 13,000 visits to the web site, over 300 personal quit stories and more than 380 orders for Quit kits. Mr Speaker, I call on all members of this House to do their part in celebrating International Women’s Day—to recognise the important role women play in the workplace and the wider community. Mr BEATTIE: Before concluding, I congratulate those women elected to this parliament. There are now more women in this parliament than ever before in the history of the state. I am also delighted that my cabinet has five women, which is the highest number ever. The previous government had the previous highest number, which was only two. I acknowledge that we have more work to do. I particularly acknowledge the Deputy Premier, who from time to time is termed the most powerful woman in Queensland, and I share that view. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The only thing that I would add to that is that we have had only one female Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Perhaps it is time that we had another female Lord Mayor of Brisbane. There is a little bit of speculation about that. I make it clear that I will always advance my wife’s career and I would never be game to stand in the way of her seeking to advance. By the way she runs things at home, I would say that she would be a great lord mayor of this city. When I get the abusive phone call later on, I will refer it to the Deputy Premier to deal with. Perhaps I will need extra security. Mr Mickel: Do you want to revise your statement about who’s the most powerful woman? Mr BEATTIE: Maybe I should retract that part of it. My next ministerial statement concerns a trowel, and I think that I needed one just then. Ms Bligh: Put the trowel down. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, I should put the trowel down, as the Deputy Premier has just advised me. Ceremonial Trowel Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): The historic ceremonial trowel that I have with me today was used to lay the first stone of our magnificent Parliament House on 14 July 1865. It is an important historical artefact that went elsewhere but is now back in Queensland, and it is back for good. Queensland’s first Governor, Sir George Ferguson Bowen, used the trowel to lay the first stone of Queensland’s Parliament House. Most recently, the trowel has been in the private collection of collector, Alex Copland, who passed away two years ago. His large and eclectic collection of furniture, maritime objects, scientific instruments, historic memorabilia and cars was auctioned last week in Melbourne. Amongst the treasures in Mr Copland’s estate was this ceremonial trowel. There was substantial interest in the ceremonial trowel, but I am pleased to say that the Queensland government’s bid of $8,500 for this important historic artefact was successful. As members can see, the trowel is 30 centimetres long. It features a wooden handle with a metal crown detail at its base. The metal blade is engraved with the following inscription— This trowel was used in laying the first stone of the Houses of Parliament at Brisbane on the 14th July, 1865 by Sir G.F. Bowen, C.C.M.G Governor of Queensland, presented to His Excellency by The Secretary for Public Works. That is exactly what one would expect. Mr Schwarten: Exactly. Mr BEATTIE: I intend to donate the trowel to the Queensland Museum, but today I would like to lay it on the table of the House, with your permission, Mr Acting Speaker, to allow members to inspect it. I think that it is appropriate that it be maintained by the Museum. It is an important part of our history. It is a small item but it will make a large and symbolic contribution to the celebration of Queensland’s 150th anniversary in 2009. It will be put on display as part of the 2009 ceremonies. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I encourage all Members and all Queenslanders to reflect on the significance of this unique item, and its important part in Queensland’s democratic history. The building in which we sit is a beautiful structure and an important platform for many of the State’s defining moments and decisions. The vision for our 150th celebration is to “reflect on our past and imagine our future.” Mr Speaker, this trowel was there at the very beginning. It is an important part of Queensland’s history and we are glad it is back in Queensland where it belongs. 784 Ministerial Statements 08 Mar 2007

Green Cross International Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): Today I am pleased to announce my government’s support for the new Australian headquarters of Green Cross International in Brisbane. Members would be aware that recently President Gorbachev visited Brisbane and we agreed to set up the Australian headquarters of Green Cross. I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The Queensland Government—through the Department of Natural Resources and Water, Primary Industries, and the Environmental Protection Agency—will contribute a total of $400,000. $100,00 will be provided this financial year, and a further $300,000 in 2007-2008. Climate change is going to affect all Queenslanders, and my Government is again taking the lead to face these challenges head- on. Green Cross International’s mission is “helping ensure a just, sustainable and secure future for all through global interdependence and a shared responsibility in humanity’s relationship with nature”. The organisation is famous for Earth Dialogues—a series of public forums around the world that raise awareness of ethics and human values for peace and sustainable development. Last July, Earth Dialogues was a highlight of the Brisbane Festival, with guest speaker, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who now heads Green Cross International. I gave a commitment to President Gorbachev that my Government would work in partnership with and our Smart State universities to bring Green Cross to Brisbane. We have made good on that commitment, Mr Speaker. Griffith University is leading the steering committee which is developing the organisation’s local constitution, budget, company structure and educational programs.

Green Cross International is ideally placed to increase public support for positive action in the face of global climate change.

Premier’s Youth Forum on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): Recently the minister for communities, disability services, seniors and youth, Warren Pitt, and I held what we call the Premier’s Youth Forum on Drug and Alcohol Abuse. We found that forum to be an effective way to listen to young people about those issues. I have received a letter from the Archbishop of Brisbane, which I table for the information of members, about the seminar held. I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard. Tabled paper: Letter dated 1 March 2007, from the Archbishop of Brisbane to Mr Beattie relating to the Forum on Young People, Alcohol and Drugs. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, I am concerned that too many of our young Queenslanders making their journey into adulthood are having their lives ravaged by drugs and alcohol. The human and financial costs of alcohol and drug abuse in Queensland are enormous. Between 1993 and 2002, an estimated 588 young Queenslanders died from drinking-related causes. Every year, drugs and alcohol cost our State approximately $6.5 billion in health care, law enforcement, lost productivity and crime. Last Wednesday, 28th of February, in collaboration with the Minister for Communities and Youth Warren Pitt, I hosted a forum on Young People, Alcohol and Drugs. More than 100 people attended, including 50 youth representatives, community organisations, government agencies and local councils. It was a valuable exercise, Mr Speaker, with young people speaking directly in the ear of the State Government about their lives, their heartaches and the very real risks and challenges that alcohol and drugs pose in our communities today. I would like to thank Young Queenslander of the Year and Young Australian of the Year Tania Major for her role as MC. But I especially want to thank all of the young people from the Brisbane Youth Service, Zigzag Young Women’s Resource Centre, Indigenous Youth Health Service, Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Withdrawal Service, Gold Coast Drug Council and Narangba Valley High School students for their moving presentations. It took a lot of courage for these young Queenslanders to speak openly about the impacts that drug and alcohol abuse have had on their lives, and I applaud them for their openness. My Government is committed to listening to what young people have to say, and taking action. At the end of the forum, these young Queenslanders presented Minister Pitt with a series of issues and these will now be examined by State Government Departments and agencies, as well as support groups and churches. 08 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 785

These issues included improving the promotion of funding and resources currently available; involving schools and more on-the- ground services in the important area of education; and finding new and creative ways to deliver an integrated response to this complex community problem. I will be asking my Ministers to assist Minister Pitt and the Office for Youth in advancing our whole-of-government responses to the issues raised at the forum. Already, a web site is being developed to provide networking and educational information, and Minister Pitt will be taking the ideas raised at the forum to the 2007 Queensland Youth Conference later this year. Mr BEATTIE: I indicate that we will work very closely with young people to deal with a number of these terrible problems.

Service Delivery and Performance Commission, Report Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 am): I table the report of the Service Delivery and Performance Commission on the review of the roles of the departments of Natural Resources and Water, Mines and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard.

Tabled paper: Report by the Service Delivery and Performance Commission dated February 2007 titled ‘Review of the Roles and Responsibilities of The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.’ Leave granted.

The report, produced by the Government’s Service Delivery and Performance Commission, looked into areas of overlap and duplication between the agencies.

It’s release has been delayed due to the caretaker period prior to the general election last year and the resultant machinery of government changes that needed to be considered in relation to the review findings.

The report deals with a range of issues such as environmental regulation of mining, pest management and Biosecurity and development applications and processes.

I am confident that the community will see improved government service delivery as a result of this report. The Review Report can also be obtained on the Commission’s web site.

Crime and Misconduct Commission Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.46 am): I refer to an article in today’s Courier-Mail by Renee Viellaris in relation to my cooperation with the CMC. She has the facts wrong—again—and I want to make sure that this is on the record. The article alleges that the CMC has written a formal request to me to hand over five ministerial briefing notes integral to its investigations. This is not true. I want to be really clear about this: this is not true. Yesterday my office told Renee Viellaris that this is not the case. This morning I also confirmed with the chair of the Crime and Misconduct Commission that this is not the case. There are no outstanding requests for information from the CMC. I am disappointed that Renee Viellaris still chose to write a story that she knew to be factually incorrect. She should have checked the veracity of her facts and the quality of her sources. When looking at such things it is not good enough to rely on a source, like tomato or Worcestershire sauce. One has to have some substance. There is no point walking past the health department and asking one of the people smoking outside the building what their view of the world is. These things need to be checked out. There is no point relying on Gordon Nuttall or Steve Buckland as a source of information. She should check the facts and verify their accuracy. I have made it clear that my government will fully cooperate, and that is exactly what we have done. To suggest that we have not cooperated fully with the CMC in this investigation is ridiculous. Since the beginning of the investigation, tens of thousands of documents and electronic records have been provided to the CMC. That includes briefing notes from the department of health, which I sent on 22 February 2007, that pertain to the memo that she refers to. All of that information has already been provided. If new lines of investigation emerge, that information will also be provided. We do not mind fair criticism, but this story is simply a beat-up. It is untrue and the CMC has confirmed it to be untrue.

Willprint Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): In this House I have been raising appropriate matters in relation to the Liberal Party and I intend to continue to do so because those matters are of national importance. Those in the Liberal Party who think that this will go away are wrong. 786 Ministerial Statements 08 Mar 2007

To underline the veracity of what I have been saying, today’s Australian confirms what I said earlier in the week about ghost staff employees. The Australian states— DUMPED Howard government minister Gary Hardgrave is under police investigation over allegations he and Liberal backbencher were involved in creating a ‘phantom’ staff position funded by the Australian taxpayer. That is exactly what I told the House earlier this week. The article continues— As Mr Laming went to ground yesterday, Mr Hardgrave confirmed the probe— so he confirmed it— as questions were also raised about other members of his staff. Lorraine Ralph, the long-time partner of Mr Hardgrave, member for the marginal Brisbane seat of Moreton, has worked for him for several years—and during his time in the ministry. The Ministerial Code of Conduct, introduced by John Howard in 1996, stipulates there ‘is a longstanding practice that ministers do not appoint close relatives to positions in their own office’. The article further states— The details of warrants, served in raids on Friday on Mr Hardgrave’s office and that of Mr Laming, as well as another Queensland MP, Ross Vasta—have also emerged. They say that on June 15, 2005, Mr Laming and Mr Hardgrave dishonestly caused a loss to the Commonwealth, namely the Department of Finance and Administrative Services contrary to subsection 135(1) of the Criminal Code in that they supplied false information in a contract of employment with Esther Peters. The Australian goes on— Mr Laming, who is alleged to have rorted $67,000 from his electoral printing allowance, has refused to resign and cause a by- election in his marginal seat of Bowman, held by just 3.1 per cent. This is the important point— It is understood the raid on the electoral premises of Mr Vasta was aimed at securing documents or records regarding a $5,000 printing job with the Brisbane-based printing company, Willprint, which has handled the Liberals’ material for years. It is further understood the allegation is Mr Vasta did not order such work and had no knowledge of it. That article confirms what I have been saying, that is, that the federal Liberal Party members used their allowance with Willprint—the $125,000 that became $150,000. Not all of it was used or they were overcharged—either one—as a result of which the Liberal Party could use what was left for state Liberal Party purposes. Mr Schwarten: They bankrolled the campaign. Mr BEATTIE: In other words, they bankrolled the last state campaign. Yesterday the Leader of the Liberal Party came in here and we listened to silence on that issue. We let the Leader of the Liberal Party make his statement when we could have taken a point of order. We could have, but we did not. We gave him a chance. But nowhere in that statement did he disassociate himself from the former president of the Liberal Party, Mr Caltabiano, who would have had to authorise these things, or Mr Santoro, who, as we know, is the one who raises the money for the Liberal Party. I want to make the point that we are not going to let this go because we believe that the people elected to this place should be elected honestly. If the state Liberal Party has been using what is indeed taxpayers’ money paid to federal candidates to promote its material, which is the information that I have been provided, then frankly the people of Queensland have a right to know and this matter should be investigated. I table for the House a campaign note from Michael Caltabiano sent to his electorate, which was printed by Willprint. There is no doubt that it was done. The president of the Liberal Party would have authorised these things. I notice that there are also two documents by Adrian Schrinner and the Vasta report, all printed by Willprint. Tabled paper: Calling card titled Michael Caltabiano MP. Tabled paper: Community Newsletter from Ross Vasta MP dated November 2005. Tabled paper: Community Newsletters from Adrian Schrinner, Councillor for Chandler Ward, dated April 2006 and July 2006. Let me be clear about this. We all know what has been said around the corridors of this place. I know exactly what is going on in the antiSantoro and the proSantoro factions. We know how the system works. I gave the Leader of the Liberal Party a chance to refer these matters to the CMC and the Electoral Commission of Queensland and he has not done so. This morning I will be referring these matters to both the CMC and the Electoral Commission, because that is what leaders do when a leader is faced with a tough situation. I was faced with that in terms of Gordon Nuttall and Merri Rose. I sent those matters to the CMC. I ask the Leader of the Liberal Party to follow the high standards that I have set. 08 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 787

Mr Johnson: We weren’t allowed to talk about it in the House, though. Mr BEATTIE: I want to make this point: every member of the Liberal Party— Mr Johnson: We weren’t allowed to talk about it here. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: Let me make the point that every member of the Liberal Party in this House has an obligation to stand in this chamber either today or next week and say that they have not received any indirect benefit from Willprint for printing. I have already highlighted to the House the deal that members were asked to provide—the $40,000 and then the Liberal Party headquarters provided the printing. Any member elected to this House should have the decency to stand up here and say, ‘I have not benefited from this Willprint printing deal with the Liberal Party organisation or from federal members.’ Every one of them has a chance to do that. Tim Nicholls, the member for Clayfield, represents the area that Mr Santoro used to represent. He is a well-known Santoro supporter. Let every one of them stand up and spell it out: did they or did they not benefit from Willprint and this sleazy deal that was done behind the backs of Queenslanders? I make it very clear: I was tough on my own party when it came to rorting and I will be just as tough on the Liberal Party.

Power Stations, Water Restrictions Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.52 am): South-east Queensland is confronting the worst drought in its history. Our dam levels are at record lows and so are the inflows of water into them. In order to protect the water security of the region, the Queensland Water Commission has informed me that today it has confirmed details of a proposed restriction to reduce water supplied to power stations by SEQWater from the region’s dams. I am advised that at a meeting held yesterday the commission finalised details of the proposed restriction, which will take effect as part of level 5 restrictions as of 10 April. Currently, the restriction is in draft form and will be finalised with other draft level 5 restrictions. From 10 April 2007 until 9 April 2008, the volume of water supplied by SEQWater to Tarong North Power Station will be reduced to 4,400 megalitres. This will require a reduction in the daily water use from the current 20 megalitres a day to 12 megalitres a day. That is a reduction of 40 per cent in water use. The volume of water supplied by SEQWater to CS Energy for the Swanbank Power Station will also be reduced to 2,130 megalitres from 10 April until 1 September 2007, representing an average daily reduction from 20 megalitres a day to 15 megalitres a day—a 25 per cent reduction in water. This restriction applies until 1 September this year by which time CS Energy’s Swanbank power stations will be supplied from the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. The Queensland Water Commission advises that these measures together will provide a total saving of up to 13 megalitres a day. To put that figure into perspective, this water saving equals the average daily water use of about 65,000 people. That is enough to meet the combined total residential needs of Redcliffe, Boonah and Kilcoy. It is savings of this magnitude that will ensure the continuity of our water supplies until our drought response projects come on line. I am pleased to confirm that these water savings will be achieved without threat to the security of electricity supply to the region. To ensure the continued security of bulk power supply to south-east Queensland, the Water Commission has based its restrictions on the water supply to power stations on extensive technical advice, including information gathered from Powerlink, the transmission network operator and electricity market participants. This is yet another measure that delivers on our promise that south-east Queensland will get the water it needs.

Power Stations, Water Restrictions Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.55 am): This drought is the worst in living memory in south-east Queensland. It has put pressure on our most vital commodities: water and power. The supply of electricity to homes and businesses in south-east Queensland will be secure under the new arrangements outlined by the Deputy Premier. I am advised that under these arrangements jobs will be secure at the Tarong North and Swanbank power stations. South-east Queensland electricity supplies are drawn from the national electricity grid, which services eastern Australia. While power stations closest to the major population centres of the south-east are important in maintaining a reliable supply, they do not operate in isolation. Power to south-east Queensland is supplied from nine power stations in southern Queensland, from power stations in central Queensland through major transmission lines and from power stations elsewhere in eastern Australia through the two interconnectors to . 788 Ministerial Statements 08 Mar 2007

Southern Queensland power stations that are not affected by directions on the use of Wivenhoe water include the Braemar, Oakey, Millmerran and Roma power stations. In September they will be joined by the new 750 megawatt Kogan Creek Power Station. The Kogan Creek Power Station will be air-cooled, using one-tenth of the water used by its wet-cooled counterparts with water drawn from subartesian bores. I have had the security of south-east Queensland’s electricity supply analysed by a task force including representatives from Powerlink, the Queensland Water Commission, my department and other government departments. The task force has received advice from generators Tarong Energy and CS Energy about how they are dealing with drought conditions. The task force also considered the impact of possible Water Commission directives alongside operational options available to Tarong Energy and CS Energy in operating their power stations at the Tarong and Swanbank sites. Importantly, the task force conducted its analysis assuming continuing drought conditions in the period leading up to the connection of both the Swanbank and Tarong power stations to the recycled water pipeline. The task force considered possible ways to modify generation to conserve water while at the same time ensuring that the power stations at Swanbank and Tarong remain on line and have the flexibility to maintain security and reliability of supply. The advice to the government from Powerlink is that south-east Queensland has sufficient supply options from southern Queensland power stations plus transmission links to central Queensland and the national grid to give us the ability to reliably meet the bulk power requirements of customers in south- east Queensland. This means that the power supply to homes and businesses in south-east Queensland is secure.

Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (9.58 am): Climate change is an issue that will affect all of Queensland’s industries. To adapt, our industries will need the best available data and information about climate change. That is one of the reasons the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence is being established. Indeed, I hope to make an announcement in the near future about when the centre will open its doors. Although final arrangements are still being made for the centre, staff who are already there have been doing significant work. One of the first industries to benefit from their expertise is the Queensland wine industry. The wine industry is fast becoming a major industry in this state. In the past four years the number of wine producers has grown by 86 per cent. There are now more than 170 producers in 10 wine regions across Queensland. The industry is helped, of course, by having a very able and committed minister in the member for Albert. The Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence staff recently gave presentations to producers at Mount Tambourine, Stanthorpe, Kingaroy and on the latest climate change science. The Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development organised the presentations, which were attended by almost every wine producer in the state. Discussions were held on what climate change might mean for the industry and how best to manage the projected changes. For example, at the Cairns meeting producers of tropical fruit wines raised the issue of chilling requirements of different fruits. A drop in temperature is required for many varieties to fruit. If it becomes hotter and temperatures do not drop to the required level then adaptation strategies are needed. Adaptation options discussed included planting different types of fruit that do not require a drop in temperature or planting at different times of the year. Similar fruiting issues arise in more southerly parts of the state. These meetings were very positive and the climate change centre is now moving to the next step, which is providing guidance on climate change risk management to help the wine industry make better decisions and plan for the future. This is the reason we are establishing the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence—to use the best available climate change science to help all Queensland industries make informed decisions.

Douglas Shire Council Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (10.00 am): Members will recall that on 7 February I issued the Douglas Shire Council with a show cause notice as to why it should not be dissolved. This is a council of contrasts. It is financially sound and has an enviable reputation for its widely admired planning initiatives. But it is also an organisation that has been plagued by debate that has descended to the precipice of debacle. 08 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 789

Last week the council provided me with a response which outlines a 22-point plan to rectify the current situation. I table a copy of the response and assessment of it. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 23 February 2007, from Douglas Shire Council to Mr Fraser relating to the council’s response to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport. Tabled paper: Report by J Brady, dated 7 March 2007, titled ‘Report on the Review of the Response from Douglas Shire Council to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport’. The response to the show cause has been signed by all councillors and in many details represents a watershed in the recent turbulent history of the council. The significant differences that have existed have—quite rightfully—been put to one side in the interests of the Douglas shire which they are meant to serve. I have, on the basis of an examination of the councillors’ undertakings, decided not to proceed with dismissal of the Douglas Shire Council. Douglas Shire Council has, in the past, been so deeply divided it jeopardised its ability to govern. The 22-point plan outlines the establishment of a performance management panel for the CEO and standing committees on finance and administration, corporate and community matters, development and environment and engineering. The standing committees will greatly assist in managing business through the council. It also proposes a review of the council code of conduct—and to provide the government with a report on that review within three months. It also provides for the development of an ethics policy to deal with allegations of improper behaviour. The council will also report to me quarterly on its overall progress. The department’s investigation of matters surrounding the council’s handling of the Beach Club application has also been concluded, and I table a copy of that report. Tabled paper: Report by GB Baker, dated March 2007, titled ‘Report on investigation into the Douglas Shire Council’s handling of the Beach Club (Port Douglas) development application’. I am happy to report to the House that the response of the Douglas Shire Council is one of an organisation that regrets the error of its ways and is focused on moving forward. I trust that, for the good of the area’s ratepayers, that is a focus that can be maintained and the people of north Queensland can look forward to more professional representation at a local government level. I implore the councillors, individually and collectively, to honour their commitments. They will answer at the ballot box in 12 months time.

Road Funding Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.02 am): I note with interest the comments by Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile yesterday about how the federal government is going to get ‘tough’ on the states in relation to road funding. The Deputy Prime Minister has accused the states of not funding joint projects and of wasting taxpayer funds through cost blowouts. Clearly it is a federal election year and the Howard government has just realised that infrastructure matters. But, despite Mr Vaile’s claims, Queensland is jointly funding a number of projects with Canberra. These include the Tugun bypass—Queensland is contributing $423 million and Canberra $120 million. On the -Thuringowa ring road, Queensland is putting in $39 million and Canberra $79 million. Of course on the Gateway project, the federal government is putting in zero for that national highway. Just last week I announced joint funding with federal roads minister Jim Lloyd for widening and straightening of Tableland Road, which links and Gladstone. This is a small but important project where Queensland is contributing $1.3 million and Canberra is contributing $600,000. But there are a number of vital projects where Queensland has committed funding but Canberra has refused to come to the party. Queensland has $400 million on the table for the first stage of an upgrade of the Pacific Motorway between Nerang and Tugun that will cost at least $1.5 billion. Where is the matching money from the federal government that its rhetoric demands? I have repeatedly asked Canberra to jointly fund work on this vital link on the AusLink network. But again and again it has said no. Queensland also asked Canberra to contribute to the $1.88 billion Gateway upgrade project. But again it refused. A contribution from the federal government for the road component of the project means the toll could have remained at $2.20 in 2011 but is now expected to be $3.10 in 2011. It is also important to put on record how much Queensland spends on its roads compared to other states. At $1.98 billion, Queensland’s roads capital budget is bigger than that of New South Wales at $1.59 billion and that of at $1.1 billion. Queensland spends $495 per person on roads, and that is more than twice as much as either New South Wales at $249 per person or Victoria at $218 per person. 790 Ministerial Statements 08 Mar 2007

Worse still, Canberra this week unilaterally decided on a $2.3 billion bypass of the Ipswich Motorway without detailed design work. Let me make it very clear: this $2.3 billion price tag is Canberra’s costings, not Queensland’s, and nor is it the choice of this side of the House. This work was done on a politically expedient, fast-track basis—not Queensland’s usual planning process. I challenge Mr Vaile to clarify today whether it will meet the full cost of the project or try to make Queensland taxpayers cop the bill for cost increases. Canberra does not build any roads itself, but its record on cost blowouts for various projects shows it should not be lecturing the states. Costs for Canberra’s customs cargo management software system blew out from $35 million to around $200 million. And just this week Canberra announced it would spend $6 billion on 24 new super hornet aircraft because the joint strike fighter it had committed to was years and years behind. That is not to mention the disaster of the Kaman helicopter. The real problem is that Canberra is not interested in serious long-term transport and road planning. Last year I wrote to Canberra asking for $70 million to undertake planning for long-term upgrades to the Bruce Highway. I was refused. Planning allows the exact identification of the corridor and acquisition of land so that costs are able to be predicted with far greater certainty. How can we make an announcement some time in the course of this year about a second range crossing when we have not finished the Commonwealth agreed joint planning process and business case analysis? What is the federal government going to do? Announce an amount of money and then say that it is Queensland’s fault when it picked a figure out of the air? Mr Horan: Don’t you want them to fund it? Mr LUCAS: The federal government says that it wants us to jointly fund it. We are going to be responsible for cost increases. Mr Horan: You oppose it. Mr LUCAS: I am one of the greatest supporters of it. If the federal government is the font of all knowledge on road matters, let it take full responsibility for planning, design and construction delivery on the national highway. I am happy for it to take it over. Finally, I put the federal government on notice. This has made the state government even more determined to make roads the major issue in the coming federal election campaign. It is clearly going to squib on what it says the contributions are. We will make the federal government show the colour of its money. We will make it announce the figures in its project announcements.

International Women’s Day Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women) (10.07 am): Today is International Women’s Day, a day when women around the world celebrate our achievements and join together to work for a better future. I thank all members who are wearing their green and purple ribbons in celebration and recognition of women in Queensland. I was reminded this week of how lucky women are here in Queensland after hearing from Malalai Joya—at 27 years of age, Afghanistan’s youngest member of parliament. Everyone who heard this brave young woman speak of her fight for democracy was moved by her courage in speaking out against the war lords and drug barons controlling her country. She spoke of ongoing oppression and horrific treatment of women in Afghanistan—a true reminder of what International Women’s Day is all about. It is about making life better for women all over the world, by fighting for their rights and for equality. The Beattie government is committed to making things better for Queensland women. Our theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is ‘Women at work: know your rights, it’s your future’. With this in mind we have created a host of exciting new initiatives for women and girls. The first is our new ‘industry challenge’, where we will be offering cash incentives to businesses that make it easier for women to balance their work and life. The Women in Hard Hats strategy and our Science, Engineering and Technology Action Plan are designed to improve representation of women in the science, engineering and technology fields by raising awareness of these careers and industries among women; encouraging partnerships; and helping women to move between education, training and employment. The Women on Boards strategy is aimed at increasing the number of women on boards in both government and the private sector. Finally, we have our workplace negotiation skills seminar series kicking off in April. These are hands-on seminars designed to give women the real life skills they need to make sure they get what they want in the workplace. 08 Mar 2007 Ministerial Statements 791

On International Women’s Day 2007 we celebrate the significant achievements of Queensland women. But, listening to Malalai Joya’s story, this parliament is reminded that women’s fight for a life free from violence and equality in the workplace must continue.

International Women’s Day; WorkChoices Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.09 am): International Women’s Day originated from the campaigns for women’s suffrage and for improved working conditions more than 90 years ago. For almost a century women have fought for decent working conditions. These conditions are now threatened because of John Howard’s WorkChoices, just when women were benefiting from the Beattie government’s legislated equal remuneration principle of equal pay for work of equal or comparable value. The gender pay gap will grow under WorkChoices and the greatest losers will be women, in particular those women in casual and part-time employment. Women earn less than 85 per cent of men’s earnings generally, but those on Australian workplace agreements earn only 70 per cent of what men on AWAs do. The latest ABS figures show working women on AWAs earn less than women on collective agreements—I am advised up to $4.70 less an hour. Women on AWAs fare worse than those on collective agreements. Under WorkChoices, lost collective remedies and award classifications will mean lost pay equity gains, as will the loss of the no-disadvantage test and the decimated unfair dismissal laws. By contrast, the Queensland government wants women to enjoy the benefits of our booming state economy and jobs growth. We know that inequality robs women of economic security and independence, career advancement, decent work and living conditions and, for the most vulnerable, traps women and their children in poverty. Now more than ever Australia needs more women in the workforce to offset skill and labour shortages. That is why today we will ask the independent umpire, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, to review the gains made in pay equity in Queensland and to explore how these gains might be protected. That is also why the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is working to improve the quality of casual and part-time work available to women. The backward slide of conditions for women under WorkChoices will really only be stemmed by a change of government at this year’s federal election. In the meantime, the Queensland government will play its part in making work and life better for Queensland women and their families.

International Women’s Day; Emergency Services Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.12 am): The Department of Emergency Services is committed to a diverse workforce. That commitment is reflected right from the top of the department. Director-General Fiona McKersie is recognised as a leader in the field of emergency management and is also recognised as a mentor to women, not only within the department but also across the country. In 2001 the department established a women’s reference group to investigate a range of recruitment, employment and corporate culture issues that impact on the working lives of women in the Department of Emergency Services. In Queensland over a quarter of our paramedics and over half of our emergency medical dispatchers are women, as are 35 per cent of our State Emergency Services volunteers. Although there are currently only a limited number of female firefighters, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is actively working to promote firefighting as a career option for women. The QFRS has developed an information session for presentation to female senior high school students by female firefighters to promote the idea of firefighting as a career. It was trialled in Mount Gravatt State High School late last year and the response was very positive. The department is now planning to take these presentations to a number of high schools in the Brisbane region later this year and trial an expansion of the sessions across the state. I am pleased to say that the future looks bright for women in our emergency services. Many members of this House would be aware of the Emergency Services cadet program which is open to young Queenslanders. The cadet program currently has a total membership of 761, of which 350, or around 46 per cent, are females. Cadets have the opportunity to qualify for a national certificate in public safety, which is particularly helpful for those pursuing a career in Emergency Services as an ambulance officer or firefighter. These cadets are part of the future of our emergency services and considering that almost half of them are female we can be confident that in the not-so-distant future we will see a greater number of women in Emergency Services. Along with the Premier I congratulate all the women in this House. I can remember when there were not so many female members. Because of the presence of the female members, this House now has different dynamics and it is a better workplace for that change in dynamics. 792 Ministerial Statements 08 Mar 2007

Queensland Corrective Services, Uniforms

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.14 am): Queensland’s prison system has undergone many changes in the past year with new laws and capital works redevelopment projects. Today I can announce another: a new corporate uniform for employees in Corrective Services. The new uniform will feature a Queensland Corrective Services badge and epaulettes to reflect rank and years of service. Uniforms are important symbols in organisations such as correctives. They indicate authority and highlight the critical role correctional centre staff have in the criminal justice system.

The new badge features the scales of justice held aloft by the Greek goddess of justice. This reflects the role of custodial officers in protecting the community through the safe and humane containment of offenders. The Dog Squad will have its own badge to reflect its unique role.

This new image is the result of nearly two years of planning that began when Director-General Frank Rockett and the Queensland Public Sector Union came together to examine a range of issues impacting on staff. The new look will be put into effect after June.

In addition, Queensland prisoners will receive new uniforms to replace the 20-year-old prison brown designs. Thanks to a unique partnership between Queensland Corrective Services and the Metropolitan South Institute of TAFE, a new prisoner uniform design has been selected that will be robust, long-wearing and will not require ironing. The design takes into account security with limited pockets and metal zips, it will cater to the temperature variations across the state and will adapt to a range of body shapes and sizes.

Many people would not be aware that the current prison browns have to be dyed that colour brown which adds to the cost of the fabric. Instead, these new uniforms for men and women, in regular shades of khaki and teal, will be cheap to make and so simple in design that they can be made by unskilled prison labour. The added advantage is that for some prisoners it will be a chance to learn new skills or update existing ones through accredited vocational training and education programs in clothing manufacture.

Department of Child Safety, Practice Development and Support Branch

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.17 am): Child safety officers make very difficult decisions every day of their work lives. These decisions are not happy ones. They work with vulnerable, damaged, crisis-ridden, unhappy and angry families. The children they work to protect are frequently confused, have health problems or disabilities, behaviour problems and may themselves be sad, angry or rebellious, and with older children and adolescents with a long history of family dysfunction the case work can be particularly difficult.

Child safety officers are routinely criticised by members of the families involved, foster-carers, media and by members of the public who mean well but have little factual basis for the conclusions they reach. As the number of child protection notifications increases and the number of children in care continues to climb at a time when human services professionals are in short supply, the Department of Child Safety is, especially in rural and remote areas, short-staffed.

In this climate it is important that our child safety officers are supported with the latest and best information on practice from around the world, that they have access to expert advice and that they are supported with supervision and professional development not only for their own careers but also, more importantly, to ensure that they provide our vulnerable children with the best service we can offer. I am pleased, therefore, to announce that I have approved $600,000 for a new Practice Development and Support Branch for the Department of Child Safety. This new branch will comprise a team of high-level experts who will support child safety officers all over Queensland in the urban and regional centres and in the rural and remote areas.

Recruitment will start soon to bring this team together. They will provide latest, best practice information and advice, provide a phone-in support service for child safety officers and offer practical mentoring to team leaders and senior practitioners. They will also assist staff to review case plans, identify areas for improvement and showcase examples of good practice. The new Practice Development and Support Branch will play a key role as we continue to build Queensland’s world-class child protection system. 08 Mar 2007 Private Members’ Statements 793

NOTICE OF MOTION

International Women’s Day Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women) (10.19 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House— • recognises International Women’s Day on 8 March, and notes that the Queensland Government is celebrating International Women’s Day under the theme ‘Women at work, know your rights’; • honours the contribution and achievements of working women of Queensland; and • expresses regret that the Australian Government has undermined the rights and opportunities for working women in Queensland through its Workchoices industrial relations regime.

MOTION

Moving of Motion and Time Limit of Speeches Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.20 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in Standing and Sessional Orders that the Minister for Women be permitted to move at 11:30 am today the Motion of which she has given notice of this morning, with time limits for speeches and debate as follows— Minister—10 minutes; Leader of the Opposition (or nominee)—10 minutes; All other members—five minutes; and Total debate time before question put—1 hour 30 minutes. Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.20 am): I lay upon the table the Public Works Committee report No. 95 on its inquiry into the Roma Street Fire and Ambulance Station. I would like to thank all those who assisted the committee with its inquiry. The committee appreciates the effort involved in making submissions and appearing before the committee. Thanks to my fellow committee members for their assistance and support. Thanks also to the committee staff for their assistance. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Public Works Committee Report No 95 titled ‘Roma Street Fire and Ambulance Station March 2007’.

EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY

Report Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (10.21 am): I lay upon the table of the House the public report of the office expenses for the Office of the Leader of the Liberal Party for the period 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006. Tabled paper: Public Report of Office Expenses Office of the Leader of the Liberal Party for the period 8 March 2006 to 31 December 2006.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Beattie Labor Government Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.21 am): For the second day in a row, the Premier has attacked the Courier-Mail for the reports that it has carried in its morning edition. For the second day in a row, the Premier has objected to the public scrutiny that should be part and parcel of every democracy. For the last three months, we have struggled in this House to raise the issues that the government should be under scrutiny about. The Premier has avoided all of the opportunities that have been presented to him to explain to the people of Queensland the issues that are casting such a cloud of corruption and doubt over his government. 794 Private Members’ Statements 08 Mar 2007

I accept the rulings of the House and I accept the fact that we have not been able to scrutinise the actions of the government to the extent that we would have liked, but the media and the press still have a responsibility to do that. It is a classic sign of a government that is under pressure when it objects to that scrutiny. It is a classic sign of a government that has something to hide and that is guilty when it objects day after day to that scrutiny by the public media. To use this parliament two days in a row to criticise a media outlet for raising issues that are a part of the current debate indicates that the Premier is becoming very sensitive. is becoming very sensitive to any sort of criticism and he is becoming very sensitive to any sort of scrutiny, and that is a clear sign he has a huge, guilty secret that he is trying to hide. That guilty secret is something that the people of Queensland will eventually get to see and know about. One of the great things about the democracy in which we live is that this sort of corruption can only be hidden for a while. The government can use the numbers in this parliament for just so long. Eventually, the government will be exposed. Time expired.

Queensland Liberal Party, Electoral Allowances Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (10.24 am): Ever since the first details of Printgate became public knowledge on Monday, two people have been running interference trying to mislead the media and the community. The Liberal Party state director, Geoff Greene, and the ever helpful member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, have a common and vested interest in misleading the media into believing, firstly, it is only a trivial matter and, secondly, there is only one MP involved, and that is the member for Bowman. Mr Hardgrave went on 4BC on Tuesday and said that his involvement, including the Federal Police executing search warrants on his electoral office, was ‘just incidental’. He has been peddling the line as fast as he can that the whole rort just involves Andrew Laming. As the Australian revealed this morning, the warrant served on Hardgrave accuses him of being involved in fraud against the Commonwealth with regard to the employment of electoral staff. He knew precisely what the allegations were against him. Despite that, he called a press conference on Tuesday and then went on 4BC and told deliberate lies, and he did so to protect his own hide and that of the Liberal Party state director, Geoff Greene. But his efforts have failed and the spotlight today is not only on the member for Bowman but also on Hardgrave, Greene, the member for Bonner, Ross Vasta, and also the member for Dickson, . But the person who has most to answer and most to hide is Geoff Greene, who is well and unfavourably known to most state members and Liberal candidates—he got the campaign printing done for nothing and he is now trying to recover what should have been paid from these suckers over here. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. Mr LAWLOR: I said ‘suckers’, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. Please withdraw. Mr LAWLOR: I withdraw. The ‘won’t pays’ over here won’t pay for Willprint. Greene has been telling the media publicly and backgrounding the media that Printgate involves only the member for Bowman. That is a lie and he knows it is a lie. The reason that Greene has been holding up diversion signs all week is that he has been the architect and manager of Printgate and he controls the ordering of printing and schedules it not according to members’ needs but according to the Liberal Party needs. Not only do the taxpayers fund the Liberal Party through the public funding arrangements; they fund it through the scam orchestrated by Geoff Greene and the Liberal Party office. The member for Moggill needs to muster whatever courage he has and demand that Greene stand aside. It is outrageous that the official at the centre of the whole scam is demanding that Laming resign and is still putting pressure on Liberal members in this House to pay for the last state election printing bill—printing that cost the Liberal Party nothing! Another Liberal Party identity who has some serious explaining to do is Santo Santoro. Time expired. Multipurpose Community Transport Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.26 am): Often governments come up with plans to address issues for people in rural areas which fall far short of actually reaching the target—which is resolving the problem. Unfortunately, Blueprint for the Bush and its rural service access initiative is one of those when it comes to transport. Transport options for those seeking medical or employment locations outside the South Burnett and similar areas are extremely limited. Unlike the city, there is not a bus or a taxi service to take people to the nearest hospital. With one licensed taxi operator struggling to stay in business in some small towns and bus lines reducing their services, transport options are in fact diminishing. Until recently, SBCITS had filled that service gap. 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 795

At a recent public forum of relevant stakeholders in Kilcoy and Kingaroy, the possibility of a regional response to the ongoing reduction of transport options was discussed, especially for non- HACC eligible medical needs. Although funding for HACC clients is available within the South Burnett or equivalent districts, because rural districts do not have the necessary specialists or ongoing medical services in their areas, many seeking medical services are required to travel long distances to locations such as , Brisbane or Caboolture. This need is overlooked by government and leaves a big gap for those who are restricted because they have no personal transport, no family or a lack of finances. It was revealed that, although some providers of HACC have been able to supply transport services, they have been stopped. They can no longer access more clients and cannot divert their resources because they are restricted by legislation and/or have processes to abide by, thus prohibiting a more coordinated and effective transport system. The state government funding needs to deliver flexible options that rural communities can adapt to best suit their own demographic needs, particularly in the areas of medical needs and employment. The Department of Communities representative at the Kingaroy forum left with a very clear understanding that the Blueprint for the Bush missed the most urgent of needs in our region. One common theme of the forum was that the government departments often work against each other. It is at the local level that the impact of what we can only assume is an unwitting failure to coordinate is felt. Time expired. Myths in Australian Politics Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (10.28 am): There are a couple of great urban myths in Australian politics which are probably put out by the Liberal Party more than any other organisation. The first is that somehow or other the Liberal Party is a pair of safe hands in the broad field of foreign affairs, defence and immigration. I hope that all members of this House would now acknowledge that that myth is well and truly busted. Over the last year, we have watched a cascading mess of foreign affairs bungles and defence bungles. I have a couple of quick words. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: there are none. Al Qaeda in Iraq: well, they are now. The Australian Wheat Board gave a $290 million bribe to Saddam Hussein under this government despite warning after warning after warning. The federal government is unable to look after simple issues of national defence like keeping rocket launchers under lock and key, keeping an inventory of how many rifles we have and who has them. This is pretty important stuff. The other great urban myth in Australian politics is that somehow or other the conservatives are also good financial managers. I think we can say this week that that myth is buried. We have their decision to spend an extra $1.2 billion on a road that no side of politics in this House supported and that did not support. This road will stand as a monument to their financial incompetence for many years to come. All Queenslanders should at this point consider the antics of Mr Magoo and his cabinet to be simply something to be consigned as soon as possible to the dustbin of history. They are not to be trusted with a burnt match. Some $1.2 billion that could have spent on other Queensland roads has instead been allocated to an option that is unnecessary and that nobody wants. If any private sector manager rolled up and said, ‘I have an idea, lets blow the hell of the budget,’ they would be sacked. This government will be.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Water Restrictions, Level 5 Mr SEENEY (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. Level 5 water restrictions will be announced tomorrow and even though the Premier will not tell us what they entail there is no doubt that they will have a major impact on the lives of people in Brisbane. This morning in the parliament the Deputy Premier and the minister for energy announced that they were finally going to do something about the embarrassing amount of water that is being used from our water supplies for our power stations. The minister for energy indicated earlier in the week that we had a generation capacity of 10,000 megawatts. Yesterday the peak demand—I will table the document—showed peak usage of 7,400 megawatts. I also table documents which show that Tarong Energy paid this government $55 million in dividends last year and CS Energy paid the government $40 million in dividends last year. Why should the people of Brisbane suffer level 5 water restrictions when the water that they will be saving will be used by power stations that will continue to pay dividends to this government? Tabled paper: Graph titled ‘QLD1 30 minute Demand and Price for period 7 March 2007 to 9 March 2007’. Tabled paper: Extract from Tarong Energy Annual Report relating to 2005-06 highlights. Tabled paper: Document relating to CS Energy key financial indicators 2003-04 to 2005-06. 796 Questions Without Notice 08 Mar 2007

Mr BEATTIE: This issue about water and the power stations, as announced by the Deputy Premier and the minister for energy this morning, is an important one. Let me answer the question that has been raised. I wish to be absolutely clear about this issue: it is not about dividends, it is about water. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite may not have noted it, but we are in the worst drought on record. The Leader of the Opposition asked about level 5 water restrictions. This is actually the beginning of level 5 water restrictions. The reason the Water Commission was able to announce the restrictions earlier this morning, as confirmed by the Deputy Premier and the minister for energy, is that it involves the state government, hence we were consulted about it. We have announced water savings as a result of what is happening. We are following the recommendations of the Water Commission. Tomorrow morning the mayors will be briefed and matters pertaining to them will be explained and then announced. So those opposite will know all about level 5 restrictions tomorrow. They got an important preview today. Both the Deputy Premier and I have been on record for some time making it clear what will happen if the drought continued—and it has. The member is a farmer so he understands that when it does not rain things do not grow and we need to water. December, January and February have been absolute shockers when it comes to rain. Unfortunately, we have to move to level 5 water restrictions. If those opposite were in office they would have to do the same thing. We cannot make it rain. We are not God. What we are doing is minimising the consumption of water by these power stations. We have made it clear and the minister for energy has made it clear that it is not going to affect generation and it is not going to affect prices. This is about ensuring that we preserve water for people and we make certain that we have drinking water. It is likely that we will need to make CSO payments this year to power generators. That is because of the changes we are pursuing here. They are not dividends. If those opposite understood how the CSO arrangements work then they would know that that is exactly one of the likely consequences. The important thing for us is that we are determined to provide water. If we can save it in terms of generation and if we can save it by people reducing their consumption in their homes then of course we are going to do it. That is exactly what we are doing. What we have announced today is a responsible way to provide water to people in the south-east corner of the state in the worst drought on record. That is not all we are doing. We are building a water grid. We are producing recycled water for drinking and energy generation. We are doing a lot. What we are seeing with level 5 restrictions is government responding through the Water Commission. Of course no-one likes to see these restrictions happen. But one of the great things about Australians is that they pull together when they are confronted with a crisis. We have a drought and Australians and Queenslanders and Brisbane people will pull together to fight this drought. I say to the people of Brisbane and the south-east corner, ‘We’re doing everything we can to fight this drought and we will work with you to ensure that we do just that.’ Macarthur Coal Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm to the House that on 13 August 2002, just before his government gave approval for a $28 million sweetheart deal for Macarthur Coal and three weeks before one of his former ministers received a payment from Macarthur Coal, he was a guest speaker and a special guest at a Macarthur Coal cocktail party? Was the Premier’s appearance at that function merely a coincidence? Mr BEATTIE: I have to say that off the top— Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Let me answer this. Off the top of my head, I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition where I was in August 2002 any more than he can. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Let me answer the question. Do not be clever about it. I am very happy to answer it. If I need an extension of time to answer this question I will seek it. I have nothing whatever to fear about what I have done privately or elsewhere. I do not know what my program says about 13 August 2002. I am not a person who has regularly met with either Macarthur Coal or any of the people involved, including the CEO. The only recollection that I have, and I do not remember whether it was in August or not, is that around about this time—I will check the information—I attended a function at the Broncos. It was a function involving some people from Macarthur Coal. They had been, if I recall correctly—and I will check this and I will be happy to inform the House of this later—the successful bidders in a charity auction. It had been agreed that money be put into some form of charity if I had lunch with people and it included them. At that lunch we talked about football. Get it? We talked about the football. Did we talk about any of their business activities? No. 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 797

I will go back and check. That is my only recollection of having any engagement with them. I should tell the Leader of the Opposition that I do this on a regular basis. I had some people in last week. I think it was 4KQ that had auctioned an afternoon tea with me. I have done it on a number of occasions. Was there any big deal about it? No. He is getting pretty desperate about this. I am happy to check whatever lunch engagement I had. I will check 13 August— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: No, you do not need to— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, the date was in the question. Please refrain from interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: My point in relation to this is: so what? The point is that Macarthur Coal happens to be— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. If it was a cocktail party we probably had 700 people including Her Majesty the Queen. Did the Leader of the Opposition check whether the former Leader of the Opposition was there? He needs to be very careful. He may well have been there. He needs to be really careful and check the guest list. Who knows, the Leader of the Opposition could have been masquerading as a garden gnome in the corner. The facts of life are these: I have never done anything improper at any time in relation to any of these matters or any other matters. I am very happy to go off and tell the Leader of the Opposition about the cocktail party or whatever may have been case. If I have attended a cocktail party back in August 2002 or whatever it is, so what? Based on my waistline members can see that I have attended too many cocktail parties on behalf of the people of this state. The second most powerful woman in this state regularly tells me that I spend too much time eating on behalf of the people of Queensland and I will continue to do it. Whistleblowers Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Whistleblowers are a key part of any democracy and the Beattie government has put in a number of measures to protect their rights. Is the Premier aware of how the Queensland Liberal Party deals with whistleblowers? Mr BEATTIE: As opposed to the sort of innuendo we have had from the Leader of the Opposition, let us talk about corruption in the Liberal Party. Let us talk about real corruption. I mentioned earlier that the internal factional infighting that dominates the Queensland Liberal Party is once again bubbling to the surface. I remember 30 years ago people used to say that the Labor Party was faction-ridden. I have to tell members: the most faction-ridden political party in Queensland is the Liberal Party. I want to make it very clear to those who have been providing me with information that I love you dearly and want you to keep doing it. Thank you very much. Some high-profile Liberal Party members are so disillusioned they are ringing our offices to complain. I just say to them: please do not complain to us about the Liberal Party. We do not run it— well, not yet! Not only that, Liberal Party members are taking to the airwaves as well. Last night Liberal Party insider Jim Nicholls rang ABC Radio to raise his concerns. His interview provided a shocking insight into the backroom deals and dodgy behaviour of the Queensland Liberal Party. To begin with, he raised serious concerns about the electoral returns for the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming. The concern related to ghost employees, and remember I raised that earlier in the week and indeed it is now confirmed in the Australian. This is the same issue that seems to be a key part of the sleazy, murky Printgate affair. Mr Nicholls alleged that the member for Bowman had failed to declare the employment of two electorate or campaign officers, which is a very serious allegation, and that was done on ABC in the open which means that anyone can pursue the matter if they want. What thanks did Mr Nicholls get by bringing these serious allegations to light? Payback. So much for your protection of whistleblowers! Five years later when he put his hand up to run for the seat of Broadwater he was brought before a vetting or disciplinary committee and was condemned for raising the allegation and was not allowed to stand. So what does the Liberal Party do with whistleblowers? It shoots them. What did Mr Nicholls say last night? He said— No, I didn’t get the preselection but Steve— Steve Austin with whom he was doing the interview— there’s another element here. The party president— 798 Questions Without Notice 08 Mar 2007 those opposite have heard of him, Mr Caltabiano, who was president when Printgate was going on— actually phoned me privately and asked me had I reported Andrew Laming to the Electoral Commission. And I said yes, of course I had. And I was quite, you know, quite in my rights and doing, you know, the kind of thing you would expect of a good, upstanding citizen. And he said— this is what Caltabiano said— ‘Well, that does it basically. That’s your head on the block.’ So do not ever talk to us about whistleblowers. The state Liberal Party did Jim Nicholls over because he was acting in an honest and decent way. I believe the Liberal Party president at that time was Michael Caltabiano, the former member for Chatsworth. So the factional backroom boys got their payback on a poor, honest, decent whistleblower. Let us talk about Willprint. I notice that none of the Liberal Party’s publications contain what the Labor Party material produced by head office contains. It says, ‘Not produced at taxpayers’ expense.’ Nothing produced by the Liberal Party says that, and I want to table for the House material— Time expired. Dr FLEGG: Mr Acting Speaker— Mr Beattie: I will do that in a minute. Dr FLEGG: I am sure you will. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Liberal Party. Government Backbencher, CMC Investigation Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that he has been briefed that another current member of his government and/or their spouse is under investigation by the CMC in relation to corruption? Mr BEATTIE: Here is the attempt to get square. I understand what this is all about. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, you have asked the question. Mr BEATTIE: If the member stops being rude, I am very happy to give him an answer in relation to this. There are some rumours circulating which the Leader of the Liberal Party has put in the House just now in relation to a backbench member of my government. As a result of those rumours, this matter was raised with my office by two journalists. As a result of those approaches to my office by the journalists concerned, I met with the member, as I do. I do not run away from these things like the Leader of the Liberal Party. I met with the member concerned. I went through the allegations with the member. I am satisfied with the member’s explanation to me. Dr Flegg: That wasn’t the question. Is the CMC investigating? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, will you cease interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: Can I just say to the Leader of the Liberal Party just be patient, because one thing he will find about me is that I always act honestly and I always tell the truth. I may well need an extension of time here, but if the Leader of the Liberal Party is really serious I will answer this question. Let us go back and we will do it in stages if he can be patient. My office was approached by two journalists about some rumours. I met with the member concerned—in fact, with the Deputy Premier with me. So we met, consulted and asked the basis of the rumour, which the member denied. I have checked the member’s pecuniary interest and that of his wife—both. I checked them. I sought other material, because the member had previously sought advice from the Integrity Commissioner and had been provided advice by the Integrity Commissioner on two occasions which the member provided to me. I subsequently wrote to the Integrity Commissioner and provided him with extra material that had come out of my discussion and I also took the opportunity to make certain that I provided all of that material to the CMC—all of that material to the CMC. Dr Flegg: So the answer is yes? Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! You have asked the question. The Premier is in the process of answering. Please allow him to do so. Mr BEATTIE: I have provided the CMC with both the advice from the Integrity Commissioner— the two pieces of advice which were sought by the member and provided to the member—as well as other material and the basis of the rumours. I have made it absolutely clear that no-one in my government is allowed at any time to behave inappropriately under any circumstances. But rather than try to cover it up, which is what you do, what I have done is interview the member— 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 799

An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We have not finished with you. Let us be clear about this. I will answer this whether those opposite like it or not. The truth of the matter is that I have raised the rumours with the member. I have sought his assurance in relation to matters. I have seen advice he has been provided with by the Integrity Commissioner twice. I have referred this matter to the Integrity Commissioner for further advice. Interruption. MOTION

Extension of Time Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.45 am): I move— That the Premier be further heard. Motion agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Mr BEATTIE: I want to be really clear about this, because there is a very stark difference between the Leader of the Liberal Party and me. Let me go through it again so it is clear. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: If those opposite want to listen to the answer, they will get an answer. Mr Hobbs: You’ve already told us! Mr BEATTIE: The trouble is that we have to tell you three times. There were rumours. We were approached by two journalists. I put those allegations to the member. I sought from the member an assurance in relation to certain matters which he provided to me. I checked both his pecuniary interest and the pecuniary interest of his wife—his partner. I indeed—and I do not want to embarrass the Clerk— sought certain information from the Clerk as well. I wrote to the Integrity Commissioner based on the two pieces of information provided to me by the member and sought further advice from the Integrity Commissioner. I then provided all of that material to the CMC. Why did I do that? I did that because there will never be any doubt about any member that serves in my government. The difference is this: when any matter comes before me that raises any issues, I deal with it. I should make it clear— Dr Flegg interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party! Mr BEATTIE: Let me make it clear: based on the information that I have been provided and based on the assurances given to me, I am not aware of any case against the member of any substance. However, as I have made it clear, this is a matter that I will continue to take an interest in. So that is the end of it. Let me now turn to the Leader of the Liberal Party. I gave him a chance when I raised matters with him to do exactly what I did, but he did not do that. Dr Flegg: I came in here and told you. I didn’t cover it up like you did. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: Let me finish the point. I gave the Leader of the Liberal Party two days basically— or three days to be charitable—to raise these matters in a formal sense—that is, send them to the CMC, not to just make a phone call. He did not do that. He has not referred any of the Printgate matters to the CMC, nor has he referred them to the Electoral Commission. Rather, he has allowed Michael Caltabiano and the Santoro group to ride right over him and— Dr Flegg: You are a desperado! Mr BEATTIE: The difference is this: every publication produced by the Labor Party has not been produced at taxpayers’ expense. None of the Liberal Party’s material says that. Why does the Liberal Party not do that? Why does the Leader of the Liberal Party not do that? Why does he not send this material off? Let us have a look at it. Mr LANGBROEK: Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask you to rule under standing order 118(b) relating to relevance. He has had an extension of time, Mr Acting Speaker. Honourable members interjected. 800 Questions Without Notice 08 Mar 2007

Procedure—Acting Speaker’s Ruling—Answer Relevant to Question Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The question relates to honesty. The Premier is answering the question. He sought an extension of time and was granted that by the House. I call the honourable the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: As I was saying, this is about honesty and integrity. The issue about the CMC was raised with me. I have done that and the honourable member has not. I table a letter from Glen Ryan, the Liberal candidate for Mansfield. His letter was printed by Willprint, but there is nothing on it that says, for example, that it was not produced at taxpayers’ expense. I table it. Tabled paper: Campaign material from Glen Ryan, Liberal candidate for Mansfield. In addition to that— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They do not like the truth. In addition to that, I table some material from the Leader of the Liberal Party, from Michael Caltabiano, from Andrew Trim and from Mr Langbroek, the member for Surfers Paradise, none of which says— Opposition members: Oh! Mr BEATTIE: I can see why they are objecting. None of the material states that it was not produced at taxpayers’ expense. I table that. Tabled paper: Bundle of Liberal Party printed material. If we are going to have a debate about honesty, let us have a debate about honesty. For the information of the House, I table all the material from the Labor Party, which says ‘not produced at taxpayers’ expense’. The Liberal Party material does not say anything. I table one from the Labor Party and one from the Liberal Party, which shows the clear difference. Tabled paper: Bundle of Labor Party printed material. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They do not like it because there is honesty on this side and corruption on that side. I finish the point: the Leader of the Opposition— Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: If they want to talk about honesty, let us talk about honesty. The Leader of the Opposition— Mr Hobbs: You’re abusing the privileges of the House, Premier. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left have asked the question. There are incessant interjections. Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Theoretically, yes. Members will cease interjecting and we will see how quickly we can get through this. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition raised a question with me about where I was on 13 August 2002, and my program states that I was to attend the Macarthur Coal annual cocktail party at Macarthur HQ, 479 Adelaide Street, Brisbane. Did I attend that function? Yes, I did. I understand that I attended with something like 150 other people. It was a very secret meeting! I was there with 150 of my best friends. I will find out exactly how many people attended, but I can say that it was a very large function. The Leader of the Opposition is in the gutter trying to insinuate that I should not go to a function with Macarthur Coal, which is the largest Queensland coal company. I make no apologies for talking to a coal company along with 150 other Queenslanders. Members opposite need to check whether the Leader of the Opposition was there. I have tabled my information. Today the Leader of the Opposition should table information showing whether anyone from the opposition was at that function as well. I conclude my remarks by saying this— Mr Hobbs: We didn’t get the money. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, do you want me to— Dr Flegg: Sit down! Mr BEATTIE: I am trying to wrap this up. The Leader of the Liberal Party would like me to sit down, but I have bad news for him. We are not going anywhere. He should enjoy the last few days that he is in the job, because he will not be there much longer. 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 801

Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The threat does not come from me. It comes from all of those opposite. I conclude by saying this: this morning we have seen an attempt by the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party to throw dirt. There is no substance to it. Every issue that I have put before this House has substance. There is a clear difference— Dr Flegg: Ha, ha! Mr BEATTIE: That hollow laugh will get the member nowhere—between those opposite and us. We are honest and they are corrupt. It is very simple. Willprint Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Following the shocking revelations regarding Printgate this week, can the Premier reveal whether he is aware of any further information on this serious allegation relating to the misuse of taxpayers’ funds? Mr BEATTIE: The answer is yes. The stench over Printgate gets stronger. I am confident that more information on Printgate will come to light in coming weeks. The Leader of the Liberal Party can complain all he likes, but Printgate will not go away because we will clean up the Liberal Party as we clean up all people who behave inappropriately. I am told that the blame game has already started. As members of parliament duck for cover, the factional infighting and backstabbing that is rife in the Queensland Liberal Party is going into overdrive. Members may well ask how I know this. I know because certain prominent enemies of the Santoro faction within the Liberal Party are so fed up that they are whingeing to us. If the allegations are true that money was funnelled from the allowances of federal members of parliament to state Liberal Party coffers, the question is: why? Sure they were broke, but why did they need a special deal on printing? It might have something to do with the fact that they had to pulp thousands of dollars of printed material just weeks out from the election. Why? Because the coalition was planning its campaign around honourable members Springborg and Quinn. Members should remember that the joint campaign director was Mr Greene. He ran both the National Party and the Liberal Party campaigns. We have not heard what the National Party has to say about any of this, but we will come to it later. What followed was the rolling of former Liberal Bob Quinn in a dodgy back-room factional deal. Last year an article in the Australian stated that a Liberal source revealed Liberal members of parliament and candidates contesting marginal seats were asked to raise $85,000 to be returned through mail-outs, flyers and advertising in their electorates. The source said that a lot of them were dudded and the money was spent in seats held or contested by candidates aligned with Santoro and Caltabiano. The intention was to get more of their candidates up so that Caltabiano could roll Flegg, the current Leader of the Liberal Party. You know that this is true. You also know that none of your members have come in here— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The Premier will please speak through the chair. Mr BEATTIE: I can see the Santoro supporters nodding, shaking and carrying on. The facts of life are this: none of the members opposite have stood up in this House and said that they have not benefited from the printing deal done with the Liberal Party. Not one Liberal member has had the courage to stand up and say that they did not benefit from the printing out of the headquarters of the Liberal Party— Mr Schwarten: Or the National Party. Mr BEATTIE: Or the National Party. Only when the Liberal Party members stand up in this House or sign statutory declarations stating that they did not benefit from Willprint or Printgate can they be taken seriously. The Leader of the Liberal Party knows as well as I do that his members have benefited from Printgate. Dr Flegg: How about Mr Fenlon? Mr BEATTIE: Who? Dr Flegg: Your member. Mr BEATTIE: Which one? The one just named? Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: All the member has is rumour. One of the things that I should have mentioned before in relation to rumour is that advice was sought from the Clerk that was also provided to the member in writing. Time expired. 802 Questions Without Notice 08 Mar 2007

Queensland Health Mr LANGBROEK: I refer the Acting Minister For Health to reports that four unregistered doctors have been employed at Cairns Hospital by Queensland Health and are unable to work as doctors until they are registered by the Medical Board, even though they are on full pay. I understand that there is a similar situation at the Gold Coast Hospital involving a further six unregistered doctors receiving full pay but unable to work. Could she advise how many unregistered doctors are currently employed by Queensland Health to do nothing and whether the taxpayers of Queensland are getting value for money from her government’s policy of employing doctors who are unable to work? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for the question, although I did not like the tone of it. I well understand the situation at the Cairns Base Hospital. I have long been associated with the hospital. I was employed there as a psychologist. Twenty years ago we had great trouble getting interns to come to the Cairns Base Hospital. Each year the interns would turn over and there would be a scramble by the hospital executive to attract interns to the Cairns Base Hospital. In 2007 we have many interns. It is a good news story for the Cairns Base Hospital. Recently 14 interns have started work in addition to several others who are waiting for the finalisation of their registration. I am informed that three international medical graduates are awaiting provisional registration by the board. Three graduates have been granted student observer status under direct supervision of senior consultants. At this stage they have no direct responsibility for clinical treatment or patient contact. Of course, they will not have that responsibility until their qualifications are confirmed by the Medical Board of Queensland and the Australian Medical Council. Two graduates completed their IELTS English test on 3 March 2007 and are awaiting the results of that test. One of the graduates has been an Australian citizen since 1993, so we are not expecting any difficulty with that test. The observer status currently granted to these staff is by no means lost time as observing forms a large part of intern training. Between November 2006 and January 2007 two of the 10 intensive care unit beds were closed due to specialist ICU nurse resignations. But I am pleased to say that the ICU is now fully staffed with all 10 beds again open. The influx of interns to Cairns Base Hospital is a fine thing indeed. I compliment the executive on having attracted so many interns to Cairns Base Hospital, which is one of our most rapidly growing hospitals. I will be pleased to keep the honourable member informed on the further registration of those three graduates who are still pending registration through the Medical Board. The other good news for Cairns, and which bears mention, is the tremendous recruitment drive to attract registered nurses from England to the hospital. Already 30 to 40 nurses and their families have moved from England to Cairns. I am proud to say also that the broader Cairns community has welcomed them. Queensland Economy Ms STONE: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House on International Women’s Day and ask a very inspiring Queensland woman, the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, this question. The Queensland economy is clearly powering the whole nation’s growth. Is the minister aware of any recent data which indicates whether our record growth is continuing? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Springwood. It is a great pleasure to be asked a question by her on International Women’s Day. She is a great local member and I am sure that the people of her electorate would attest to that. On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to the outstanding performance of the Queensland economy. I am very pleased to advise that the latest ABS data on building approvals show continued growth in that sector. In January this year the total number of dwelling approvals in Queensland increased by 1.9 per cent. That is the 12th consecutive month of growth. I know that in electorates such as Springwood this sort of activity really matters in terms of housing affordability and job creation. That growth has been driven by the growth in private, other non- residential building approvals such as units and townhouses, which are up by 5.8 per cent, and complemented by growth in private housing approvals of 0.5 per cent. Nationally, in January the seasonally adjusted total number of dwelling approvals decreased by 0.9 per cent, weaker than the consensus forecast of 0.5 per cent. So, while the national number of housing approvals is going down, in Queensland the number of approvals is going up. The number by which the national rate is going down is masking Queensland’s figures. If we abstract Queensland from the national results, we see that, in January 2007, in trend terms dwelling approvals in the rest of Australia fell for the sixth consecutive month—down 2.2 per cent. So on any objective assessment this increase is another very clear pointer to a thriving Queensland economy—an economy that has experienced high rates of economic growth, an economy that is seeing that growth experienced across a range of industries, not just one sector, and an economy that is seeing that growth forecast to continue well into the out years. 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 803

All of that growth is driven by a government that has a passion for growing Queensland and growing the jobs that are part of that economy. On International Women’s Day, as we reflect on the achievements and opportunities for women here in Queensland and in Australia, it is important for us to note that there is nothing more important to the advancement of women and the opportunities they have to reach their potential than a thriving, healthy economy. That is what delivers solid budget outcomes, that is what delivers services and programs such as the new support program for new mothers in this year’s budget and increased paid maternity leave to Queensland public servants. But Queensland’s economy also delivers jobs for women. As second incomes become more and more important to the security of families, we will continue our focus on jobs. We will continue to be responsible economic managers. Through that we will continue to provide opportunities for Queensland women to reach their full potential.

Queensland Health

Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Acting Minister for Health. I have been advised of the case of a Cairns nurse who made a number of calls to Queensland Health complaining about various aspects of her treatment and then had officers from the CIB visit her because she had complained. Can the minister advise if there is an arrangement between Queensland Health and the Police Service in Cairns or anywhere else to investigate and threaten people with prosecution for vigorously pursuing complaints against Queensland Health? Ms BOYLE: I have no knowledge of the matter to which the honourable member has referred to in her question. I am able to assure her that there is no such relationship, of course, between Queensland Health in Cairns and the Cairns police or the Queensland police more generally.

Energex

Mr LAWLOR: My question is to the Minister for Mines and Energy. The phenomenal growth in south-east Queensland, and particularly the Gold Coast, has presented many challenges to the government. I am told that every working day around 150 additional homes and businesses are connected to the Energex network as thousands of people move to the south-east corner of the state. Can the minister advise the House as to how Energex is meeting this unprecedented demand? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Queensland’s population growth is the reason Energex is investing in a record $3 billion five-year capital expenditure program. Of course, the Energex network is itself just really the physical means for the distribution of electricity. However, those who work for Energex ensure that the power is on at the front door of every customer’s premises, to cook tea at night, to keep the businesses functioning, and to make the light available just at the flick of a switch. The Energex staff comprise some of the best trades and technical staff in the power industry. Recently, I had the opportunity to see them in action when I was on the Gold Coast and launched the field force automation. This is a $22 million investment in wireless communication. It will revolutionise the way in which Energex does business. It allows Energex crews in the field—and there are crews located throughout the region—working on problems being available to address new problems as they arise. Those crews will be able to be communicated with instantly via the satellite linked computers that are in their vehicles. The crews will no longer need to return to their base and receive their next batch of orders in a hard copy form. In addition, satellite navigation facilities on each of the field crews’ vehicles will be used to identify the closest available Energex crew so that they can be dispatched to the nearest problem and guided along the fastest possible route. That offers great possibilities not only for the day-to-day customer connections and the maintenance work but also during wild weather and storms. It also enables the field crews using the satellite connected computers to communicate instantly back to the control centres to provide up-to-date information for the customers who ring into Energex to find out the latest on what is happening in terms of the restoration of power in their areas. The full rollout of this fantastic Australia-first initiative will take place between now and the next storm season. That will mean a much more improved quality in service from the very high standards that Energex already maintain and provide to the distribution system in south-east Queensland. We will then see the full advantages not only for Energex but also for the 2.7 million people who rely on power from the Energex network. I want to take the opportunity that this question has afforded me to thank the Energex crews on the Gold Coast who have been piloting this field force automation since the middle of last year. It is a true representation of everything that the Smart State stands for. 804 Questions Without Notice 08 Mar 2007

Dental Health

Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Premier and it relates to dental health. I understand that next month the Premier will be meeting with the Prime Minister and other premiers. At this meeting will the Premier raise the issue of dental health to see whether the federal government will specifically target funding to better support states and territories in improving dental health services in Australia? I understand that a federal parliamentary committee has recently finished an investigation into dental health issues. Mr BEATTIE: The answer to the question is yes. I think most people would know that public dental services in Queensland have been under growing pressure since the Howard government withdrew Commonwealth funding in 1996. We have had to pick it up since and the Commonwealth has not contributed one cent since then. We have the outrageous situation where both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer give more to the wealthy for dental care than they give to the poor. I think that is a sad reflection on Australia as a nation, not just Queensland. The Commonwealth government does subsidise private dental patients through the private health insurance rebate. It should also help out, in my view, public patients by funding at least 30 per cent of our dental budget. It is a major problem. We do have waiting lists, and I respect the member for Nicklin for raising this issue because he understands it. This year my government will spend a record $138 million on public dental services, providing free dental care to more than 3,300 eligible Queenslanders every day. That is why it was refreshing to hear the federal Labor leader, , commit to boost funding for public dental care. That is in very stark contrast to the greedy approach being pursued by the Howard government. The question is: am I interested to know what coalition members opposite think about it? Obviously I am. We have a shadow health spokesman who has a career in dental work, and I would hope that the member for Surfers Paradise would actually stand up on a matter of principle and look after those people who cannot afford his services or the services of others. Frankly, this is a disgrace and the member for Nicklin understands this. A lot of battlers are doing it tough. We are putting record amounts of money into public dental services and what we have is a Commonwealth government which is not doing its fair share. The demand—and this is the problem—for public oral health services has grown significantly in recent years due to a national shortage of dentists, a growing and ageing population and a greater number of people retaining their natural teeth. So the problem is not getting any better; it is getting worse. I am proud that Queenslanders maintain the most generous eligibility criteria of any public oral health service in Australia, providing free services to schoolchildren up to year 10 and adults who hold a pensioner concession card, a healthcare card and Commonwealth and Queensland seniors card. Will I be raising this issue? The answer is yes. Have we pursued it in the past? The answer is yes. Are we getting anywhere with the Commonwealth government? The answer is no. I thank the member for Nicklin for his question. We will continue to pursue this. I think it is absolutely essential that those opposite have the courage and moral fortitude to start raising this matter with their federal Liberal colleagues. Frankly, they could not care less. We do.

International Women’s Day; WorkChoices

Ms BARRY: My question is to the minister for women. Women have been struggling for generations for workplace equality. Can the minister advise what the future holds for Queensland’s women workers under the federal government’s IR policy? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge the championship ways in which she goes about supporting the women in Aspley. In fact, they are very lucky to have such a tremendous leader. Queensland’s theme for International Women’s Day is ‘Women at work: Know your rights, it’s your future’, and there is very good reason for this theme. The Howard government’s WorkChoices laws are bad for workers and particularly bad for women. Women in the workforce have been swimming against the tide for decades for equal rights and equitable working conditions. The changes to the IR system introduced by the Howard government under WorkChoices are a threat to the rights and privileges Queensland women have earned through our own industrial relations system. As minister for women, I am particularly concerned that the move towards individual contracts and agreements is likely to widen the gap between male and female take-home pay. Under WorkChoices, workers are already losing rights including paid maternity leave, long service leave, unpaid parental leave, superannuation and flexible working conditions, as well as penalty rates and casual jobs. 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 805

Procedure—Acting Speaker’s Ruling—Question Out of Order Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Following consultation with the Clerk, I rule that question out of order as it is pre-empting debate of a motion later in the day. Interruption.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Further Answer to Question; Macarthur Coal Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.14 am), by leave: I wish to provide further details to the question asked in relation to my attendance at Macarthur Coal’s Christmas cocktail party. It is important that I do not mislead the House. To advise the House, my program said— Premier to depart the Executive Building 6.05 Premier to attend the Macarthur Coal cocktail party duration 6 to 7 pm Premier to address the guests at 6.30 and to leave at 7 I indicated earlier that the number of people who had attended the cocktail party was approximately 150. In fact I was incorrect. I have been advised by my office that it was in the vicinity of 320. I need to indicate that some of the people who were represented were groups such as, for example, ABN Amro Morgans. They included journalists from the Courier-Mail. They included a string of companies—Carlton and United Breweries, Castlemaine Perkins, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Ebenezer Mining Co. Ltd, Gladstone Port Authority, Hastings Deering Steering, Kawasho Corporation Ltd, KPMG, Leighton Constructions Pty Ltd and McCullough Robertson. They included two people from the Monto Shire Council in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom were there— Kev Hockey, if members want to know, and Les Hotz. Mr Seeney: What about Gordon Nuttall? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: I want to make this point: while the Leader of the Opposition has clearly embarrassed himself, I do want to highlight that there were two journalists from the Courier-Mail present—James McCullough and Clair Dargan. This was in 2002. I want to draw to the attention of the House that a similar function in 2004 was widely reported in the Courier-Mail by the journalist concerned, Tony Grant-Taylor. This was a similar event just two years later. The article talks about a number of things. It says, ‘The Opposition Leader and Deputy Jeff Seeney also joined the throng.’ The Leader of the Opposition has made an absolute goose of himself. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, a member of your party is on their feet. Mr Seeney: Sorry. Government members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 804. Interlock Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to a written reply by the police and corrective services minister where she confirmed the long-held fears of her prison officers—that secret files using information gathered during confidential counselling sessions are being compiled by her departmental local managers. Can the Premier guarantee that this policy of keeping secret files on public servants compiled from— Ms SPENCE: Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I clearly detailed to the House yesterday in a ministerial statement that there is indeed no secret files. There is no conspiracy to which the member for Burnett alleges. I ask him to withdraw that statement. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. 806 Questions Without Notice 08 Mar 2007

Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Can the Premier guarantee that this policy of keeping secret files on public servants compiled from information supplied to his government by Interlock, or any other private counselling service, is not being carried out in Health, Emergency Services or any other state government department? Premier, do you think it appropriate that departmental managers have the authority to destroy your secret files? Mr BEATTIE: I have to say, Mr Acting Speaker, that this has to be one of the most bizarre question times we have had in the last 8½ years. I thank the member for Burnett for the question. I have no idea why he is terrified of the police minister. I know that the Police Service call her ‘ma’am’, but he need not call her ‘ma’am’. I do not know why he is terrified of her. I do not know why he cannot ask her. Government members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. The issue is really simple: is there a policy? The answer is no. The whole pretext of his question simply does not stack up. There is no validity in it. Is there a policy? The answer is no. I do urge the member, however, to continue to pursue these matters. We will be back here next week. If he finds a bit of courage in between now and then he can ask the police minister about any further matters that he wants to raise. But is there a policy? No. I want to say that again: is there a policy? The answer is no. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett! Mr BEATTIE: While I am on my feet—and I am grateful for the opportunity—I do want to come back to some matters that the member needs to be aware of because, frankly, we have a situation where a whole lot of things are happening with Willprint that the members opposite are trying to hide today and we are not going to let them do it. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett. Mr BEATTIE: We have the Leader of the Opposition attacking me for going to cocktail parties that he also goes to. I do not know why it is alright for him to go to a cocktail party but not for me. Did you forget— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Please refer to the member— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition. Mr BEATTIE: Through you, Mr Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: did you forget you were there? Did you forget you had gone? What a doozy. He forgot he was there. What I want to know is: did the Monto shire councillors go with you when you went in 2004? What about the former leader of the opposition? He must have thought, ‘Please, Jeff, don’t ask that’, because the former leader of the opposition would have remembered being there. Poor old Jeff, the Leader of the Opposition, he did not. There is one thing I do have to share with members. I have been talking about Willprint. The member for Yeerongpilly pointed this out to me. This is the company that has been getting all the work within the Liberal Party. In the Yellow Pages their slogan is ‘I can’t say no!’ I bet they can’t say no. When one is on a rort like that— Ms Bligh: I bet they wish they had said no. Mr BEATTIE: I bet the Leader of the Liberal Party—who has disappeared—wishes he had said no. Ms Bligh: I bet the National Party wish they had. Mr BEATTIE: I bet the National Party wish they had said no to a coalition, too. I wish they would all say no. That is a slogan that will not grow on others. It will not grow. I recommend to them that they change their slogan as quickly as possible. To the member for Burnett, thank you, I enjoyed the question.

International Women’s Day; Queensland Police Service Ms STRUTHERS: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Being International Women’s Day, I congratulate her on being the first female police minister in Queensland, and I ask: how many women are now serving in the Queensland Police Service and why is it important that women have a role in protecting our community? 08 Mar 2007 Questions Without Notice 807

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Algester for the question. I am glad she is not too frightened to ask me a question. It took a woman to stand up and ask me a question about my portfolio, and a very good question it is, too. I would like to wish all the women in the chamber a very happy International Women’s Day. I am very pleased to say that one in five police officers in this state are women. We are recruiting about 30 per cent women these days so the number of women police officers is going to increase. Women, of course, are involved in every facet of policing these days. This was not always the case. In fact, it took a woman member, the first woman member of this parliament, Irene Longman, to convince the government of the day to employ women in the Police Service. Two women were employed. They were not given equal pay and they were not sworn police officers. In a memo in 1932 the police commissioner of the day, Commissioner Ryan, bemoaned the fact that, while the two women police officers were doing a satisfactory job, he would prefer two males. Not surprisingly, the Police Union of the day was not very happy about having women in the Police Service. It took until 1965 for women to become sworn police officers. In those days they were not given guns and the same duties as men but they were given handbags to help them do their job! We have come a long way in terms of women in the Police Service. I am very pleased that we are recruiting in such a vigorous way. I am pleased to announce that last year we swore in our very first female Muslim police officer and she is doing a fantastic job. I am also pleased to announce that last month a second woman became an assistant commissioner to join Kathy Rynders; we have now Ann Lewis who will become the new assistant commissioner for the Rockhampton region of the state. Mr Schwarten: She will be very welcome. Ms SPENCE: She will be very welcome; she will do a very good job. On the other side of my portfolio in Corrective Services, 40 per cent of the staff of the Department of Corrective Services are female. They are involved in all sorts of duties from correctional officers to Dog Squad officers, intelligence advisers, psychologists and senior management. It takes many people of different backgrounds to make a great police and corrective services department and women in these departments have a very bright future and are at the front line in service delivery.

Exceptional Circumstances, Rate Rebates Mr HORAN: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I refer to the rate rebates announced on 4 December 2006 for producers under exceptional circumstances and the transfer of this aid from Communities to the minister’s department. Why is it that these Queenslanders, fighting the worst drought in history, cannot apply for this package and why can’t Labor get its act together on drought? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for Toowoomba South for the question. On 4 December 2006 the Premier announced that the Queensland government would implement a number of new drought assistance initiatives, including a 50 per cent rebate on council rates. The rebate will be available to anyone who is in receipt of exceptional circumstances relief payments. The exceptional circumstances relief payments will be used as a substitute for a means test to make application for the program as simple as possible and to target those in most need. Generally the rebate will apply to each property in an EC area for which an ECRP recipient pays rates. Regardless of how much money a producer receives in the exceptional circumstances relief payments they will receive a 50 per cent rebate on their rates. There are 88 shires in Queensland that are covered or partially covered by exceptional circumstances declarations. Once the government decided to introduce the rebate it commenced discussions with industry organisations and the Local Government Association of Queensland to determine how the rate rebate would be delivered. Complicating progress in the discussions was the fact that many councils were closed down over the Christmas period. It was originally thought the rebate could be provided via local shire councils in the same way as similar schemes are operated in Victoria and similar to the way that the Queensland Pensioner Subsidy Scheme is operated by local councils working with the Department of Communities. The councils were to be reimbursed in the same way as the pensioner subsidy through the Department of Communities and eligible producers would only have to pay 50 per cent of the council rate up-front and the council would be paid the remainder by the Queensland government. However, the Local Government Association of Queensland has indicated to the government that it will be difficult, particularly for smaller councils, to manage such a rebate. Based on these discussions it was decided that the rebate will be provided through QRAA to get it up and running as soon as possible. Responsibility for the program was transferred from Communities to my portfolio on 19 January 2007. QRAA subsequently drafted guidelines that were circulated to industry organisations and the LGAQ for comment and final agreement was obtained on 20 February 2007. 808 Motion 08 Mar 2007

The regulatory amendments required to allow QRAA to administer the scheme will be tabled shortly. Producers will soon be able to send their rate receipts, plus an ECRP income statement from Centrelink, to QRAA. A one-page form, supplying the relevant bank details and in some cases clarifying the relationship between the exceptional circumstances relief payment recipient and the ratepayer where the name is different, will also need to be filled in. On approval QRAA will place half of the amount of the rates into the producer’s bank. All rates paid in 2006-07 will be included. In 2007-08 it is intended that the service will be expanded to include providing the rebate at the same time as rates are paid over the counter at participating local council offices. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery students, staff and parents from Buderim Mountain State School in the electorate of Kawana, which is represented in this House by the honourable Steve Dickson. Child Safety Officers, Training Program Mr WETTENHALL: My question is to the Minister for Child Safety. There is no doubt that the Department of Child Safety is tasked with arguably one of the most important jobs there is: protecting children right across this state—in the cities, in the regions, as well as in rural and remote areas. Would the minister please inform the House what the department is doing to make sure front-line child safety officers have the training they need? Ms BOYLE: I thank the member for that important question. I am pleased to say that while in the past child safety officers have had to travel to Brisbane for most of their training, following a successful trial in Rockhampton last year, child safety officers will now be able to train at their closest regional centre. My department has set up new training teams in Rockhampton and Townsville, and recruitment will start within weeks for a team in Cairns. Twenty-three child safety officers took part in the trial at Rockhampton from March to September last year, and altogether 112 people have started the new training programs in Rockhampton, Townsville and Brisbane. Members may be interested to know that the training program for child safety officers has itself been revamped. The program will be a more on-the-job program and be held closer to where their job is and closer to where their clients are. I send out my congratulations to all of those involved in developing this new training program.

MOTION

International Women’s Day Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine Industry Development and Women) (11.30 am): On International Women’s Day, I move— That this House— • recognises International Women’s Day on 8 March, and notes that the Queensland Government is celebrating International Women’s Day under the theme ‘Women at work, know your rights’; • honours the contribution and achievements of working women of Queensland; and • expresses regret that the Australian Government has undermined the rights and opportunities for working women in Queensland through its Workchoices industrial relations regime. The best ally Queensland’s working women have is the Beattie Labor government. I am proud to be part of a government that has stood side by side with workers since our election in 1998. This government has always recognised the contribution workers make to this state, and we will continue to support them. Queensland’s theme for International Women’s Day is ‘Women at work: know your rights, it’s your future’. As I have said in this House before, there are very good reasons for choosing this theme. The Howard government’s WorkChoices laws are bad for workers and particularly bad for women. Women in the workforce have been swimming against the tide for decades for equal rights and equity in their working conditions. The Howard government has shamelessly robbed them of a chance to achieve these goals. Changes to the IR system introduced by the Howard government under WorkChoices threaten the rights and privileges Queensland workers have earned through our own industrial relations system. Under WorkChoices, women have lost rights and conditions. Conditions such as paid maternity leave, long service leave, unpaid parental leave, superannuation, flexible working conditions as well as penalty rates on casual jobs are under threat. Clearly, women are the most affected when it comes to WorkChoices. As minister for women, I am particularly concerned that the move towards individual contracts and agreements is likely to widen the gap between male and female take-home pay. But it is not just the Beattie government which is saying that WorkChoices is bad news. Our worst fears have been confirmed by others. A Griffith University study recently highlighted a substantial loss of employment 08 Mar 2007 Motion 809 conditions for many workers signing AWAs. The study found that in the first six months under WorkChoices, although there was a reduction in real-time average wages of 1.1 per cent overall, for women the news was doubly bad, with a two per cent fall in their wages. Members will recall all the hype from the federal government before, during and after the introduction of WorkChoices. The federal government told us that WorkChoices was going to be good for everybody and in particular good for women. Of course it was misleading the public as it usually does. The promises that workers were offered have certainly not been delivered. They were all empty promises and the proof is here to be seen. The gap between the haves and have-nots is widening. Women now earn about 85 per cent of the male wage on average. Women on AWAs take home a pay packet containing just 70 per cent of the wages of their male colleagues. What does that say? It is crystal clear: women on AWAs are far worse off than those on union agreements. This will get even worse under WorkChoices as it progresses. The trends are already apparent. Women in casual employment are the worst affected. This is an issue that is of particular concern to me as minister for tourism, because the majority of women in this industry are casual and part-timers. Workers have fought too hard and have come too far to concede defeat, and we as a government will fight with them. The Beattie government will continue to work to provide equality for Queensland workers and in particular women workers. We want women to continue to enjoy the benefits of a booming economy, and we want women to have the same opportunities in the workplace as men. We have to look after the have-nots—those young women who are unskilled, who fall pregnant early or who have missed out on opportunities other women take for granted. These women do not have the same choices as their sisters. They are the ones in casual employment, and they are the ones who are most affected by WorkChoices and this uncaring federal coalition government. Every day I am encouraged by the smart women I meet. Only this morning, I was joined by my parliamentary secretary, the member for Whitsunday, Jan Jarratt, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts, the member for Aspley, Bonny Barry, at a breakfast celebrating International Women’s Day held by the Queensland Resources Council. We delighted in the awards that these women in engineering received. They are pioneers and they are very successful in their chosen field. The Beattie government has developed a range of strategies to encourage women to consider careers in non-traditional industries—industries such as mining, construction, science, engineering and IT. We want them to have a broader choice of careers than their mothers and grandmothers did before them. I am very pleased that the Smart Women-Smart State action plan will increase education, training and employment opportunities for women in science, engineering and technology industries. Women make up 50 per cent of the Queensland population yet constitute only 34 per cent of the SET workforce. In 2005, remarkably just seven per cent of engineers and 36 per cent of natural and physical scientists were women, so obviously we have a long way to go. For far too long, the brilliance of Queensland women and girls in these fields has been underestimated and underrepresented, and this action plan maps out how we can change this over the next three years. We will do this by raising awareness of SET careers and industries among women, encouraging partnerships and helping women to move between education, training and employment. But the plan is more than this. The plan is also about encouraging and supporting women to move into senior positions of leadership. The other issue I am very excited about is the Beattie government’s industry challenge initiative, which offers cash incentives for businesses to help women balance their work and life. We know women are working harder and longer hours and we know it is tough for women who have children, and certainly members of parliament here who have young children understand that. Businesses and community organisations will be challenged to develop models, implement pilot programs or establish resources that enable employees to work flexibly, improve their skills or develop leadership abilities. To tackle the Queensland skills shortage head-on, we need to look at some of the reasons women are not entering or staying in the workforce and make some practical long-term changes. Strategies that help women balance their work and family will increase the productivity of Queensland businesses, lower the cost of staff turnover and let them develop a competitive edge as business operators which retain highly skilled staff. But there is more. The Women in Hard Hats initiative is designed to encourage women to consider careers in non-traditional occupations and help address skills shortages in mining, construction, science, engineering and technology areas. We want hard hat careers to be seen as a viable option for Queensland girls and women. Today at the breakfast we were told that Queensland really does lead the nation in the Women in Hard Hats strategies. We were told that we should be sharing this with other states because Queensland can be very proud of the strong initiatives and the implementation of this strategy. The Women on Boards strategy is part of the Beattie government’s commitment to having more women in leadership roles. This strategy will actively recruit women and build their skills so they are board ready. It requires government departments to demonstrate a balanced gender mix on government 810 Motion 08 Mar 2007 boards. I am leading the way with my Tourism Queensland board, where I am pleased to announce that I will be filling two vacancies with women, thus doubling their representation on the Tourism Queensland board. Another area we are working on is industrial relations seminars. Under WorkChoices, women need to be far more educated about their rights. They also need to be educated about how to negotiate AWAs in the workplace. It is very challenging for a young woman to come into a job and have to negotiate with elderly managers, and these seminars will certainly help women to upgrade their skills. We also have the Smart Women-Smart State awards which each year attract more and more women. These are tremendously important awards to highlight the incredible women in Queensland. There are a range of resources that the Office for Women has provided with the help of the Queensland Working Women’s Service for International Women’s Day. I encourage members to access the OFW web site at www.women.qld.gov.au. I thank all members of parliament who will be supporting this very important motion. I want to return to the theme of International Women’s Day and remind every member of this House and all Queenslanders that there is one way that we can protect the hard-won conditions of our women and that is by voting for a Kevin Rudd-led Labor federal government later this year. Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (11.40 am): As the youngest woman member in this House I am very honoured to be seconding this motion celebrating International Women’s Day. Tomorrow will be exactly six months since I and four other new Labor women were elected to the Queensland parliament. It is unfortunate that no new women members were elected to this House from the conservative parties. My experiences of being a member of parliament are overwhelmingly different to those of women politicians who have served in this House before me. I am extremely grateful to the women who have served here before me—women such as the Deputy Premier, Anna Bligh, and the first woman police minister, Judy Spence—who continue to break down barriers for women in politics through their relentless hard work and determination. It is their ongoing contribution to public policy and debate in our state that has paved the way for so many of us to follow. Another one is the new minister for women, Margaret Keech. One woman who spearheaded the struggle for women’s rights, particularly labour rights in Queensland, was Emma Miller. She was a pioneer of women’s suffrage and also a foundation member of the Labor Party and president of the Women’s Equal Franchise Association. As a seamstress she aided the formation of the first women’s union here in Brisbane and gave evidence at the 1891 royal commission into shops, factories and workshops. Now, more than a century later, the working conditions and pay of women are again in the spotlight. Everyone on this side and the union movement warned about the disadvantage that the WorkChoices legislation would cause Australian women. Every woman and man on that side of the parliament who supported the Howard government legislation in this House and in their communities should hang their heads in shame. The WorkChoices legislation has only been in place for six months and already we have seen women’s wages suffer. Each one of them is personally responsible for causing hardship and exacerbating stress in Queensland families. In the two quarters since WorkChoices took effect, hourly earning growth in the retail and hospitality industries is 47 per cent and 61 per cent lower than the all-industry average. We know the majority of Australian workplace agreements under WorkChoices have abolished penalty rates. All the data shows that the gender pay gap is growing under the prevalence of AWAs. Women on AWAs, as the minister said, earn only 70 per cent of what men earn and the ratio has deteriorated since 2000. By comparison women on collective agreements earn 90 per cent of what men earn while women on award wages earn the same as men. All the evidence was there, all of us knew—including those in the Liberal and National parties— that women would lose out and yet those opposite supported the legislation and supported their mates in Canberra and knowingly voted for legislation that they knew would disadvantage working women. Every woman in Queensland now has to make a very important choice—that is, to support Queenslander Kevin Rudd and the federal team at the upcoming federal election. Mrs Sullivan: Vote for Jon Sullivan. Ms JONES: I take that interjection, especially Jon Sullivan, a real man in Longman—someone who strongly supports women in the workforce as evidenced by my colleague here. Only a federal Labor government will stand up for working women. I would like to finish by acknowledging the hard work of the minister and the support of all the staff at the Office for Women and Women’s InfoLink, including my mother. I wish you all a very happy International Women’s Day. 08 Mar 2007 Motion 811

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (11.44 am): I move the following amendment—

That all words after ‘House’ be deleted and the following inserted— • Recognises International Women’s Day on 8 March, and notes that the Queensland Government is celebrating International Women’s Day; and • Honours the contribution and achievements of all women in Queensland. I must say at the outset how bitterly disappointed and how appalled I am that the government has framed this motion to score cheap political points on such an important day as International Women’s Day. International Women’s Day is not the day to conduct a political stunt. Women are far more important than setting up a political stunt such as this. The government is doing this by framing this motion. This day has enormous history and significance. I am personally offended that the government has chosen to hijack the intent of today to run its industrial campaign. It is nothing more than that. It is using women. Women all over Queensland should stand up and take note of this demonstration of the Beattie government’s respect for them. The government is treating Queensland women like pawns in its political game in an attempt to score points in its industrial campaign. It is an insult to all women. I would also like to point out something else in this motion. This motion focuses on working women. Excuse me, but where are all those wonderful young women who are at school? Where are all those wonderful young women who are studying at university? Where are all those even more wonderful women who have chosen to stay home to look after their families? They are privileged because they are able to stay home. Where are all those even more wonderful women who are retired from the workforce and who are helping to look after their families and helping so much in our communities? I take offence at the intent of motion which is those people in the workforce. I would now like to talk about what International Women’s Day is really about. The very first International Women’s Day was held on 19 March 1911 in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Denmark. More than one million men and women turned up at rallies to demand that, among other things, women were given the right to paid work, to vote and to hold public office, which they now have. We are now honouring women. In Germany at the time the Russian revolutionary and feminist Alexandra Kollontai wrote that there was one seething, trembling sea of women. The first Australian recognition of the day was a rally held in the Sydney Domain on 25 March 1928. It called for an eight-hour day for shop girls, no piecework, a basic wage for the unemployed, annual holidays on full pay and equal pay for equal work. Today International Women’s Day is celebrated in 38 countries. It acknowledges women right across the world and in all areas and spheres. In some places it is even recognised as a public holiday. International Women’s Day is to me a celebration of the contributions that women make in every aspect of life, be it in the home, be it on the job or be it in their communities. For many of us it is a time of reflection and a time to remember the great achievements of women who shaped this country and paved the way for us. Undoubtedly, the greatest breakthrough for Western women was achieved with the right to vote. In 1903 this right was exercised in Australia federally for the first time. The right to a state vote took a little longer. The Queensland Women’s Electoral League was formed in 1903. It campaigned rigorously for women’s suffrage. In 1904, after another bill was defeated in the Legislative Council, the Queensland suffragettes called a public protest meeting at Centennial Hall in Adelaide Street. It was not until January 1905, in the middle of a heatwave, that Queensland women finally won the right to vote. A special sitting was called and the Elections Act Amendment Bill brought an end to repeated blocking of attempts to get women’s suffrage through parliament and to abolish the plural vote. Women were there to watch the passing and the Premier invited them to a tea party afterwards. The historical right to vote in a state election was first exercised in 1907. The first woman to be elected to parliament in Queensland was, as we all know, Irene Longman and she was also the first woman to stand for election. I want to talk a bit about Irene Longman. She was a member of the Country and Progressive National Party and served her electorate of Bulimba from 1929 to 1932. She was a member of the Queensland Women’s Electoral League and she was an activist in many women’s organisations. The courage and self-belief required to win the seat of Bulimba in 1929 from the sitting Labor member AW Wright is evident in the Labor member’s response when asked how the election was going. He replied with a self-satisfied grin, ‘Well, you know, I’m only being opposed by a woman.’ However, Irene went on to crush Wright’s margin from an absolute majority of 1,029 to Labor to an absolute majority to Irene of 401. While she was seemingly welcomed in the House, Irene was not allowed to eat with the male members in the parliamentary dining room. Instead, she was forced to eat on the veranda. More pressing than this, there were no female bathrooms in Parliament House at the time when she was elected and this situation was apparently not resolved until 34 years later. As the minister mentioned this morning, she was responsible for many things such as the admittance of women into the police force and she was also very concerned with juvenile delinquency. However, women today do not face those 812 Motion 08 Mar 2007 sorts of problems. They do not face any of those types of barriers or discriminations that have occurred in the past. It is high time that women actually realised that we are equal. This is an equal country and women do have equality. We have to look back on history and appreciate exactly where we have come from so that we can fully appreciate what women have today. While we are talking about history, I also want to mention of course that the National Party appointed the very first female to cabinet—Yvonne Chapman, who served the electorate of Pine Rivers and was appointed the Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs in 1986. The state government to its credit recently published a book profiling 21 inspiring Queensland women of the past to celebrate the anniversary of the vote for women. Featured in this book are some wonderful women that we can look back on such as Diamantina Bowen, Lillian Cooper and Ruth Fairfax from the Queensland Country Women’s Association. Another particular one is Ruth Don, who was the President of the Queensland Teachers Union. Ruth Don was a remarkable woman. She was the founder of the Australian Women’s Forum Club which opened in 1946 to develop the confidence of women. It has been a remarkable organisation right across Queensland for many years, and it is still in existence today. I worked closely with Ruth Don on many projects and want to commend her for her foresight in forming this organisation. If we looked across the number of women who are in public life today, we would see that a very large proportion of them were members of the Australian Women’s Forum Club, which, I have to say, I was a member of since 1986, although I am not anymore because I do not have time to go to the meetings. It is a magnificent organisation and it really does develop the confidence of women. We do have much to celebrate in 2007, although perhaps in many areas across the professions women are still not represented equally at the top of their chosen professions. Are as many women applying for those positions? We see the numbers and the figures, but are women applying for those positions? Do women want those positions? I also take offence when I am told that a woman has been put especially in a position to make sure that there is a woman in that position. That is an insult to women. But today is about celebrating the achievements of the wonderful women of the past and also celebrating those wonderful women today. My passion is seeing young people achieve their full potential— Time expired. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.54 am): I rise to second the amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Burdekin, and also join with her in my concerns that this motion, which usually has bipartisan support, has been hijacked for an industrial relations campaign of the Labor Party. I certainly hope that the Labor Party is not also using the Office for Women in this state as part of its campaign tool to progress its own Labor Party agenda, because this office should be there for all women of Queensland regardless of their political background. Al Gore’s movie about global warming has had a significant role in changing public perceptions about that very important issue. It has catapulted it high on the agenda of policy makers and in media debate. It has moved it from the margins to the front line. Unfortunately, there are many other issues which languish on the fringes of public attention, not because they are frivolous or unimportant but because no-one has yet made a movie to grab people’s hearts and minds. Nonetheless, there are heroes who speak out trying to raise public awareness and who respond to great human need and suffering even though it comes at great personal risk. One such woman who today I wish to pay tribute to on International Women’s Day is Bronwen Healy. As a former drug-addicted prostitute who has broken out of her hell, she now reaches back to help other women, whether from the sex industry or domestic violence or homelessness, to find a way to hope, healing and health. Together with her husband Jason, she has founded the Hope Foundation which they formally launched last week. This not-for-profit organisation plans to set up an inner-city drop-in centre for addicts and prostitutes. Ms Healy said that she would use her own story to demonstrate that there is a way out of addiction, no matter how consuming. The Hope Foundation intends to assist men, women and children who are seeking shelter from and want to be rehabilitated from alcohol and drug addiction or to exit the sex industry. This target group has been identified to provide relief for those suffering and those in distress. Bronwen and Jason Healy say there are currently no organisations in Brisbane or in many other places in Australia that provide the same assistance to people within this target group. The aim of the foundation is to offer practical help by filling individuals with hope and directing them to healing. The foundation exists to give people who are suffering and in distress the opportunity to have a better way of life by helping them renew their minds and offering them true freedom through specialised programs and follow-up care. The foundation has been established to benefit society by assisting those who are currently a cost to society and retraining and reteaching them skills in how to live, thrive and flourish. In turn it is anticipated that each person can become a contributing part of the community. Bronwen is one gutsy woman and it is appropriate to honour and acknowledge her today. 08 Mar 2007 Motion 813

As a female parliamentarian I know the verbal abuse one can face in this parliament just for raising concerns about the impact of the legal and illegal sex industry on women’s physical and mental health and the need to do more to prevent women being dragged into this destructive workplace and the need to help them successfully exit the industry. But I am not the victim. I only cop verbal abuse in this place. There are people on the front line helping these women who potentially face a lot more than that. What I do hope is that as women of this parliament we never forget those women in our society who still pay with their dignity and their health due to the powerful commercial interests in the sex industry, which treats women like chattels from a medieval age. I hope we also never forget those women who are facing domestic violence and homelessness in our society. We should never tolerate any of these problems by saying that it is a fact of life that has to be accepted. More importantly, we as female parliamentarians should support those on the front line, such as Bronwen Healy, who pour out their lives for others in a selfless way. I direct members to her web site at www.hopefoundation.org.au which outlines a very impressive vision. I have the deepest of admiration for Bronwen and her mission. Not everyone who has suffered the pain of circumstances which crush their spirit and threatens their physical and mental health has a social movement to champion their cause. This lady is truly worthy of our praise. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (12.00 pm): Let all the women of Queensland know that the opposition does not support this motion to protect the rights of working women. International Women’s Day 2007 gives us much to celebrate, and it also provides an opportunity to acknowledge—contrary to the claims of opposition members—that there are many challenges ahead for women. One of those challenges is to maintain the gains in pay equity and decent working conditions that women have fought hard for. It is shameful that the Howard federal government is undermining working conditions for women under the WorkChoices laws. Under Howard’s regime of Australian Workplace Agreements, pay equity for women is declining from around 85 per cent of men’s wages to 79 per cent. Employment security is also being eroded under the mean-spirited Howard industrial relations laws. All women need to know that John Howard has given employers much greater power to sack employees unfairly. I say bring on the federal election because it is only a Labor government that will protect the working rights of women. Only a federal Labor government will restore pay equity and help women nationally to better balance work and family responsibilities. Kevin Rudd cares about working women. Kevin cares about the need for all families that are struggling to meet their responsibilities to their employers and the needs of their families. On International Women’s Day, another challenge is the need to have more women in leadership roles in public life. It is particularly encouraging that we now have more women than ever taking up our rightful places in parliaments and local governments around the nation. The Queensland parliament can boast 33 per cent of women members, thanks to strong representation by Labor women in this House. Today I put out a call for members of both sides of the House to make every effort possible to recruit, preselect and support Indigenous women into this House. Other states and territories have elected Indigenous women to their parliaments, but in Queensland we have never had an Indigenous woman take her rightful place in the parliament. On International Women’s Day 2007, let us make the effort. We have wonderfully skilled and courageous Indigenous women who work in all sorts of areas throughout the state. Let us support them. Let us see an Indigenous woman elected into this parliament within the next few election cycles. Go girls! Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (12.02 pm): I rise to support the motion from the honourable member for Burdekin on International Women’s Day 2007. For centuries, women have battled for recognition and rights that were bestowed automatically on males. In the 19th century when women first sought admission to the legal profession, the courts resisted their requests. At that time, the legislation was couched in terms of ‘persons’ joining the profession and male judges held that the definition of the word ‘person’ did not include women. According to Richard Chisholm and Garth Nettheim in Understanding Law, it could be said that the legal system embodies a tradition of indifference to the rights of women to protection against violence. Superficially, those domains remain neutral but in truth it is not the case. Last week figures published showed that women’s representation in parliaments around the world is at 17 per cent, which is said to be a record high. I dedicate this speech to all those women who were unfairly treated by past Queensland state governments through the forced removal of their children by callous practices under the guise of moral danger and the Adoption Act 1901. Their suffering continues today because of the insensitive decisions made by past governments. In this day and age it is abhorent to think that only a few decades ago young single pregnant women could be seized by police and taken to government sanctioned facilities to wait until their children were born. In many cases they were treated as slave labour, worked long hours in laundries without pay and were forbidden from seeing their boyfriends or, indeed, family members. They were imprisoned as criminals. 814 Motion 08 Mar 2007

Under the Adoption of Children Act 1964, the director of the department of children’s services was the sole authority to control and make adoption orders in this state. Most politicians and key decision makers were men who had no concept or personal experience of motherhood, yet they took children from their natural mothers under questionable circumstances. Last month in parliament I was privileged to attend an art exhibition and book launch that was organised by Origins. I acknowledge members who are in the gallery today. Stories tumbled from women still raw with the grief of not knowing whether they had delivered a son or daughter as they never got a chance to see their child’s face. Women’s adoption stories were supported with graphic paintings and shocking memoirs of mistreated women. One would think that the cruelty depicted came from the Dark Ages. Women were tied to beds, treated like animals and drugged to the eyeballs so that they were beyond comprehension as their babies were extracted from them. Today in some circles the term ‘single mum’ still carries a degree of stigma, as it did for women and girls who had babies out of wedlock in days gone by. Today in this House and parliaments elsewhere in Australia, there are women who have had children out of wedlock. I ask them to ponder for a moment how they would feel if they had lived during the dark days of discrimination and had to surrender their babies in such a manner? In 1990 and 1991 amendments to the legislation made provisions for adults who were adopted and birth parents to receive identifying information about each other where no objection was lodged. Additionally, people who were adopted and birth parents who signed an adoption consent after June 1991 were provided with an unqualified entitlement to access identifying information once the adopted person attained the age of 18. What of children born prior to 1990? Herein lies the inconsistency, discrimination and cowardice of past governments. Proof is forthcoming that many were tricked into signing adoption papers, which they were told were merely hospital discharge forms. Another ploy commonly used was to get the mothers to sign the papers when they were drugged so heavily that they were incapable of knowing what they were doing. I have heard the excuses that governments ignored mothers’ pleas because of claims that adoptive parents and birth mothers were promised secrecy. Those excuses are only partially true as, in yet another cruel twist of justice, there is evidence that the Department of Families did not keep the name of the natural mother private. In reality, it provided the names of mother and child to adoptive parents, thus denying the natural mothers any sense of equity. In 1990 members from both sides of the House debated the Adoption Act. After 16 years of lobbying by birth mothers and Origins, affected groups were devastated to learn that section 39 of the legislation included permanent objections. On International Women’s Day we need to be cognisant of the trauma inflicted not once but twice on those women. Hearing their stories and looking into their sad eyes, I can begin to imagine the heart- wrenching grief that they have felt for so many years. We have the power and the opportunity to correct this gross prejudice and human injustice which discriminates unfairly against a group of women who are caught in a time warp. In closing, I acknowledge all Queensland women who had their children taken and who have continued to search for them despite the enormous odds. I admire their courage and strength. Time expired. Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (12.07 pm): I rise to support the motion. While I note that the Queensland government is celebrating International Women’s Day, it is with a regretful air. The federal government has designed its new WorkChoices legislation to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable. Working women are made to feel inferior if they ask for any conditions that will allow them to work and attend to their responsibilities as carers. Women without caring responsibilities are also frowned upon for wanting conditions that help them balance study, work and life pursuits. Young women, women with disabilities, women who do not have English as their first language and women from cultures unaccustomed to questioning their bosses are at the mercy of their employers during negotiations. In fact, they rarely negotiate at all. Here is what the supposedly family-friendly Howard government has done to workers’ rights. Since the new workplace laws were introduced, federal government statistics show that AWA individual contracts have resulted in the following cuts: 51 per cent of all AWAs cut overtime loadings, 63 per cent cut penalty rates, 64 per cent cut annual leave loading, 46 per cent cut public holiday payments, 52 per cent cut shift work loadings, 40 per cent cut rest breaks, 46 per cent cut incentive based payments and bonuses, 48 per cent cut monetary allowances, and 36 per cent cut declared public holidays. How can working women balance life and work under those conditions? In fact, how can working men balance life and work? In my family both parents work, and my husband and I are able to enjoy our children and our careers, but I would describe it as juggling rather than balancing. 08 Mar 2007 Motion 815

For many new mothers child-care costs and the difficulty of finding places make returning to work impossible. While many women need to return to work to support themselves and their families, many other women thrive in a working environment where they are valued for their contribution and enjoy the social networks. Yesterday the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released a report titled It’s about time: women, men, work and family. The report was instigated by Pru Goward. Pru has made a valuable contribution and I wish her well with her political ambitions, but she will be a lonely voice on the coalition benches. Only a Labor government can truly improve conditions for working women. Only a Labor government will truly improve conditions for working women. My role model is a woman who was a trailblazer in federal politics. I would like to pay tribute to my lovely mother, who was the first Queensland woman elected to the House of Representatives back in 1980. Her dogged determination to improve conditions for the most vulnerable in our community has left a lasting legacy. I love her very much. I pay tribute to her on this day and I support the motion. Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (12.10 pm): I rise to support and recognise International Women’s Day and note that the Queensland government is celebrating it under the theme ‘Women at work: know your rights, it’s your future’, which I support. For many years I have been the beneficiary of lengthy campaigns that were undertaken by women throughout the world for more than 100 years. As a woman MP, I have entered what was until only a few decades ago virtually an exclusive male domain. The many campaigns conducted worldwide by women’s organisations led to not only a long overdue acknowledgement of the rights and abilities of women but also an acceptance that the world would be a better place if women were able to participate equally in all aspects of society. Unlike the Liberals, I am proud of the stand of the Labor Party to actively seek to increase the participation of women in parliament. On 8 March 1857—150 years ago—women working in the garment industry staged a protest in New York City. Poor working conditions and low wages were the trigger for that protest. One hundred and fifty years on, not much has changed for working women. Despite legislation being passed in 1972 guaranteeing women equal pay, pay equity has never been achieved. Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics just eight days ago shows that wages for women are being driven downwards. In May 2006, women whose pay and conditions were governed by Australian Workplace Agreements—or AWAs—were paid less than women working on collective agreements. Full-time workers earn an average of $2.30 per hour, or $87.40 per week less than those who are on awards or enterprise bargaining agreements—or EBAs. Part-time workers earn $3.70 per hour, or $85.10 per week less based on 23 hours of work a week. Casual workers earn $4.70 per hour less for each hour worked. Twelve months ago figures were released that showed that women on AWAs earn only 70 per cent of the wages of men who are on AWAs. At the same time, women on awards were earning 84 per cent of the male award wage. Women are the principal victims in the workplace, both in terms of wages and job security. Today, there is ample evidence that bad employers are using the new federal Liberal government workplace legislation to remove workers’ conditions, reduce wages and unfairly dismiss workers. There are examples of women being sacked for questioning their pay and querying their working conditions. Everyone knows the crucial role that employment plays in everyone’s lives. I express regret and disappointment that the Liberal federal government has undermined the rights and opportunities for working women in Queensland through its WorkChoices industrial relations regime. For stability in the workplace and equal opportunity for all, we need the Labor Party to be elected at the next federal election. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.12 pm): I rise to speak in this debate on International Women’s Day. I thought this was a debate to recognise, on International Women’s Day, the struggle and hard- fought achievements of women through the ages. But the first two speakers and subsequent speakers in this debate have spoken mostly about the IR laws. On a day when women should be of one mind and of one sentiment, we are divided because of what can only be described as a hijacking of this debate. I was all for being part of this debate, but when I heard the theme of it, I felt quite distressed. International Women’s Day recognises that women play, and have played, a very important role in our society. Just as this government was returned to power in Queensland because of the vote of the constituency—and believe me a lot of them were women—so, too, will the constituency of Australia vote accordingly. The IR laws will stand or fall on their view. Women will speak out and women will vote. We will see whether or not they accept these laws. As we are all undoubtedly aware, today is International Women’s Day. I believe that it is recognised in many countries. I would also expect that many women believe that we have come a long way. I guess we have when it comes to climbing corporate ladders, standing in this place and being able to join what was once all-male organisations and clubs—although I really cannot understand at all why women want to go into some of these places. But that is their choice and they have the right to fight for it. It is expected that women will fight to go where no women have been allowed to go before. It has 816 Motion 08 Mar 2007 been admitted that many clubs would have disappeared long ago if women had not been allowed to become members of them, and in that regard I refer to service clubs such as Lions. The history of women fighting for rights and equal opportunity is well documented. Further battles to achieve better conditions and rights which men take for granted will also be documented in the future. Women seem to fight so hard at the adult level—at the corporate and international level. I believe that that fight has gained enough momentum to be continued. But I also believe that we fail at a more fundamental and basic level, and that is we fail our children, especially our female children. I refer to an article by Melinda Tankard Reist titled ‘Toxic culture not empowering our girls’. If anyone wants to know where we have failed fundamentally in society, they should read this article. It says it all. It points out how young girls are made into sexual objects. It refers to the way girls are treated by men—the lack of respect and many other things. I will not go into the article in detail because I do not have the time. But members should read it because it points out that we should not be starting at this level; we should be empowering our girls from birth. Girls are objectified. Two-year-olds and three-year-olds are dressed in bikinis and G-strings. That is abysmal.

The members opposite go on about the IR laws, but why are they not standing up for the rights of these young girls so that they have power in the future? Quite frankly, I believe that we are failing the women of the future because we allow them to be sexually objectified when they are children. I table that article so that everyone can get a copy very easily.

Tabled paper: Copy of an article from The Courier Mail, dated 8 March 2007 titled ‘Toxic culture not empowering our girls’. It is up to women to fight for their rights but it is necessary to ensure that our girls also are empowered. Women themselves promote and sexualise their daughters. I do not understand that at all. Until we as women wake up and stop buying the products that sexualise our children, we are the perpetrators of those crimes. We aid and abet crimes that are committed against the women of the future. So I ask women to stand up for young people, give them power and do the right thing.

Just for today, we should have been united as women. But the fact that this debate was hijacked by talking about the IR laws in a party-political exercise appals me. I am very ashamed at this time that the women in this House hijacked this debate in this manner.

Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (12.17 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the minister’s motion. Politics is at the very core of International Women’s Day. It is the politics of work that is at the heart of so much suffering for women across the globe. Poverty, discrimination, death from AIDs and the denial of human rights have a direct correlation to the economic status of women across the world. How much women earn and how women work is incredibly important and vital in whether women can rise above the despair in which they live.

To simply not raise the devastating effect that the federal industrial relations laws have had on women would be a sell-out by the women of this parliament. It may seem less important to some journalists than the issues of sex slavery, genital mutilation and honour killings that occur in so many countries across the globe, but, quite frankly, if women in countries such as Australia and states such as Queensland do not continue to raise the issues that affect women here, then our sisters across the globe stand no hope whatsoever.

I would love to stand here and daydream of the equality espoused by the member for Burdekin, but it is not true. Quite frankly, this place is not just about waxing lyrical with history. There is a saying, ‘Don’t be too polite, girls, don’t be too polite’. This is parliament, not a tea party. The suffragettes were not polite and neither should we.

The suffragettes would be proud of us. International Women’s Day has taken on a new meaning. On this day, more and more functions are being held across the state and across the country. Emma Miller definitely would be proud of us. She was not polite when she put a hatpin into the rump of the police commissioner’s horse. Such pioneering women would be proud of us. They would be proud of our MPs, our minister, our DGs, and our progress.

Today, younger women in most of our schools feel that the world is their oyster. However, I can say that the challenge and the aspirations of the women of our first nation are still something that we must work hard towards. We have done so much, but we have so much more to do. Yes, we talk about getting women into the mining and resources industry, but the truth is that most women work in retail, hospitality, services and trades where AWAs and lower union membership result in less attractive wages and conditions, a poorer bargaining position for women workers and the loss of penalty rates and weekend rates, particularly for casual workers. Women simply either put up with it and shut up, or they give up their jobs owing to family stress. 08 Mar 2007 Motion 817

I spoke about the hospitality industry. Employers cannot have it both ways. They were sold a pup by the federal government. Quite frankly, they do not pay decent wages or give consideration to family commitments and training. If they do not do that, they will not get women workers. I also wanted to raise my concerns about the growing attitude of the federal government to pregnant women. Despite the unlawfulness of discriminating against pregnant women, women continue to suffer workplace stress when they are either pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant. Thirty per cent of pregnant women felt discrimination—denial of access to training and promotions, and loss of contracts. Less than eight per cent of the current AWAs have paid maternity leave. Quite frankly, it does not surprise me that the federal government—either by omission or, worse, commission—has made the lives of pregnant women workers tougher. One only has to look at the comments and actions of the health minister, Tony Abbott, on pregnancy counselling funding to see that this is a federal government that allows a senior minister to judge and disadvantage women each and every day that he is the minister. Firstly, after rightly losing the RU486 or mifepristone debate—a debate that clearly showed that Tony Abbott had no ability as health minister to make balanced decisions about reproductive health issues for women—he and John Howard announced significant funding to two albeit well-regarded pregnancy counselling services which were both Catholic organisations. The awarding of the funding is a backhanded slap to women who wish to achieve assistance in all aspects of unplanned pregnancy reproductive health choices. No organisation that provides assistance to women requesting abortion was successful in applying to the federal government, and that is a disgrace. If members want further proof of the antiwomen views of this senior minister, they only have to recall his comments in which he attributes Australia’s high abortion rate to women whose lives are under control but view childbirth as a terrible inconvenience. I say to the parliament that his continuation in the role as health minister in the Howard government makes it clear that his views are not only tolerated but actively funded. It is no surprise that the industrial relations legislation put forward by the federal government potentially disadvantages women in the workplace. It is an out-of-control, arrogant government, and I urge change. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (12.22 pm): I rise to support the amendment to the motion moved by the member for Burdekin. I express my disappointment at the politicisation of a motion that is normally moved and seconded with bipartisan support. The fact that only working women are acknowledged rather than just women in Queensland generally, I think, is a reflection on the minister who did not even know the standing orders this morning about referring to a motion she had already moved and did not know the standing orders about personal reflections. She did not know anything about the body corporate bill yesterday and today she could not even deal with a dorothy dixer properly. In spite of the Beattie government’s gross attempt to bastardise this significant day, I would like to acknowledge International Women’s Day and support the amended motion that rightfully takes the politics out of this important day and recognises the value and contribution of women in Queensland. Queenslanders have celebrated International Women’s Day since 1929. I am happy to say that women have achieved many of the rights they deserve and I commend them on their achievements. Women’s suffrage has been a long battle in this country, born of the 1880s when the first women’s union was formed. In 1897 Australia saw a woman, Catherine Helen Spence, stand for federal election for the first time. In 1903 women won the right to vote in federal elections and this right to participate in government, I believe, was a turning point in this country’s politics. In 1915 Queensland women gained the right to stand for election to state parliament. The value of women in politics should never be underrated, as Australia’s first female parliamentarian, Edith Cowan, noted in her maiden speech in 1921. She said— Were the Minister for Railways forced to parade the streets of Perth for the whole of one afternoon, with a heavy infant in one arm and a bag of groceries on the other, it might make him more sensitive to the plight of mothers unable to bring prams to town because of the shilling charge for them on the train. Thankfully a lot has changed since 1920 and today we have many women from all sides of politics who make a positive contribution in debate and the political processes of this state. I and others thank these women for their input into this parliament. The success of young women in society today is certainly something we should be proud of. Our mothers, wives and daughters are not only an invaluable part of our own lives but also play an important role in society. Whether in the boardroom or at home, Queensland women and women in general are strong, resilient people who deserve the same rights men have. Unfortunately, women are all too familiar with a fight and the fight is continuing. In 2007 many women have still not achieved equal pay; women are still not present in equal numbers in the workforce and in parliament; and, in many respects, women are still worse off than men. While women are making ground on rectifying these injustices every day, perhaps the biggest fight they will encounter is the fight they sometimes have with themselves. 818 Motion 08 Mar 2007

The success and achievements of women have had the effect that many women today want to have it all—as they should if they so please. Many women feel under pressure to achieve everything, which is a big call for anyone, male or female. It is something that I am conscious of, with teenage daughters of my own. I am incredibly proud of my girls and as a parent I have always encouraged them to pursue whatever dreams they have in life, including any family aspirations they might have. Achieving equality for women should not result in reverse discrimination, where women who opt for the traditional family values are looked down upon for not pursuing their destiny in the corporate world. Traditional families will always be the backbone of our society and therefore I would like to take this opportunity to recognise women—those who are working and those who are bringing up the next generation of Queenslanders. Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (12.25 pm): I feel very privileged to be here today—not only as one of 30 proud female members of parliament but also as a mother, a daughter, a sister and a friend. Ms Jones: And minister. Ms Darling: And grandmother. Ms NELSON-CARR: I thank my colleagues. Thanks to our sisters before us who marched and fought for equality and the vote, being a female parliamentarian is a dream which any woman can aim for. I watch my own daughters as they progress through life, and I am thankful that they have so many opportunities open to them as a result of all of those who have worked so hard for an equal role in this society. Today we do indeed live in the lucky country. As minister for multiculturalism, I hear so often the plight of women from countries where freedom of speech is suppressed, education is denied and violence is the norm. I am saddened and horrified to hear the plight of women in regions such as the Sudan, where they fight daily for survival as they combat genocide and poverty. When I hear these stories I feel enormously proud that the Beattie government is confirming its commitment to refugees and immigrants through multicultural policies. For example, the Queensland government’s multicultural policy ‘Multicultural Queensland— making a world of difference’ commits to building a cohesive, united and harmonious society that accepts and respects cultural diversity. Departmental specific multicultural action plans reinforce the government’s policy to provide culturally sensitive and inclusive services to a culturally diverse community and address issues of marginalisation, disadvantage and of course discrimination. These policies ensure that new Australian families are provided with the best possible support as they are welcomed into our communities. There have been many examples of amazing women from diverse cultural backgrounds excelling in business, education, media, sports and the arts. Often they see Australia as a country where they can leave oppression behind and start a new life with their families. I know that the most important factor for many of these women is providing the best possible future for their children. However, the rights that so many have worked hard for and so many others come to Australia to seek are in grave jeopardy. John Howard’s workplace laws have made the workplace an even more unstable place for women than ever before. Equal wages and maternity leave are all under a cloud as the new laws start to unravel a system that will see the survival of the fittest. The Howard government has never been a friend of women. We only have to look at how few women have been represented in the Howard old boys cabinet over the last 11 years. It has been bad enough that Mr Howard and his old boys have kept women out of decision-making roles in government, but now with WorkChoices Howard has launched one of the most savage attacks on the working conditions of women that we have ever seen. Just today we have seen a new report which shows that women on average still earn $100 a week less than men. Under WorkChoices this could get worse. WorkChoices makes it legal for unscrupulous employers to pay people different rates for the same jobs. Until WorkChoices a man and a woman working side by side earned the same wages—not anymore. Today everyone is going to have to fend for themselves. Women who often have less time in the workforce due to child rearing and who require more flexible work practices and are impacted by matters such as child care and needing to be able to pick the kids up from school will be the really big losers. The fairness is gone and women will be the big losers. In contrast, the Beattie government’s commitment to women is second to none. In the EPA alone almost half of the workforce—or around a thousand members of staff—are females and 195 of these are rangers. Women make up a significant number of leadership roles in government departments and agencies. The fact that there are five female ministers in cabinet again highlights this fact. International Women’s Day is an opportunity not only to highlight the wonderful work being undertaken by women around our state but also to say let us not be complacent and let the Howard government and others take us back to the early 1900s. 08 Mar 2007 Motion 819

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.30 pm): International Women’s Day is a wonderful opportunity to acknowledge women in my community and in the broader community of Queensland and Australia. I celebrate all women. The member for Burdekin’s contribution attempted to put the focus where it should be: on International Women’s Day. Today we celebrate our daughters, sisters, mothers— Mr Lawlor: And grandmothers. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: And grandmothers. I am a grandmother now. Mr Lawlor: And great-grandmothers. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: And great-grandmothers. We celebrate the carers and the volunteers and all those who contribute so wonderfully to our community. We celebrate women who are working in the home who are sacrificially providing support without pay to their families. They are women to celebrate. We celebrate women working out of the home and recognise that for many families two jobs are essential to cover the cost of living and to provide shelter and support to the family. We also recognise the difficulties they face with child care and access to similar services. We celebrate women who are studying and we celebrate girls just being children. I commend those men, both here and outside this chamber, who support and encourage their daughters, wives, mothers, friends and coworkers to aspire to and achieve their goals, aspirations and potential. My mother, as would be the case with many members’ mums, had a country education and few of the opportunities that are available to women today but she succeeded as a wonderful wife and mother and I thank her. She was and is dedicated to her family. She is sacrificial and loving. I would not be where I am today without her support. Two generations on and our daughters have opportunities to gain tertiary education, trade skills and to drive those mega dump trucks. Opportunities are open to them not dreamt of years ago. I thank every woman through the years who has struggled to open and indeed crash through those barriers. The federal IR laws have great potential to undermine women in the workplace. They also have the potential to undermine men in the workplace. That fact has to be recognised, not only in the debate today but also in general conversation and lobbying in the weeks ahead. While not surprising, it is a little disappointing that this day established to celebrate women, their intelligence, resolve and achievements, has been used for political purposes. I understand the reasons for doing it, but I think it undermines the celebration of what International Women’s Day is. Women both here and overseas still face many hurdles. It is tragic to read the circumstances and environment that a lot of women overseas and, indeed, here in Australia live in. We have women who have little hope; they have no shelter or support; their family have deserted them and they have resorted to very destructive lifestyles. International Women’s Day is an opportunity to recognise their needs and desires. It is an opportunity to support them and support a system that will help bring them into an environment where they are able to succeed. Today I support the achievements of all women in all walks of life, not because we have no more obstacles to overcome but because we have women and men in our society determined to see our daughters, wives, mothers and grandmothers excel. They will; we will. Happy International Women’s Day. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (12.34 pm): International Women’s Day celebrates not only the achievements of women but also the battle women have had to achieve the lifestyle and freedoms that women in Australia enjoy today. Our hearts especially go out to women around the world who do not have these freedoms we enjoy today and who are just beginning this same battle in their own lands and our sisters who are living under war conditions and are exposed to atrocities and living standards well below what are experienced by developing countries. We had a moving example of this with the visit of an Afghani MP who described the difficulties she faces every day. I honour all of those women in Australia and around the world who have blazed the trail which we women are free to traverse today, not only in this parliament but also throughout Australia. But we cannot afford to take this freedom for granted. The Howard government has systematically worked to destroy these freedoms. Access to quality and affordable child care is essential for women in the workforce. Today 60 per cent of Queensland women are in the paid workforce and 33.9 per cent of small business operators are women; 36 per cent of Australian defence personnel are women; 20 per cent of Queensland’s Senior Executive Service Public Service positions are held by women. I could go on with these achievements despite the difficulties they have had over child care. I call on the federal government to start working with women. They are, after all, half of the Queensland population and half of Queensland voters. From the day the Howard government was elected the price of child care has risen steeply so that many women are paying in excess of half of their income to ensure their children are safely cared for. Others have had to leave the workforce. In fact, during the term of the Howard government many women, for the first time in many years, are finding themselves sacked when they become pregnant. The Howard government has continued to erode the 820 Motion 08 Mar 2007 quality of child care the average family can afford. But, to add insult to injury, it is now forcing mothers back into the workforce with its policy of removing parenting payments after their youngest child turns seven. We need to remain vigilant and express our anger at the actions of the Howard government. I call for the women of Australia to use this year’s election to express their disapproval. I am pleased that the Labor candidate for the electorate of Petrie, Yvette D’Ath, has a strong background in advocacy and stands up strongly for women. I am proud to belong to a party that affirms women and celebrates their achievements. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (12.37 pm): I rise today with a great deal of trepidation to speak to this motion relating to International Women’s Day. Many times we see differences of opinion in this place. I support the amendment moved to the motion by the member for Burdekin. I do not want to discount any of the speakers from the other side of the House. There are times when I am not proud to be called a bloke because of what happens in our everyday society in relation to crimes against women. There is one thing everybody in this House has in common and that is that we all had or do still have a mother. It is absolutely paramount that we respect those women, whether they are mothers or not. I am the father of two daughters and a son. My two daughters are now mothers and I am the proud grandfather of four beautiful little granddaughters. The point I make is that it is absolutely paramount that we recognise through the ages people like Caroline Chisholm, who, when this country was colonised all those years ago, pioneered to get a better deal for women. We can look back through the years at what has happened to women in this state and nation, and today I want to talk about the sexual crimes against women in our community. In 2004-05, there were 5,419 sexual crimes committed against people; in 2005-06, this figure increased by 21 per cent to 6,558. Of those crimes which occurred in 2004-05, there were 1,354 reports of rape and attempted rape; in 2005-06, this increased to 1,444. In 2004-05, the number of other sexual offences reported was 4,065, and this increased to 5,114 in 2005-06. We must also remember that a lot of women and girls out there never report crimes committed against them and they carry those scars for the rest of their lives. I say to the justice department that these limp-wristed magistrates need to get a bit tougher when these crimes are committed against women. We hear what is happening in the northern suburbs of Brisbane, where women cannot even enjoy recreational activities without risking their liberty being deprived. Sentencing has to be made tougher for these people. I also want to canvass here today the plight of our Indigenous sisters who are incarcerated in this state because of acts of violence against them. There are 120 Indigenous women in our prisons today, and we have to look at the main reason for them being there—that is, they have had their liberty deprived by a drunken man who has been in a rage, probably because of that alcohol, and he could not control his sexual desires or emotions against those women and their children. That situation cannot be condoned any longer in this society. The recent edition of the Australian magazine dated 6 or 7 March reported what is happening against women and kids in central Australia, but I have to say that it is not only happening in central Australia; it is happening in this state of ours which we are all a part of. Together we can do something about it and, as the Indigenous spokesman on this side of the House, I intend to do something about it. The issue is not about building more prisons for women in Queensland, especially in those Indigenous communities. It is about building diversionary centres where these women can be given the protection they deserve so they can go about their lives when their issue is resolved and some sanity and stabilisation can be returned to the community. I say to the federal government too that the CDEP programs are not working. When we have men working four or five hours a week and sitting idle for the rest of their time, that is a recipe for disaster. We have to educate our society that women are not sex objects but they must be respected in the highest way for the integral roles they play and uphold in our everyday lives. In conclusion, former American President Thomas Jefferson said, ‘All men are born equal’; let us never forget that women are a part of that equality. I hope we can make a difference in the lives of women in Queensland, especially our Indigenous sisters, as we go about making that change. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (12.43 pm): Each year on 8 March, hundreds of International Women’s Day events occur all around the world. International Women’s Day events range from small, random, informal gatherings to large-scale, highly organised events. All of these events celebrate women’s advancement and highlight the need for continued vigilance and action. In Cambodia, a photographic exhibition entitled ‘From disaster to success: daily life of women and girls across Cambodia’ will showcase the remarkable contribution women have made to rebuilding Cambodia since the 1970s. In Vancouver, women will march at the ‘Unite against attacks on women at home and abroad’ event focusing on domestic violence. In Nepal, women will attend various workshops on human rights and personal development. 08 Mar 2007 Motion 821

Right around the globe, women will be rocking their communities by setting challenges for society for improved conditions and opportunities for women and girls. Right around the globe, women’s achievements are being celebrated—women in science, women in business, women in health and women in communities working together to help others. I feel so proud that women in many countries have taken charge, and many of these women through adversity are remarkably committed to making change.

However, on this International Women’s Day in 2007, it makes me angry that, with all the fantastic achievements being achieved and inroads being made in so many arenas, women are being forced to fight for one of the most valuable and dignifying privileges, and that is their rights in the workplace. In Australia and here in Queensland, on this International Women’s Day women will be fighting for their right to workplace security, for a fair and just industrial relations system that secures their ability to balance work and family commitments. Women will be fighting against the federal Liberal government’s destructive WorkChoices industrial relations regime. These laws are destructive to the lifestyle men and women have valued for so long. Women are now being forced to choose between boss and family, to sign AWAs that cut out benefits, cut out bargaining powers, cut out protection and security of some employment tenure and cut out overtime- earning opportunities. I wonder what answers or assistance those on the other side of this House can provide to a young lady who has been sacked for highlighting inequities in the roster system, escorted from that workplace by two burly blokes into a dark car park without other staff or without even being allowed to phone home to ask for assistance and support. I wonder what answers they will provide to the many women and girls from whom we hear stories about how WorkChoices and AWAs have cost them their dignity, their livelihood and their lifestyle. The challenge this International Women’s Day is for women of the Liberal and National parties to stick by their sisters and oppose those destructive federal industrial relations laws. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (12.46 pm): It is great to be able to stand up here today and represent the women of my electorate on International Women’s Day. I note that the government’s motion says ‘know your rights’. One of the rights of my constituents is simply to have basic health care in Queensland. In mid-December 2006, a constituent of mine had a pap smear test with her local GP in Dalby. The results showed a CIN-3 and she was referred to Dr Gibson at the Toowoomba health services for further tests. The first available appointment was on 8 February 2007. My constituent received a phone call three days prior to the appointment on 5 February 2007 and was advised that the appointment was postponed to 8 March 2007. She was advised that the doctor at the Toowoomba health services in attendance was taking emergency leave. My constituent received a phone call on 6 March 2007 and was advised that the appointment was postponed until 14 June 2007—and this is a girl who has a very serious chance of something being very wrong. When that happens to a woman, she wants it cleared up immediately. On receipt of this phone call, my constituent inquired about acquiring an earlier appointment with another doctor and was advised that she would need her local GP to undertake another procedure and go through the process again. My constituent’s brother-in-law, who is a Brisbane doctor, advised that the diagnosis of a CIN-3 result should receive attendance within a four-week time frame. He advised my constituent to go back to her local GP for another test, get a referral to Dr Bob Bade at Ipswich General Hospital and request an appointment within two weeks. She undertook another test yesterday with the local GP and is awaiting an appointment date within the next two weeks with Dr Bob Bade. This lady has had to bypass our health services at Toowoomba and go all the way to Ipswich to simply have her medical condition looked after. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Member for Darling Downs, can you return to the motion? Mr HOPPER: The motion says ‘know your rights’, and I think one of the basic rights of a woman living under the leadership of our Queensland government is having a health system that can support her. We have heard today about what has happened with the federal government and how it is getting stuck into women in the workplace. What about the basic health right of our women who live in Queensland? I ask the government that. The government cannot even provide that, yet its members stand here and squawk. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (12.49 pm): I rise to speak on the motion on International Women’s Day. I will actually speak to the member for Burdekin’s amendment to the motion that recognises international women on 8 March, notes that the Queensland government is celebrating International Women’s Day and honours the contribution and achievements of all women in Queensland. I have spoken before in this House on International Women’s Day and I do accept that you have to actually honour the achievements of women. Women in the workforce or women who gained the right to vote from 1905 are not the only women who have ever contributed. 822 Motion 08 Mar 2007

Since the beginning of time women have been contributing but their contributions have not been recognised by historians. Women have always contributed to things in the world. Like many other speakers have said we all have mothers, wives, grandmothers and daughters and they have always made great contributions to our lives. Even if women do not own the small businesses, the farms or the large businesses in our areas they still contribute with their backroom knowledge and corporate knowledge. The contribution that the member for Burdekin and the member for Currumbin made to their local communities before they became members of parliament was phenomenal. This is what we really should be celebrating. My wife, Ann, has contributed much and has always given me assistance. Our party has always supported women and will continue to do so. A Country Party woman was the first woman elected to this parliament. A National Party woman was the first woman minister in this House. Joan Sheldon was the first Deputy Premier in this parliament. This side of the House has always supported women and will continue to support women. I note what the member for Gregory said about domestic violence not only in Indigenous populations but also in all populations. What goes on is horrific. I am sure every member in this House would like to see that stopped. My grandmother used to have a saying which probably relates a bit to politics as well: ‘Love many, trust few and always paddle your own canoe.’ I think women should always do that. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (12.51 pm): International Women’s Day is not just about celebration; it is also about continuing the fight because without the fights and the struggles of the women who have gone before us there would be no celebration. This year’s theme ‘Women at work: Know your rights, it’s your future’ honours the contribution and achievements of working women and it goes to the core of the most basic of rights—that is, job security. Of course, with the Howard government’s decimation of workers’ rights through the appalling WorkChoices regime knowing one’s rights at work will be much easier than before because there are so few of them left. Let us see what rights we have. We have the right to sign an individual contract or an AWA or be sacked or not even get the job that a person is applying for in the first place, the right to agree to whatever conditions or lack thereof the boss wants a person to have and the right to negotiate the terms of that contract—how much the person will be paid, the hours, the work, whether they get regular days off, parent leave, sick leave, holidays or penalty rates. It sounds good doesn’t it? Unless one is a young woman. In fact most women and many men are completely powerless in the face of an employer’s power, but young women are most vulnerable in this situation. What about the right to be sacked without explanation because there are no longer any unfair dismissal laws, the right to be sacked because the boss does not like the person any more or because someone told a lie about them or because the boss’s cousin came back from overseas and wants his job back or because the person is not pretty enough. I have had complaints from young women about all of these scenarios. The last one was particularly disturbing. It occurred in a new local hotel where one would think that there would be more than 100 employees and that staff would be protected by the few unfair dismissal laws that exist. That is wrong because they are all casual. Waiters and bar staff have absolutely no recourse in these situations. Women make up the majority of casual and part-time workers, particularly in the retail and tourism industries which are the Gold Coast’s major employers. The women seeking employment in these industries—positions such as cleaners, bar staff, waiters, glassies, juniors and casual sales staff—are the most vulnerable of all. They are likely to be unskilled. They may be single or struggling young parents. They are likely to be between the ages of 15 and 25. They are likely to have lower educational outcomes or confidence. They may even be migrants with limited English. I can just see them negotiating their AWA with the local publican. With the ironically named WorkChoices industrial regime the Howard government has shamefully abandoned the most vulnerable and needy in our society to favour the most wealthy and powerful. WorkChoices destroys families, continues and increases the wage inequities between men and women, removes all fairness from the workplace and will continue the cycle of poverty and unemployment in which our most disadvantaged Australians are trapped. The opposition and some Independent members, while quite rightly applauding the enormous strides made by women particularly in this country over the last 100 years, seem to be forgetting that not all women are empowered, educated, skilled, confident and able to enjoy the freedoms our society has to offer. Many women would love the choice to stay at home raising babies in a loving, caring environment with a supportive husband or partner, but many simply do not have that choice. But whether women have to or want to work they all deserve job security in a fair and just workplace. We have fought too hard for these conditions. Women have fought for a 100 years for better conditions and equality for women and for family friendly workplaces and the Howard government threatens all that work. He wants to send women back to the kitchen—barefoot and pregnant. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 823

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.54 pm): I rise in support of the women of Queensland and International Women’s Day. International Women’s Day is celebrated around the world and marks a time for women, divided by distance and by ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic and political differences, to unite to remember a tradition that represents a rich history of struggle for equality, justice, peace and advancement. Each International Women’s Day the Milperra State High School celebrates the diversity of women in Queensland with students who are refugees from many cultures around the world. This morning principal Adele Rice will present a bursary in honour and memory of Kathleen Bourke, a much loved and devoted staff member of the school who poured her heart into providing support and comfort to young people to help assimilate them into the Australian culture. The historical colours which highlight International Women’s Day—white for purity, purple for dignity, self-reverence and self-respect and green for hope and new life—also describe Kathleen’s respect and concern for people, particularly those who have experienced many traumas in the countries of their birth. The colours, and I thank all members of the House for wearing them today, unified the movement and also emphasised the femininity of the suffragettes. There are many talented and competent women in this parliament, particularly on the government side, who make a tremendous contribution to their respective electorates and this state. The tone of the parliament since the number of women members has increased has certainly improved in relation to the dignity, passion and courtesy that is shown, as has the quality of the debate. The recognises the value of women in leadership roles and acknowledges that their equal participation in these roles can only enhance the quality of decisions of government in relation to the lives of men, women and their families in this country. Here are some interesting statistics concerning women as leaders. Some 33.7 per cent of Queensland state parliamentarians are women. This is the fourth highest female parliamentary representation in the world. Some 34 per cent of Queensland state government board positions are held by women. Women hold 20.3 per cent of Queensland Senior Executive Service Public Service positions. Women hold 8.6 per cent of board directorships in Australian companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Happy International Women’s Day everyone. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (12.57 pm): I am proud to rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the minister for women. The federal government’s WorkChoices regime is part of a carefully crafted suite of changes to attack working conditions in our country. If a person is a vulnerable worker, WorkChoices means that they can no longer count on a fair wage but only whatever wage they are given on a take it or leave it basis. But who are the most vulnerable members of our workforce? They are disproportionately women, disproportionately sole parents and disproportionately in casual employment. This attack on the conditions of the most vulnerable women in our community is only heightened by changes to Centrelink’s parenting payment. Under this proposal, as soon as one’s child turns seven, a person is forced to go through JobSearch requirements to keep their payment. I can assure members that sole parents, predominantly women, are not living a life of luxury on $512 per fortnight and are choosing that over full-time or part- time employment. These already vulnerable workers have no guarantee of fairness but are given whatever they can get on a take it or leave it basis. They have the added threat of losing what little benefits they currently get. WorkChoices is an insidious attack on the vulnerable working women of Queensland. Queensland’s working women are lucky to have the current minister for women working hard to protect their rights whether at work or in our community more generally. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 51—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Shine, Smith, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1.06 pm to 2.30 pm.

WHISTLEBLOWERS (DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 31 October 2006 (see p. 280). Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned. 824 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Government Backbencher, CMC Investigation Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (2.30 pm), by leave: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition indicated at a media conference that I was under investigation by the Crime and Misconduct Commission. This is not true. His assertions are based on unfounded rumour. At the heart of these rumours is that somehow I benefited from a government contract awarded through shares owned by myself or my family. This is not true. I have always followed the rules when it comes to declarations under the pecuniary interests register. As a backbencher and following my appointment as a parliamentary secretary, I sought advice from the Clerk of the Parliament and the Integrity Commissioner regarding my shareholdings and those of my spouse. In fact, the advice of the Integrity Commissioner I sought on two occasions. The Premier asked me to meet with him and the Deputy Premier to respond to these unfounded rumours following inquiries from two journalists. The Premier referred these matters to the CMC and the Integrity Commissioner, and that is indeed his prerogative and I am not concerned about that. Nevertheless, I would not be concerned if there was an investigation because I have acted appropriately and done nothing wrong.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Before the member for Caloundra commences, I acknowledge in the gallery the presence of Mr Tom McLoughlin, the former mayor of Caboolture shire.

WHISTLEBLOWERS (DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 823. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (2.33 pm): Before I commence in detail with regard to the bill, it is very clear that the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 is there to protect whistleblowers where a government is not prepared to subject itself to open and public examination about legitimate matters of public concern. The member for Greenslopes just two seconds ago stood up in this House and read out a statement. I take it that the member for Greenslopes is stating that he is the member the Premier has referred to the CMC for investigation. Mr MOORHEAD: I rise to a point of order. I ask what relevance this poses to the bill before the House. Mr McARDLE: I take a point of order with the language used by the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Members, we have a point of order raised by the member for Waterford in relation to relevance. The matter raised is not relevant to the debate. I would ask the member to refrain from any further comment. Mr McARDLE: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your ruling on the issue of whistleblowers. I understand the Premier stood in this House earlier this morning and made the comment that he had been approached by two persons from the media. They are therefore, in a loose sense, whistleblowers. I therefore ask— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Caloundra, are you finished? Mr McARDLE: No, I am not. In those circumstances, this does fall within the issue of whistleblowers. This is exactly what this act is all about—the right of individuals to make a statement so that maladministration is viewed and looked at by the appropriate body. It is whistleblower to the very heart and core of what this House and this bill is all about. Procedure—Deputy Speaker’s Ruling—Relevance to Bill Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In terms of your request for a ruling, if you look at the objectives of the bill, and indeed if you look at the whistleblowers act of 1994, you have referred to two journalists as whistleblowers. My ruling would be that they do not constitute whistleblowers. Whether it was mentioned in this House or not, the matter is not relevant. I have ruled that the matter is not relevant to the debate and I have asked you to discontinue that line of comment. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 825

Mr McARDLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly comply with your ruling. This bill causes the opposition to once again have serious concerns about the willingness of the Beattie government to subject itself to open and public examination of legitimate matters of public concern, and we state at the outset that we will not be supporting it. Following the traumas of the Fitzgerald inquiry and the reforms implemented to public sector administration in this state, the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 was introduced with the intention of providing a mechanism to provide whistleblowers in units of public administration in Queensland with protection from discrimination, harm and other consequences from the system when they raised matters of legitimate public concern, and to enable them to continue to pursue their career in public administration after raising these concerns. The intention of the act is to protect those whistleblowers who become aware of major issues of public maladministration which can only be addressed by a disclosure mechanism outside the traditional hierarchical structures of public administration. Unfortunately, as we all know, hierarchical bureaucrats have a great tendency to protect themselves and the governments they serve and conceal issues that might embarrass the government. The establishment of the whistleblower protection mechanisms, whilst having the potential to lead to short-term embarrassment for particular governments, was generally agreed to as being an important advance in ensuring an effective and efficient public sector free of the level of corruption that commonly appears when power is exercised which affects the actions of individuals and the potential profits available to individuals. There has been in Queensland bipartisan support for these principles and for their extension to the widest possible areas of the public sector. The government claims that the current bill is based on recommendations of the PCMC in its three-year review of the CMC in 2004 and recommendations arising from the Davies commission of inquiry and the Forster review arising from the Dr Patel incident. The bill, however, does not—and I repeat does not—address the recommendations of the PCMC in its report No. 71 of October 2006, which was yet another three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. These recommendations were many in number, but I will only cite a few because they are very relevant to the bill today. Recommendation 22 reads— The Committee recommends that Government public interest disclosures received by an agency, other than those involving official misconduct, should be referred to the Ombudsman in the first instance with the Ombudsman either investigating the disclosure or referring it back to the agency to conduct the investigation. The Ombudsman would retain the power to monitor, take over or review the investigation. Recommendation 23 states— The Committee recommends that the categories of persons who may make a public interest disclosure protected by the Whistleblowers Protection Act be expanded in cases involving danger to public health and safety, and negligent or improper management of public funds, to include any person or body. Recommendation 24 states— The Committee recommends that: (1) Whistleblowers should be able to escalate their complaint in the event that there is no satisfactory action taken by the relevant department within 30 days. If the matter is not resolved in that time to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman, the whistleblower should be able to make a public interest disclosure to a Member of Parliament; and (2) If disclosure to a Member of Parliament does not result in resolution, to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman, within a further 30 days, the whistleblower should be entitled to make a further public interest disclosure to the media. Recommendation 25 states— The Committee recommends that the Ombudsman takes the lead role (supported by the CMC) for ensuring that agencies are appropriately administering their responsibilities under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. Recommendation 26 states— The Committee recommends that the CMC (in conjunction with the Ombudsman and the Office of the Public Service Commissioner) work together to develop guidelines to assist agencies to properly handle and record details of public interest disclosures. The bill ignores these recommendations, which were reflected in a private member’s bill, the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006, which the opposition introduced and which the government used its numbers to defeat. This bill incorporated the recommendations of the Davies report into the Dr Patel disgrace at the Bundaberg Base Hospital as well as those latest amendments that were recommended by the PCMC. The Beattie government’s action raises real questions about the willingness of the government to make the Whistleblowers Protection Act truly effective. The coalition will oppose this bill because of the failure of this government to properly address those real issues confronting whistleblowers who seek to expose the failures in public administration of the Beattie government. The terms of this bill raise concerns about the government’s real intentions. Clause 4 provides that a member of this House is a person to whom a public interest disclosure can be made. It further provides that the member may refer the disclosure to a public sector entity. 826 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

The original explanatory notes at page 3 provided that the member ‘must’ refer the public interest disclosure to a public sector entity identified under the division. That would mean that the system would have the capacity to protect itself from matters which whistleblowers might raise with a member of parliament. On 23 January 2007, virtually three months after the bill was introduced, the government issued an amendment to the explanatory notes indicating that the original notes were in error and that the government’s intention is that a member may refer the disclosure to a public sector entity, not must. The question that has to be asked by the people of Queensland is very clear: is this just a drafting error or is this, in fact, the real intention of this Beattie government as disclosed in the original explanatory notes? If the intention of the government was that members of parliament who receive a public interest disclosure must refer it to the relevant authorities for investigation, that would constitute a grave attack on both whistleblowers and on the rights and privileges of members to use this House as a forum in which they could raise matters of significant public concern. The Attorney-General must give a very clear explanation as to what led to these circumstances in order to assure the House and the people of Queensland of the real intentions of this government. I am certain that the Attorney-General will do exactly that in his reply. This clarification is needed because clause 5 of the bill amends section 26 of the act to provide that a member of this House is not an appropriate entity to receive public interest disclosures about courts, tribunals, judicial officers, government owned corporations or corporatised corporations unless permitted to do so other than under proposed section 26(1A) or section 261(1)(c) of the act. It is claimed that the act’s administration does not detrimentally affect judicial work or independence or the commercial operation of GOCs and corporatised corporations. This clause may impact on the capacity of a member of parliament to receive complaints about judges and judicial bodies and to raise such complaints in parliament or publicly. Public scrutiny of judicial action is a fundamental protection for all citizens. Members of parliament must not be inhibited from playing their part in this scrutiny of the judiciary. The minister must specify clearly what impact this provision will have on the capacity of members to raise in this House legitimate matters—and I mean that: legitimate matters—of concern about the actions of judicial officers. Similarly, concern exists about the impact of these provisions on the capacity of members to raise concerns about the many corporatised entities through which the government now operates. The minister must state clearly whether any element of this legislation impacts on the capacity of members to use this House as a forum in which to pursue issues relating to these bodies, which deliver so many vital services to Queenslanders. Clause 8 of the bill inserts a new section 28A which provides that a public interest disclosure or purported public interest disclosure made to a member of this House may be referred to any appropriate entity that the member considers has the power to investigate or remedy the conduct which is the subject of the disclosure. Under this provision, a member may refer a public interest disclosure to an appropriate entity that is not another member of the House. Proposed new section 28A(2) provides that a member of the House who receives a public interest disclosure or purported public interest disclosure has no role in the investigation of the matters disclosed. This clause raises significant concerns for the opposition, because the possibility exists that this provision limits the capacity of a member of parliament who has been approached by a potential whistleblower from investigating further any complaint brought to their attention by a potential whistleblower before determining whether the matter will be raised in the House or referred to the appropriate public sector entity. This is a potential limitation on the role that members can play in investigating whether major public malfeasance has occurred. As I have said in this House in the past, this is the House of the people. If a member of parliament is hamstrung in any way in relation to his obligation to investigate malfeasance or maladministration for and on behalf of a member of the public or the community at large, this House no longer has a basis on which to stand. The terms of proposed new section 28A(2) go to the very heart of what a member of parliament does on a daily basis both here and outside of this House. Clause 8 also inserts new section 28B which provides specifically that the operation of the act does not limit the manner in which members of this House deal with matters in the parliament. It is not intended that the Crime and Misconduct Commission will have any role in relation to breaches committed within the confines of parliamentary privilege. The role of the Crime and Misconduct Commission in relation to section 57 of the act is intended to be limited to breaches committed outside the scope of parliamentary privilege, leaving parliament to address breaches committed within the confines of parliamentary privilege. The explanatory notes acknowledge that the bill infringes fundamental legislative principles. If this amending legislation becomes law without amendments to the parliamentary standing orders, a member of parliament would be free to discuss most public interest disclosures within the Assembly because of the broadness of privilege in this House. The implications of this situation relate to protecting the whistleblower, protecting against unfounded allegations being made public and preserving the integrity of any investigation process. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 827

Therefore, the government proposes to amend the standing orders to provide guidance to members about how to balance the objective of the act to protect the identity of the person making the public interest disclosure and the integrity of the investigation process with parliamentary privilege and the legitimate rights of members to raise issues in parliament. The effect of the proposed amendments to standing orders will potentially limit the capacity of both whistleblowers and members of parliament who they approach to take action following complaints about matters of concern. The standing orders are a critical component of the day-to-day operations of this House. Every member understands that. But if the standing orders are and have the intent of compromising or limiting the operation or powers of a member of parliament to investigate whistleblower suggestions or disclosures made to him or her, in my opinion they are against the true intention of the act and against the true intention of a member of parliament having the right to protect the rights of individuals and the community. The coalition is deeply concerned about this potential, particularly as it follows the government’s amendments to legislation that was designed to remove the potential for members and ministers being subject to criminal sanctions for lying to the parliament. If a member who receives a public interest disclosure refers such matter to a relevant authority to investigate, the member must arguably surrender any further role in pursuing an investigation of the matter. If a member does not refer the matter but raises it in the House, then the potential exists for the government through the standing orders that it enacts to regulate and control how and what a member might raise in the House. Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental protection which protects not only members but also the community through a member’s capacity to raise matters without fear or favour. The coalition remains deeply concerned about the capacity of a government, particularly the Beattie government, to impose limitations through standing orders on our capacity to pursue issues—particularly given recent experiences. The explanatory notes provide that clause 15 is not intended to limit the powers, rights and immunities of the Legislative Assembly and its members and committees in relation to a disclosure received by a member. Nor is it intended that the Crime and Misconduct Commission will have any role in relation to breaches committed within the confines of parliamentary privilege. The Crime and Misconduct Commission’s role in relation to section 57 of the act is intended to be limited to breaches committed outside the scope of parliamentary privilege, leaving parliament to address breaches committed within the confines of parliamentary privilege. It is clear from these comments that clause 15 continues the approach that the Beattie government adopted in relation to former minister Nuttall lying to a parliamentary estimates committee of using its parliamentary numbers to protect those it favours. This means that a member of parliament who discloses a matter raised by a whistleblower to the parliament which embarrasses the government runs the risk that the government, through its control of parliamentary numbers in this House, can punish that member for contempt of the parliament. It is because of these concerns that the coalition will be opposing this bill. If we look at the various legislation throughout Australia and overseas as well, we will see that there is a great divergence in what whistleblower protection encompasses and who individuals can report to. In New South Wales, section 19 of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 allows disclosure to a member of parliament and to a journalist provided certain conditions apply. As I understand it, New South Wales is the only state to allow disclosures to the media. In South Australia, variations include allowing disclosure to a minister, while in Victoria disclosure can be to the Ombudsman. Tasmania’s legislation mirrors that of Victoria with subtle differences. Western Australia’s legislation is similar to that of Tasmania and Victoria, yet they are not at this point in time uniform anywhere throughout the Commonwealth. I also understand that the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act allows disclosures to the media. The bill before the House does not do so, and I would have thought that would have been a natural progression if we are now incorporating members of parliament as having the authority, or at least the right, to receive disclosures. In addition, I understand the Commonwealth has no real legislation on this issue. Accordingly, we have a series of acts dealing with the one principle but nothing uniform across the country. Due to the importance of whistleblowers in ensuring maladministration and other public sector complaints are properly investigated, I would ask the Attorney-General whether he would consider referring this matter to SCAG to establish uniform legislation across the Commonwealth covering this very important principle that dictates many lives throughout this country. I consider this an appropriate consideration given the importance of this type of legislation, based upon our own very recent history here in Queensland. I reiterate that the coalition will not be supporting this legislation. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (2.53 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006. Members will recall the government’s two inquiries, the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission and the Queensland Health Systems Review—the Forster and Davies reports—which identified the need for improvements in 828 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007 whistleblower protection. The Minister for Health has advised that Queensland Health has received 67 public interest disclosures under the Whistleblowers Protection Act in the past 3½ years. This government has identified and highlighted the need for the protection and support of whistleblowers. The objective of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, as it now stands, is to encourage and safeguard people who come forward with information that discloses official misconduct or maladministration or waste or risks to public or environmental health or safety. The objective of the act is to get such information quickly into the hands of someone who can take steps to remedy the problem— for example, the appropriate Public Service authority—and then to protect the person who made the disclosure. The Whistleblowers Protection Act is an important component of the integrity framework that the Queensland public sector operates within and is administered by the Office of the Public Service Commissioner in collaboration with the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Integrity Commissioner. Whistleblowers are critical to the accountability process of government. This bill ensures that there is an independent arbiter—that is, a person who has the authority and wherewithal to stand in the public interest to ensure that matters are being appropriately resolved. People usually come to see their local MP after all avenues have been investigated. It is typically as a last resort and in desperation that whistleblowers call for help from their MP. The government’s bill ensures that disclosures can be made to an MP at any time and that potentially inappropriate time frames are not rigidly set. These disclosures should be able to be provided at any time and not have some time limit, particularly as matters of public interest are often sensitive and complex and require a comprehensive investigation. Getting to the heart of the matter and making recommendations for improvements cannot be limited by time constraints. The bill implements a recommendation from the Forster report and provides a further option for whistleblowers to raise public interest disclosures without any restrictive time frames. A responsible government cannot allow public interest disclosures of untested allegations to the media. The danger of making public such allegations would unjustly damage the reputation of those against whom the allegations have been made. An overriding principle of the Whistleblowers Protection Act that we enjoy in this state is to ensure that the confidentiality of the person making the disclosure is preserved to help create an environment where whistleblowers will come forward. However, it is equally important that people against whom allegations are made do not have their reputations unjustly harmed by the airing of unsubstantiated claims. Employees’ trustworthiness and the necessity to protect people’s reputations from unfair criticism must be balanced in the law we have before the House. Under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, anyone can make a public interest disclosure about danger to the health or safety of a person with a disability or in relation to offences endangering the environment. The government has carefully considered those areas where expanding coverage of the act is needed. Employees in positions where they may become aware of wrongdoing and where they may have a concern that they might be the subject of reprisal if they were to make an unprotected disclosure need to be covered under the act. The protections available to the whistleblower are very significant. There is no civil liability for whistleblowers. Likewise, there is no criminal liability. A person disclosing information they honestly believe reveals misconduct or other public detriments can put it in the hands of someone who can fix it and be protected from civil and criminal liability and any other kind of reprisal when they do it. Under the government’s bill, the whistleblower can go to their member of parliament straightaway and be protected. The relationship between the people and their elected servants should be immediate and direct. The bill preserves that ideal—an ideal that is essential to our democratic society. Whistleblower protection is about ensuring that wrongdoings within the public sector are fixed up, and this legislation will do that much more effectively. Our right to speak in this House is the oldest and best protection for the citizen who needs to have information disclosed. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.00 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006. The explanatory notes accompanying this bill describe its objective as allowing public interest disclosures to be made to members of the Legislative Assembly and to extend whistleblower protection to people engaged by public sector entities on an individual contract of service. The same explanatory notes indicate that the rationale for the bill gives effect to recommendations from the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee’s three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission report No. 64 that there be a review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. The review was subsequently undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner but the report was delayed pending completion of the Forster and Davies inquiries into Queensland Health. This has clearly been a sensible decision in view of the seriousness of the issues that were being considered by those two inquiries. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 829

In the wake of the Queensland Health Systems Review—the Forster report—and the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry—the Davies report—the review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 being undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner was expanded to take into consideration recommendations concerning whistleblower protection in these two documents. The Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 was legislation enacted to provide a mechanism to protect whistleblowers in the Public Service in Queensland from any form of discrimination, disadvantage, intimidation, harm or reprisal as a result of their actions and to make it possible for them to continue their work in the Public Service. The act protects the whistleblower from civil or criminal liability for making a disclosure. Clearly the act is an extremely important piece of legislation and it is of paramount importance that its provisions provide an appropriate level of protection for whistleblowers in Queensland developed in accordance with the best advice that the government of the day has to hand. As such, it is of concern that this is not the case with respect to the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006. The government advises that this bill is based on the recommendations of the PCMC report No. 64 and the recommendations of the Forster and Davies inquiries. The PCMC report No. 64 was tabled in March 2004. At the time the fifth PCMC cited a number of concerns with the existing scope of whistleblowers’ protection—concerns that have previously been discussed and highlighted by its predecessor committee, the fourth PCMC. In particular, the fourth PCMC had noted that while the act imposed legislative obligations on public sector agencies to deal effectively with public sector disclosures and protect whistleblowers from reprisals, if there was not a strong commitment to the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 within a particular organisation, the effectiveness of the legislation could be limited. Specifically, the committee pointed to what it perceived to be a gap in the provision of support programs to whistleblowers in the public sector and, as such, there was inadequate protection of whistleblowers under the current act. Like the fourth PCMC, the fifth PCMC, which tabled report No. 64, recommended that the government give consideration to a full review of whistleblower protection in Queensland, including the provisions of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 as the review recommended by the fourth PCMC had not been implemented. Both the fourth and fifth PCMCs gave an opinion that such a review would address issues with respect to the roles of the Criminal Justice Commission and the Office of Public Service Merit and Equity, the need for an oversight body and an interagency committee, training and support of public sector managers and other public sector employees, research needs in the area of whistleblower protection and reporting to parliament on whistleblower protection. Subsequently, the recommendation of the fifth PCMC for a review was implemented and a reference committee was formed comprising representatives of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Office of Public Service Merit and Equity, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The reference committee was to conduct a whole-of-government review of the experience of public sector agencies in relation to the operation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 and make recommendations for amendments to the act in light of that review. The finalisation of the report was delayed in 2005 because it was considered likely that issues relevant to the protection of whistleblowers might be canvassed during the Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry and the Queensland Health Systems Review. The working group was re-formed in March 2006 and it prepared a report that took into account issues raised in the Forster and Davies reports in relation to the protection of whistleblowers. Of particular interest were comments made by the Queensland Ombudsman in his submission. The ombudsman stated—

In my submissions to three inquiries arising from problems at the Bundaberg Hospital, I have argued that the current decentralised whistleblowing model, whereby the recognition, investigation and resolution of a public interest disclosure (PID) can be handled totally within the agency whose officers are the subject of the PID, needs to be modified. In summary, my recommendations to these inquiries were that: 1. PIDs received by an agency, other than those involving official misconduct, should be referred to the Ombudsman in the first instance (under similar arrangements to those whereby PIDs involving official misconduct are referred to the CMC); and 2. The Ombudsman would either investigate the disclosure or refer it back to the agency to conduct the investigation, which the Ombudsman would be empowered to monitor, take over or review (as the CMC is empowered to do with PIDs involving official misconduct). The Ombudsman cited comments by Commissioner Davies in his report on the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry in November 2005 where he stated—

At present there is no single body charged with overseeing public interest disclosures within the Queensland public sector (save where that public interest disclosure involves official misconduct). In my opinion this is a serious shortcoming. As the facts revealed in this inquiry showed, it was futile to expect Queensland Health to manage public interest disclosures about itself with no external oversight. 830 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

There was agreement between Commissioner Davies and the Queensland Ombudsman on these matters during the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry. In that report Commissioner Davies adopted the Queensland Ombudsman’s recommendations for improving whistleblowing in Queensland. In particular, Commissioner Davies recommended that— The Queensland Ombudsman be given an oversight role with respect to all public interest disclosures save those involving official misconduct and that all PIDs be referred to the Ombudsman who may either investigate the disclosure itself, or refer it back to the relevant department for investigation, subject to monitoring by the Ombudsman. The categories of persons who may make a PID protected by the WP Act be expanded in cases involving danger to public health and safety, and negligent or improper management of public funds, to include any person or body. Commissioner Davies further recommended that— Whistleblowers should be able to escalate their complaint in the event that there is no satisfactory action taken by the relevant department within 30 days. If the matter is not resolved in that time to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman, the whistleblower should be able to make a PID to a member of parliament. If disclosure to a member of parliament does not result in resolution, to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman, within a further 30 days, the whistleblower should be entitled to make a further PID to the media. The fifth PCMC supported the views of the Queensland Ombudsman and Commissioner Davies and on 9 October 2006 submitted to the Queensland parliament report No. 71 containing five recommendations that I placed on the record in February this year during debate on the Queensland coalition’s Whistleblower Protection Amendment Bill. Given that those recommendations have already been placed on the record and again today by the member for Caloundra, I do not propose to list them again save to say that they were significant recommendations and, given that they were put forward by the Ombudsman and Commissioner Davies and then supported by the fifth PCMC, they deserve to be seriously considered by the government for implementation. We can see that there is a high degree of consensus concerning the nature of changes required to ensure that appropriate levels of protection are afforded to whistleblowers in Queensland and that there are well developed concepts in these recommendations which provide a strong basis for amendments to the act reflecting the best advice that the government of the day has to hand. The question is then: why are these recommendations absent from the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006 which is currently before the House? The bill was introduced by the Premier on 31 October 2006 subsequent to the tabling of the fifth PCMC report No. 71 on 9 October 2006. The government demonstrated a willingness to delay the work of the reference committee reviewing the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 to consider the findings of the Forster and Davies inquiries, and rightly so. I have acknowledged that this was sensible. However, why would the government not consider it similarly opportune to incorporate into this bill the recommendations of the fifth PCMC report No. 71, which reflected the considered opinions of the Queensland Ombudsman and Commissioner Davies with respect to shortcomings in the Queensland whistleblower legislation? This would have been sensible and it would have brought the whistleblower legislation up to date. None of the recommendations from the fifth PCMC report No. 71 are provided for in this bill. There is no mention of referring matters to the Ombudsman. There is no provision for the categories of persons able to make a public interest disclosure to be expanded. There is no mechanism for whistleblowers to escalate their complaint in the event that the matter is not dealt with by the department appropriately. There is no provision for the Ombudsman to take a greater role in monitoring the application of the Whistleblowers Protection Act by government departments. Finally, there is no provision for the development of guidelines to assist government departments to deal with public interest disclosures professionally. All of these things are in the fifth PCMC report No. 71. The fifth PCMC said that these were important steps to take in the development of up-to-date and effective whistleblower protection legislation in Queensland. These views had previously been advanced by the fourth PCMC, yet here we are debating a bill which deals with a far more narrow set of matters relating to how a public interest disclosure may be made to a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The government even had the benefit of listening to the debate on the Queensland coalition’s Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill earlier this year which highlighted these issues. It then could have moved to update the provisions of this bill to make appropriate changes, but this has not occurred. At the very least, the government is wasting an opportunity to bring Queensland’s whistleblower legislation up to date. In light of the serious difficulties faced by a whistleblower in the recent past which exposed serious management issues and accountability problems in Queensland Health, it is remarkable that the government is not moving to implement the full recommendations of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee report No. 71. Let us hope it is not too long before it catches up. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (3.11 pm): In rising to address the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill, I cannot help feeling a strong sense of deja vu. It was not all that long ago that we were in this place debating legislation that was also designed to amend and strengthen the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. If I remember correctly, the Premier took exception 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 831 to a metaphor I used in that debate and demanded an apology, which I duly gave to the people who deserved it. If I have one regret, it is that the debate was hijacked and the focus was placed on the words—words that have been used in many parliaments and in polite conversation—rather than the substance or the point of the metaphor and the debate. The substance of that debate dealt with strengthening whistleblower protection. A united conservative coalition had presented to this House a proactive bill which would have strengthened protection for whistleblowers. That conservative legislation did not pass this chamber—not because it was not good legislation and would not have strengthened protection for Queensland whistleblowers, but simply because it was legislation that was proposed by the conservative side of this House. This state Labor Party would not have the grace or common sense to recognise a good idea if it jumped up and bit it. A whole raft of different public bodies have recommended a review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. This legislation was prompted by the Fitzgerald royal commission—a royal commission, by the way, according to Tony Morris, which did not examine the loss of one life. This legislation has been prompted mainly by the Davies and Morris royal commissions—royal commissions which dealt with the fact that 87 people lost their lives due to the sick state of public health care in this state. I will not support the government’s legislation because I have a number of significant concerns with it. Clause 5 is designed to amend section 26 of the act to ensure that a member of the Legislative Assembly is not an approved entity to receive a public interest disclosure about courts, tribunals, judicial officers and government owned corporations. There is a very real possibility that this clause will impact on a member of parliament’s capacity to receive complaints about judges and judicial bodies and then raise those complaints in this chamber. I am astounded to read that clause 8, which is on page 6 of the bill, would insert a new subsection 28A(2) into the act stating, ‘For the purposes of this Act, the member has no role in investigating the disclosure.’ Considering I am probably one of the only MPs in this chamber now to have received a plea from a whistleblower, I would like to detail what happened after Toni Hoffman disclosed in my office what was happening at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. Naturally enough, it was an astounding revelation, and of course I had to further investigate Toni Hoffman’s allegations. I think that was only responsible of me. I had the weekend to transcribe our conversation and on the Monday I rang a former representative of the AMA, Dr Strahan, to double- check Toni’s story. In that conversation I had with Dr Strahan, I asked him what he knew about Patel and his words were to the effect, ‘Yes, we know about Patel. We’d prefer that this would all go away quietly. We think if he stays on for another year, we’ll have very serious concerns.’ This was an example of further investigation of the disclosure. If this legislation passes this chamber, it will mean that I would have been acting illegally, and that is another reason why I do not believe this legislation should pass this chamber. The more I am exposed to public life, especially after watching the Premier and his antics, the more I have to agree with the statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When we compare Queensland with other states, we find we have a government that wields absolute power for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we have a massive parliamentary majority and, secondly, there is an absence of an upper chamber or house of review. This is not a healthy environment for whistleblowers—the people who want to get their message and warnings out in the public arena while trying to protect themselves and their families at the same time. In fact, what we are facing in Queensland is a clear case of institutional dysfunction. Everyone knows that the wheels have fallen off in Queensland—child safety, education, the health system, water infrastructure, police and the list goes on. To whistleblow in a climate of institutional dysfunction is an even more dangerous affair. Commissioner Tony Morris talked about institutional dysfunction, and I would like to relate to the chamber some notes that Commissioner Morris said about the whistleblower’s role in cases of institutional dysfunction. He said— I would never say that being a whistleblower is easy; but I suspect that being a whistleblower is easier when you are dealing with individual corruption, as compared with institutional dysfunction. For one thing, in cases of individual corruption, you can confidently rely on your own moral compass to tell right from wrong. In cases of institutional dysfunction, there is no clear dichotomy between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Take the examples, just mentioned, arising from the Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry. A reasonable person, outside Queensland Health, may think it is obvious that, in each instance, the ‘wrong’ decision was made. But, surprising though it may seem, I can tell you that, in each instance, there were witnesses from Queensland Health—very senior and highly-paid bureaucrats, some even possessing medical qualifications—who were prepared to testify on oath, not only that the decisions taken were the right ones, but that any different approach would assuredly have produced disastrous consequences. And I do not doubt, for a moment, that those witnesses honestly believed that that was the case. A related problem facing the whistleblower, in cases of institutional dysfunction, is that it is often impossible to tell who is wearing the black hats, and who is wearing the white hats. Take the decision concerning the man held out to patients in Townsville as a qualified psychiatrist; the decision to conceal the fact this man was actually a fraud. When senior administrators not only seek to justify such a decision, but honestly believe that the decision was unarguably correct, it is but a small step—at least in the minds of the bureaucrats concerned—to concluding that anyone who takes a different view (such as the conscientious administrative staff in Townsville, who urged public disclosure) is, at best, an imbecile, and at worst, a malevolent trouble-maker. 832 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

What necessarily follows is that, in cases of institutional dysfunction, conscientious whistleblowers face the prospect of alienation, ostracism, antagonism, and active opposition, even from honest, decent and well-meaning workplace colleagues. I have no illusions as to how hard it must be for any public servant to ‘blow the whistle’ on a corrupt individual or group of individuals. But how much harder is it for a public servant (say, one of the 9,250 bureaucrats at Queensland Health) to admit that the institution as a whole is bumbling and inept; that it is over-crowded with time-servers and seat-warmers; and that it wastes tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars each year on utterly vacuous and often counter-productive activities. That came from the gentlemen who hosted the first royal commission. The only real check of abuse of Labor government power, apart from whistleblowers and the united conservative voice in this chamber, is the media’s ability to shape public opinion through bad headlines. This government will change course and correct injustices if there are enough bad media headlines. The Morris and Davies royal commissions came about because of a whistleblower, their voice in this chamber and enough bad media headlines. The Premier was forced to establish a royal commission twice. In fact, he was dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. Now he shamelessly tries to rewrite history saying it was his idea. If it had not been for bad media headlines then Patel would still be operating on the people of Bundaberg and Toni Hoffman, the very brave whistleblower, would have been section 85’d, told that she was crazy or racist or both and then kicked out of Queensland Health. Toni would have followed the path that 99 per cent of whistleblowers have trod, which means that her career would have been destroyed, her health destroyed and, in fact, her whole life destroyed. We would never have found out the truth—the truth being that this Labor Party comprehensively failed to plan for the growth of this state and failed to provide enough basic health infrastructure. Not only that, it continues to surround itself with yes people—hospital management, hospital boards loaded with Labor sympathising cronies who cared more for the Labor Party’s health than their community’s health. This government created a sick public health system that was susceptible to a disease. Patel was only a symptom of that disease. The disease is called Peter Beattie. If the Premier had his way Toni Hoffman who have been thrown in jail. Government members interjected. Mr MESSENGER: The day after her allegations were raised in this chamber, amid a chorus of Labor Party heckles—similar to heckles that I am receiving now; I take them as a badge of courage— Toni Hoffman’s boss, Peter Leck, Peter Beattie’s hand-picked Bundaberg CEO, lined up all the nurses in the ICU ward and said that if anyone has been talking to Rob Messenger ‘they will be put in jail’. Will this legislation before the House today stop a vindictive CEO or a scared CEO, who follows the orders from his political masters because he or she knows that they will be sacked if they do not follow the orders to the letter, from threatening a whistleblower with jail if they have disclosed information to their member of parliament or shadow minister? If the answer is no—and I believe it is no—then I will not support this legislation. While we debate this whistleblowing amendment bill there is a real live whistleblower who is trying to get protection from a Premier and a minister and a department who are desperate to cover up the truth. If the Premier is going to be the whistleblower’s friend—and I have a photo of the Premier standing with Toni Hoffman sipping on a cup of tea; he must be the whistleblower’s friend because that is the photo that has been taken—then he has to do more than get his propaganda machine to place a picture with Australia’s highest profile whistleblower in a glossy brochure. Here is the challenge. Guarantee that the prison officer I have mentioned in this place before—a certified hero, a bloke who has saved more lives than Peter Beattie ever has, a person who daily risked his life keeping us and our families safe from murderers, rapists and paedophiles—is given the full status and protection of whistleblower. By coming forward, blowing the whistle and supplying me with information this man has forced this government to reveal that it is keeping secret files on their employees. These are files containing confidential personal medical information. The reason that prison officer disclosed this information to a government approved counselling service was that its brochure says, ‘Your name and anything you discuss with your counsellor is strictly confidential. No personal information will be revealed to your employer or to any other person unless you give prior written authorisation for the release of that information.’ It is pretty cut and dried. If a person walks into a counselling session they expect that if they confide to the professional person that that information is kept between them and the professional person. People do not expect that information to be passed on to a person employed by this government. This government is once again trying to cover up and shut him up. The director-general of Corrective Services is threatening this prison officer with disciplinary action and a breach of his employment code of conduct because he will not reveal where he got the document which proves that the government is keeping secret files. This is the same director-general who has to approve whether this person is a whistleblower under this government’s legislation. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 833

The next thing is that this prison officer will be threatened with being thrown into jail. Once again, there is a strong sense of deja vu. I am going to make sure that the government, in its dealings with the prison officer whistleblower, follows the letter of the law. As this legislation says, it promotes the public interest by protecting persons who disclose unlawful, negligent or improper conduct affecting the public sector, danger to public health or safety or danger to the environment. The objective of the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006 is to allow for public interest disclosures to be made to members of the Legislative Assembly and to extend whistleblower protection to people engaged by public sector entities on an individual contract of service, such as many casual nurses. This is a very important point. Our casual staff must be protected by our state laws, as must our temporary staff. I would feel more comfortable if our non-permanent staff were covered by whistleblower protection laws as well. So does it only cover casual nurses or does it cover temporary staff? Mr Cripps interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! If the member for Hinchinbrook is going to interject he might return to his seat; otherwise he should cease interjecting. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. According to library research, the Queensland Public Service employee numbers in June 2006, on a head count, totalled 198,862. Of that number 153,397, or 77.51 per cent, are full time; 29,545, or 14.85 per cent, are temporary and 15,920, or eight per cent, are casuals. Putting it more simply, we have 77.51 per cent who are permanent and about 22.49 per cent who are nonpermanent. I am very concerned about the fact that much of our state public workforce is being casualised. This fact was once again brought to my attention by Toni Hoffman, who spoke to me about the shortage of nurses and the fact that there were not many full-time positions available. Her comment was that, as a nurse, you almost had to wait for someone to die before you got a permanent position. She said that if we wanted to solve the shortage of nurses it was quite simple: ensure that there were more full-time jobs. Nurses are just like anyone else. They want to be able to get a mortgage for a home, a loan for a computer, or salary sacrifice. It is very difficult to achieve those financial goals if one does not have full-time employment. Consequently, Toni and I also believe that there are a lot of nurses who are working outside their profession because they can get full-time or permanent employment. I realise that in order to have a certain amount of flexibility in the workforce it is necessary to have a small proportion of non-permanent workers. Some workers themselves prefer non-permanent employment. But there is also a sinister side to a government wanting a large proportion of its employees nonpermanent. A non-permanent worker is more compliant and less likely to complain about bad management, unlawful, negligent or improper conduct. A non-permanent worker is less likely to blow the whistle because they can be easily punished. All their boss has to do is cut the number of hours they work. If that happens, the worker does not have a leg to stand on. Another factor that we have to consider with the increasing casualisation of the state’s professional workforce is the corresponding increasing risk of corruption. If a non-permanent employee is kept half-hungry, then that person will be more susceptible to, and more likely to be involved in, bribery, fraud or unlawful behaviour. However, that is not to say that every non-permanent state employee is involved in misconduct. But from a systemic point of view it is my opinion that a full-time professional Public Service is the way to go. Time expired. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (3.31 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006. It never ceases to amaze me that members stand up in this House and purport to have the welfare of the community and the people who live in it at heart. I remind the member for Burnett that there was an English philosopher who said that the more he talked of his honour the more we counted the spoons. He would do well to think about that. The original Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 was introduced because there was no legislation which protected people who made public interest disclosures. There were many people who wanted to or really should have, but they knew that under the former National Party government they would have been ostracised and in fact they would have been jailed. It is a little bit hypocritical for the member for Burnett to stand up in this House and talk about secret files—of which he knows nothing and there has never been any admission because they do not exist. But the Special Branch in Queensland under the National Party had everyone’s name on file so that if you spoke against it in any way, shape or form you ended up in jail. A government member: They took photographs of your children. Mr HOOLIHAN: They not only took photographs of your children; they took photographs of your extended family. The Whistleblowers Protection Act was originally introduced to stop the excesses of people of this man’s ilk. Mr Rickuss interjected. 834 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

Mr HOOLIHAN: I often wonder why the member for Lockyer does not stand up and make his comments instead of prompting others. I am not sure whether he is the ventriloquist or the dummy, but so many people— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr HOOLIHAN: We do not need to know that. In terms of the whistleblowers act of 1994, we just heard from the member for Caloundra—supposedly a lawyer, and quite honestly some of what he said is just so fantastic that nobody could possibly believe it. He talks of an inability to scrutinise the judiciary in the amending act. That does not exist at the present time. Perhaps he has not heard of a doctrine which has been around for a few hundred years called the separation of powers. The judiciary is a separate arm of government and he wants some legislation which will scrutinise the judiciary. Certainly there are members of the judiciary who may not be the best lawyers, but mostly I find they get it right. But it is not the position of this House that we override and control the judiciary. That is a shade of a former National Party action. One of the things that was not available under the original act was that a member of parliament could receive a public interest disclosure. We have heard the member for Burnett say that under the amended act he would have been breaking the law if he made the disclosure he made in this House. I have to tell him that under the original act he broke the law as well, because he could not take a public interest disclosure at that time. Comment was made about members being able to receive disclosure and then what ability the member had to investigate. We have heard the member for Burnett talk about going out and investigating, but what member of this House is required to investigate? As long as the member follows the correct procedure and encourages the person to put that detail forward to the relevant authority, then the obligation on those people is discharged. One of the points I should make is that the amendments that are currently proposed came out of the three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I indicate to this House—and it is on the public record—that I am now the chair of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee but I was not on the committee at the time that that review was done. The bill seeks to change two areas of the original act. It will amend the act to ensure that a member of the Legislative Assembly can be an entity to which a public interest disclosure can be made. If one looks at the explanatory notes, it sets out that standing orders will need to be amended to provide guidance to members. I do not know whether we should use words which have more than three letters in them so that it can be understood by the opposition. The bill also includes provision to protect individuals engaged under contract by public sector entities if they make that disclosure. One of the upshots of this is that the class of people who can make those disclosures will be widened. It will encourage people who know that something is happening or happening wrongly in public institutions and public administration to feel free, or more free, to come forward to speak to their local member. Once the bill is in force, together with the amendments to the standing orders, it will reflect the findings and the recommendations of the two royal commissions. That is what the bill sets out to do. That is the basis for the bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.39 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006. This amendment is in response to the recommendations of the Forster and Davies reports and the findings of a CMC review which made recommendations relating to public interest disclosures. Whilst the previous whistleblowers act was aimed at protecting public servants who came forward with complaints about wrongdoings, it had its shortcomings. This amendment allows for public interest disclosures to be made to state members of parliament who can then refer the complaints to the appropriate body. The bill extends protections to those people on individual contracts—for example, nurses, IT professionals, engineers or other groups engaged under contracts rather than just those being directly employed. In this way the bill seeks to encourage individuals to come forward when they become aware of suspected wrongdoing and where they have well based concerns. When problems arise in the delivery of government services, or in the way government departments go about their business, or in the services that people receive, it is essential that those problems can be raised promptly. As a corollary to that, to allow public interest disclosures to be made to members of parliament, this legislation widens the extent of protection offered to whistleblowers. It is a welcome change to see public servants and those on contracts of service now being able to approach an MP. It is a very obvious and appropriate avenue that public servants should be able to access and should have been able to access in the past without fear or favour. After all, they are constituents like everyone else and members of parliament should be available for any constituent to speak to about any problem that that constituent may have. It has been a well known, if unwritten, rule that for public servants to step outside their departments and speak to an MP they were putting their career in the tip and their employment was at risk. Some departments can and do build up institutional cultures. As has been demonstrated in recent years, that culture can become very inward looking and negative. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 835

In fact, the amendments that are before us today are the direct result of the crisis we had in Queensland Health, which still continues today despite the reviews and the increases in funding triggered by the debacle at Bundaberg. Although these amendments will apply to all areas of government, I believe that Health will be one of the areas where they will be most useful. As government processes become more and more complex, they become more and more opaque. Queensland Health is certainly complex. Of course, when we consider whistleblowers, for most of us that brings to mind courageous people such as Toni Hoffman and problems of great and immediate urgency such as the life and death matters that she brought to light. I believe that among the greatest challenges Toni Hoffman faced was the inability or unwillingness of many of her colleagues to support her actions because they feared for their own careers and jobs. That unwillingness existed despite the protections that were already in place under the existing Whistleblowers Protection Act. Such problems continue today as most people are still afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or suffering reprisals. I think many of us would be aware of examples of public servants who tried to make a difference and who suffered one or another kind of retribution for having had the courage to speak up. As I have said before, this bill is aimed at encouraging people who are aware of potential wrongdoing to come forward. I believe that we need to consider not only the protections being offered to whistleblowers but also what is meant by potential wrongdoers. Clinical issues and medical practices are an easy example of what someone might speak up about, but there are deeper issues, such as administrative decisions, processes and policy, which underpin many of these matters. For example, three wonderful specialists at the Atherton Hospital, who choose to practise in a regional area, do not have access to what is considered basic essential equipment, such as a four-slice scanner. These specialists provide services to the entire tablelands and beyond, including support in Cairns. Surely in this time of shortages of all medical professionals it is common sense to ensure that specialists, especially those in regional areas, have their basic requirements fulfilled. Yet for policy reasons, that is not happening. Public servants should be able to speak out unfettered about issues such as this. Similarly, in relation to the dialysis unit at Mareeba Hospital, the underlying policy position needs to be challenged if necessary. Although I support the wider definition of ‘whistleblower’ to include people who are on individual contracts, I am also keen to see the widest possible definition applied to what constitutes ‘public interest’. Of course these new protections will apply across-the-board—to issues ranging from matters relating to the police, to those in our prisons, to road construction, to educational matters, to child safety, to emergency services, and the list goes on. It is well worth remembering that there is no intrinsic right to secrecy for any state government department. Departments are nothing more nor less than managers of the assets of the people of Queensland in accordance with the wishes of the elected government of the day. I believe the basic starting point should always be one of openness and transparency. There is much to be said in favour of any legislation aimed at making the activities of government more easily examined. There is also much to be said for making it easier and safer for people to speak up when things are going wrong. However, I am concerned about amending the standing orders in a way that appears, under the proposed guidelines, to restrict what members of parliament will be able to raise in this House. Although the explanatory notes outline an argument for what is described as a ‘complementary set of Standing Orders’, I do not believe that any change is needed to what can or cannot be raised in this place. This bill is well intentioned, but I cannot support any effort to limit what can be raised on the floor of this House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.44 pm): In rising to speak to the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on a couple of things that have been said and then to make some comments on the proposed legislation. There have been a number of comments, both by speakers in this debate and across the chamber, relating to the dossiers that the National Party held almost 20 years ago and the Special Branch. I think the community was appropriately outraged by that. The Fitzgerald inquiry ensued. The Fitzgerald report recommended a much more open and transparent process of government in Queensland. I commend the ALP for subsequently introducing the whistleblowers legislation. But I think that anyone in this chamber who wishes to be objective would have to agree that, over time, the intent of the whistleblowers legislation, as recommended by Fitzgerald and others, has been eroded and the protections and the breadth of that whistleblowers legislation has been undermined. Referring to the dossiers kept by the National Party does not in any way reinforce the appropriateness of any undermining that could occur or is proposed to occur. This legislation deals with the people to whom members of the community can make a public interest disclosure. Clause 5 inserts a new section 26(2), which states— However, subsection (1)(c) or (1A)— and subsection (1)(c) would be in the original legislation— ... does not permit a public sector entity or member of the Legislative Assembly to receive a public interest disclosure if, apart from this section, the public sector entity or member would not be able to receive the disclosure because of division 4, 5 or 6. 836 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

I believe that the electorate of Gladstone, which I represent, is a very well-attuned, very well- educated and very progressive community. But I also believe that all but a handful of the people in my electorate would have read the whistleblower legislation. The people in my electorate would have no idea who would be an appropriate person to make a disclosure to. They would approach a person in whom they have confidence. They would approach a person who they believe will listen objectively and who will take action in an appropriate manner. I do not think that the lack of clarity as to who a member of the community can go to in order to make a disclosure will make any difference to the intention of those people in the community who see something wrong wanting to go to their member of parliament and tell them about it. If people do not feel comfortable about doing that, unless it is for politically ideological reasons, we all need to have a close look at ourselves. For a long time the member for Burnett has copped it in this chamber. I do not agree with everything the member for Burnett says. I am sure he does not agree with everything that I say. However, he has been a courageous representative for his community. I hear members say that there are those within his community who want nothing more to do with him. I live a couple of hours north of the electorate of Burnett. I have not heard any of that. Irrespective of that, the member for Burnett, under quite significant duress in this chamber, has taken steps to represent those in his community who lack a voice. That is what whistleblowing is all about and that is what our responsibilities as members of parliament are all about. I have read the bill—thankfully it is a small bill. My concern is—and I believe the minister may be able to clarify this, and I will be listening intently to his reply—that the legislation appears to broaden the scope for disclosures but reduce the ability of members of parliament to respond to those disclosures. It states in the legislation that a member of parliament having received a disclosure will not be able to investigate. That will be out of the reach of this proposed bill, which will become law. I am not sure what ‘investigate’ means. Every single one of us in this chamber receives a plethora of approaches from people in our community. Some of their concerns are well founded; many of them are not. When it comes to the health sector, oftentimes we will get constituents who have been through quite a traumatic period and they will allege that medical procedures were poorly timed or were not received. They will allege that ambulances responded in an hour when in actual fact from logbooks it may have been 15 minutes. But in that place that they were in during that traumatic period it felt like an hour to them. So part of our responsibility is to garner information to try to understand whether their perception of the situation is right or not. Sometimes that can be done by talking with the emergency services people or it can be done by contacting the hospital and talking with people within the hospital system. If this legislation proposes to inhibit that ability in any way then I am opposed to it. I have no more time than any other member in this chamber, and I certainly would not be about becoming a detective to investigate one matter to the exclusion of everything else. But we must have the ability to ascertain to the best of our ability the accuracy or appropriateness of allegations that are made not only to be able to address our constituent concerns but also to ensure that the direction we choose to take in remediating those concerns—referring them to ministers or to the media or to any other investigative body, such as the CMC—is the best given the information that we can ascertain. Some people in our community find it difficult to articulate their concerns. To those people we have to give an extra measure of attention to assist them in gaining clarity as to the issue about which they have approached us. If this legislation intends to curtail the genuine and honest deliverance of our responsibilities as members of parliament, I will not support it. If it is about grandstanding or maligning somebody because we have the ability to malign them in this chamber without cause or maligning somebody in the media without cause, that is wrong. We should not be doing it anyway. However, we do need to be able to pursue our responsibilities as we have been elected to do. I refer to the minister’s second reading speech, where it states— Given the volume of correspondence received, the bill gives members the discretion to consider complaints, including those purported to be public interest disclosures, and determine a reasonable course of action. When a complaint is received that a member believes to fall within the scope of the act, the member may refer the matter to an appropriate entity to have the matter investigated. Members of parliament are not to have any authority to investigate the matter. This is to ensure that a proper investigation is carried out by the relevant authority. These matters are too serious for politicking. I find that statement more concerning than any other contained in the second reading speech. As I said, what is the definition of ‘investigate’? We should be able to gain enough information to ascertain the best place to direct those concerns without fear that we may breach what will become legislation and overstep the mark of ‘investigation’. I believe that the genesis of this bill has been not only the inquiries but also the Bundaberg Hospital fiasco. If there is any intent by this bill to minimise political damage, it has been constructed for all the wrong motives. The trauma the families affected by the actions of Dr Patel—Mr Patel—have faced is not able to be measured. Those families will forever be affected by the trauma that they faced and in many instances the loss of loved ones. We in this chamber would be wrong if we then took steps to minimise the early investigation of any similar incidents to reduce political fallout. That would be the worst motivation for legislative change in Queensland. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 837

The last matter I wish to raise is a matter in the Alert Digest under the heading ‘Is the legislation unambiguous and drafted in a sufficiently clear and precise way?’ The Alert Digest states— 41. As noted, the Act already applies to employees, even if only employed temporarily. It also seems clear that the policy intention is not to include independent contractors. Given the several references to “casual nurses, IT professionals and engineers”, it might have been assumed the target group was persons supplied to the relevant public sector entity under a contractual agreement between the entity and an employment agency. In such cases the person, whether or not at law an employee of the employment agency, would not be an employee of the public sector entity. 42. However, the Premier’s reference to the extension not including “staff hired from labour hire firms” militates against this view. It goes on to conclude— 44. The committee notes that cl.15(2) of the bill extends the range of “officers” of public sector entities who may make public interest disclosures under the Whistleblower Protection Act 1994. For the reasons set out above— and I did not read all of those reasons— the committee considers it is not clear what categories of persons the extension is intended to encompass. 45. The committee seeks information from the Premier in relation to this matter. Whistleblower protection legislation is critically important, particularly at those times when protection is required. A lack of clarity or any ambiguity will undermine the position of people placed in a role of whistleblower usually without their willing participation. They are placed in a position where they have to take risks. They have to place themselves in a position open to criticism and worse, and any protection we give them should be very clear and very easy to understand, if indeed they have to take the time to look at it. But, more importantly, whistleblower legislation should protect those people who inadvertently, covertly or overtly pass information on to us as elected representatives in order to achieve a better, more transparent and more just community in which we all live. They deserve that protection and nothing less. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.57 pm): The Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006 should be embraced by every member in this House as it enables us to have a clear course of action when a whistleblower approaches us to disclose something which they believe should be investigated in the interests of the public. When a member of parliament is sworn in, we take upon ourselves a huge responsibility to work effectively for the betterment of all whom we represent but also to ensure that our public entities are working well and those who serve in those departments are doing so with integrity and honesty. However, I also believe we have a responsibility to not come into this place with untrue and scurrilous accusations that may be borne out of a personal grudge or bad relationship between people who were prepared to go to great extremes to destroy another person. My staff are wonderful people and have many talents but investigatory abilities are neither part of their skills nor part of their responsibilities. Nor do I deem myself to have the ability to investigate any issues satisfactorily. I suppose I could be called a relatively quiet, cautious member. However, should such an occasion arise, I would be prepared in the interests of the public to disclose important information but only once I had received expert guidance. This bill gives guidance and certainty to every member in ascertaining whether or not a matter is a public interest disclosure. I personally have great faith in the three entities designated as those to whom we should go for expert advice—notably, the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Ombudsman and the Office of the Public Service Commissioner. This act, while protecting the whistleblower and giving them anonymity, will also ensure that the matters raised are properly dealt with. This bill will also offer cover to those who work under contract to government departments, but not those who are hired staff. Whistleblowers do come forward in Queensland, with hundreds being recorded both by government departments as well as the CMC. However, many of these are unsubstantiated. While we need to ensure the avenue is there to disclose and to have investigations undertaken, I personally would never wish to come into this place and destroy the reputation and future of another person on a vexatious allegation. We do have vast responsibility in this place, but we are not always infallibly wise, as some may believe themselves. But we do have wise counsel to assist us to carry out our responsibilities in a well- balanced, even-handed way. I am always happy to take wise advice and I would recommend every member in this place avail themselves of that privilege. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (4.01 pm): I rise to speak and give a short contribution to the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill. The claimed objectives of this bill are to enable public interest disclosures to be made to members of the Legislative Assembly and to extend the protections of the act to include individuals engaged by a public sector entity on a contract of service agreement. 838 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

The original act, the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994, was introduced as a way to protect whistleblowers working in public administration jobs from any type of harm and to allow them to continue their career working in public administration. The government has claimed that this bill is being put forth due to recommendations of the PCMC three-year review of the CMC in 2004 and also recommendations that have arisen from the Davies commission. Whistleblower legislation must be effective or the legislation may end up self-defeating. This bill has quite a few problems which other members of the coalition have certainly outlined. I support the opposition in the position it has taken. Clause 5 of the bill amends the act to make a member of the Legislative Assembly not an appropriate entity to receive public interest disclosures about courts, tribunals, GOCs or corporatised corporations unless under proposed sections of the act. It is claimed that the act’s administration does not detrimentally affect judicial work or independence or the commercial operation of GOCs and corporatised corporations. However, the reality is that this clause will impact on the capacity of an MP to receive complaints about judges and judicial matters and the ability to raise such complaints in parliament or publicly. This is an unnecessary restriction which only serves to protect the judicial area from parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 8 also possesses inherent problems. It includes a proposed section 28A subsection (2) which provides that a member of the Legislative Assembly who receives a public interest disclosure or purported public interest disclosure has no role in the investigation of the matters disclosed. Proposed section 28B proposes that the operation of the act is not to limit the manner in which the members of the Legislative Assembly deal with matters in parliament. The CMC’s role, under section 57 of the act, will be limited to breaches committed outside the scope of parliamentary privilege, leaving parliament to address breaches committed within the confines of parliamentary privilege. This is an obvious restraint on the capacity of an MP to further investigate a complaint from a whistleblower before deciding whether the matter will be raised in the House or referred to the appropriate public sector entity. The explanatory memorandum even acknowledges that the bill infringes fundamental legislative principles. Without amendments to the parliamentary standing orders, a member of parliament would be able to freely discuss most public disclosures in the Legislative Assembly within the rules of parliamentary privilege. The bill alleges that this would cause problems to the protection of the whistleblower, unfounded allegations being made public and to the integrity of the investigatory process. The government wants to amend the standing orders along with the act. Simply put, the effect of these amendments will be to limit the effectiveness of both whistleblowers and members of parliament and the capacity of a member to actually follow up a legitimate complaint. The Premier is trying to build a sanctuary where the criminal responsibility of ministers for dishonest statements to the parliament is greatly diminished. Clause 15 is also of concern to me. It provides that the CMC’s role in relation to section 57 of the act is intended to be limited to breaches committed outside the scope of parliamentary privilege, leaving parliament to address breaches committed within the confines of parliamentary privilege. This clause is just a continuation of the approach that this current sleazy government adopted in its handling of a former minister lying to a parliamentary estimates committee. This legislation would mean that a member of parliament who discloses a matter by a whistleblower to the parliament runs the risk that the government, through sheer numbers, can punish that member for contempt of parliament. This bill has the direct effect of creating more executive power at the expense of members of parliament. The bill does not address any of the recommendations of the PCMC review of the CMC in 2006, which is the more recent three-year CMC review. The bill does not take into account the recommendations of the PCMC from this 2006 review, such as recommendation 23 which would widen the categories of persons who may make a public interest disclosure protected by the Whistleblowers Act to anyone in cases involving danger to public health and safety and negligent or improper management of public funds. Recommendations 22 to 26 from the 2006 PCMC report have been left out of the legislation. These recommendations were made to overcome deficiencies found by the Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry. This leaves one wondering why the recommendations from the 2004 report have been placed into the bill but the 2006 recommendations from the same agency have been left out. This bill also ignores provisions contained in the private member’s bill—Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006—which was previously before the House. That bill incorporated the more recent recommendations from the PCMC, along with recommendations from the Davies commission. The private member’s bill contained provisions that were aimed at the actual protection of whistleblowers, not this bill at hand which is more concerned with the Beattie government being able to cover its own tracks. I will oppose this bill because it will limit the capacity of a member to properly investigate matters brought to their attention by whistleblowers. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 839

This bill also supports the amendment of the standing orders of parliament, which will bolster executive power at the expense of the Legislative Assembly. Finally, this bill seems ignorant of the 2006 recommendations of the PCMC report which were identified as serious problems that required fixing that had been highlighted in the Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry. I will not be supporting the bill. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (4.07 pm): I am very keen to speak to this bill in a more or less philosophical sense. What we are seeing today is a hypocritical attempt to bring a bill into this parliament under the guise that it is doing good for those people who are forced to be whistleblowers and bring up matters of great difficulty for them. I do not think that there would be one person in this parliament who would not want to see whistleblower protection so that anybody who works in the public sector, or any other area covered by whistleblower legislation, who has a genuine and important complaint can take it further if they cannot get the quality of justice, service and attention that they want from their superiors. There is not one of us who would have any problem with that. Under that subterfuge, this bill is an attempt to nobble backbenchers and the opposition to create a parliament of generic, black-and-white brand type members of parliament who simply pass on letters to ministers who have no ability themselves, cannot make decisions and are not prepared to talk and be open to their constituents on any complaint that they want to bring up. What we are actually going to do is limit the importance, the quality and the capability of representation in this parliament. Once again, we see things in this bill where we will be given advice on whether something is a public disclosure or an ordinary complaint or just a constituent talking to us. Shouldn’t we be able to do that ourselves? Aren’t we elected to this parliament because we have a bit of ability? We stand every three years on our previous performance, the quality of service we have given to the people and the confidence they have that they can come to us on a matter. We should have members of parliament—whether they are government backbenchers or members of the opposition—who can make a judgement when people come into our offices. Can we help them on the spot? Can we ring a local or regional director and fix things for them? Is it necessary to write to the minister? Is it the sort of thing that needs to be brought up in parliament or in the media? We can make that judgement. If the member turns out to be a dud, they do not get elected anymore. But if they make good decisions and help people on a day-to-day basis or if something is major and the government will not budge on it and they bring it up in the media or the parliament and they get some action, then they are not a dud and they get re-elected because they are giving a quality service. That is the real concern I have about this bill. I see it more and more in this parliament that local members are losing their individuality; they are losing the ability to represent their electorate according to the geography and the people they represent and the particular needs of parliament. We are being stereotyped. Everyone is being channelled into this bureaucratic system of working through the ministers. We can understand why ministers, directors-general and senior bureaucrats would want this. I have been there, and we can see the control. Everybody wants to control everything and run a tight ship where nothing goes out, but things happen where people need a member of parliament. We can talk about all the whistleblower protection in the world—and I am a supporter of whistleblower protection—but in the real world there are people who are vulnerable. It does not matter what whistleblower protection we have—they are vulnerable. They might fear being shunned in the workplace. They might not have a strong character where they could accept being shunned, people not talking to them, snide remarks and all the rest of it. They might not be the sort of person who could take a matter to a Court of Appeal, a whistleblower process or anything else. They could have things done to them that would make life unpleasant and unhappy for them. There are all sorts of ways people interact that could make life difficult. Some people do not want to bring things up, and we probably saw that in the Bundaberg case where people of wonderful character tried to do things and they got nowhere. Eventually, Toni Hoffman went right through with things. People have families, people have jobs, they are paying for their kids to go to school or they are trying to pay off the house—these people do not want to rock the boat too far for fear it might affect their career. But if they have the courage to do things and things do not happen, they are trapped. I do not intend to disparage these people; it is just the way life is. Let us have good whistleblower protection, but let us understand that it is very, very difficult for people in some circumstances to get their message through. We can have all the rules and regulations we like, but oftentimes people get sidelined and the only option they have is their member of parliament. Most of us here have had very difficult cases. Sometimes we are the end of the line and people have tried all sorts of things. Sometimes when people come to us, it is their fault; sometimes it is not their fault and they have a very true, open and honest case. We must have MPs who are available, we must have MPs who can make decisions and do what they think is best for their constituent, and we must keep our system of democracy so we can truly represent people. Let us not try to erode away and 840 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007 chip away at this wonderful system where we have a member of parliament in all these different suburbs, towns and regions of Queensland and if people need them they can go to them. We should not be forced by legislation that says, ‘You’ve got to do this.’ We do not want generic, puppet-like members of parliament who cannot do this or that because the standing orders even permeate out into their electorate offices and say what is a public interest disclosure and all the rest of it. For goodness sake, let us have members of parliament who are virile in their representation of people. Let us have members of parliament who are fearless about doing things. Let us have members of parliament who can make the wise decisions about whether it is worth taking the issue that way, whether they should ring the minister, whether they should have a deputation, whether they should put it in the media. That is the judgement we make to get the best result for the people we represent. This whole issue has come about because of the vindictive nature of the Beattie Labor government about the bad press and the bad public feelings as a result of Bundaberg. Bundaberg should have been a lesson for the MP in Bundaberg at the time. I know her well and I was good friends with her. These people in Bundaberg should have been able to go to her and they should have been able to get their problem fixed. That is what it is about. This legislation is doing a couple of things. We are degrading the importance of parliament and we are putting these puppet-like people into parliament who are under orders all the time as to what they can do. Most importantly, we are not allowing the people of Queensland to feel confident and comfortable that, if they have an issue, they can go to their member of parliament and get it fixed. They need to feel confident that their MP will operate independently on their behalf to help them with their particular issue—not go straight back, if you like, to the source of where the problem is, back through the government channels. If they have an issue, they want to be able to get it fixed by a member of parliament—be it a government backbencher or a member of the opposition—if they do not feel confident in the other system. I say to the government members in this House: think long and hard about what you are doing here today. You are eroding away and chipping away at quite a sacred responsibility that members of parliament have. I hear members say in their address-in-reply speeches how proud they are to represent their area and what a wonderful responsibility it is. It is a great responsibility, and sometimes the best thing we can do in our electorates is help one single person with a little individual issue. If our ability to do that is chipped away, we will not be able to help these people. Sometimes the greatest power we have to help people is to get out there and give something an airing in the media, or stand up in this parliament where we are supposed to be able to stand up and talk about everything that we like under parliamentary privilege—and do that with responsibility. If members do not do it with responsibility, they cop the punishment because they look silly or they look like a fool or they are criticised and they get voted out next time. We should be able to stand up here and honestly speak on behalf of the people. I think our ability to do that and represent people in some of the most difficult circumstances is going to be absolutely cut off at the knees by this legislation. Part of this legislation dealing with the protection of whistleblowers has got some good value in it, but the part that is going to hobble and nobble the members of parliament in this place is bad for Queensland democracy and I think it is an absolute disgrace. Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (4.17 pm): The objectives of the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill that is before us are set out very clearly. The explanatory notes state that the objectives are— ... to allow for public interest disclosures to be made to members of the Legislative Assembly, and to extend whistleblower protection to people engaged by public sector entities on an individual contract of service, such as many casual nurses. The reasons for the bill are set out quite clearly too, but I will just revisit the two that are vital. The explanatory notes state— The Davies Report recommended, among other things, that the Act be amended to enable public interest disclosures to be made to members of the Legislative Assembly, and that the categories of person who may make a public interest disclosure be expanded. The report on the Review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 endorsed the recommendation that the Act be amended to enable public interest disclosures to be made to members of the Legislative Assembly and recommended, among other things, that the protections of the Act be extended to include individuals engaged by a public sector entity on a contract of service arrangement. I know a little bit about this because, as I have said in this place before, I served for 38 years in the Public Service—unlike members on the other side who have little knowledge of service in the Public Service except in this House. That is not the same as serving in the Public Service—believe me. The hypocrisy which has been displayed by members of the National Party this afternoon gives more meaning to the word ‘hypocrisy’ than ever before, particularly the hypocrisy shown by the member for Burnett. I spent 38 years in the Public Service. It was not a good career move for a member of the ALP to work for 26 years under National Party rule—19 of them under that great moralist who is no longer with us, Bjelke-Petersen. As a young bloke I had the audacity in 1977 to run for the seat of Aspley as the Australian Labor Party candidate. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 841

Mr Wells interjected. Mr GRAY: The member for Murrumba remembers that well as other members in this House would. I still remember one Saturday morning outside the Somerset Street shops at West Chermside speaking to the people over a loudhailer on top of my car, as we did in those days, with a few friends around me and a bundle of signs. We did not have the technology or the equipment that we have today. I noticed in the crowd a gentleman whom I had never seen before taking photographs of me. I had not seen that person on any other occasion. I did not recognise that person as one of the photographers from the local newspapers or the Courier-Mail. I later found out that that person was a member of the Special Branch of the Queensland Police Service. He was taking photographs of me, my supporters and my two-year-old son who was with me at the time. That is the sort of protection that we got under the Bjelke-Petersen government. If someone dared to stand up and question what took place in this place they were given a Special Branch file. I checked that Special Branch file in 1989. Like a lot of other public servants in this state I went in to find out what I was innocent of. What I was innocent of was being a member of the ALP and standing up for the party during those very difficult years. It does not end there. Those opposite are opposed to changes to the whistleblowers act. They never introduced this in their time. Their time was a regimen of punishment and discrimination and active victimisation of public servants. In 1986 I was the district guidance officer in Kingaroy of all places in the electorate of Barambah. I happened to run the campaign against Bjelke-Petersen in Barambah. For all intents and purposes I was the campaign director for the Australian Labor Party. I stood on street corners and told the people of Barambah, along with the candidate at the time, Jim Horton, what we thought of the Bjelke-Petersen government. It led to a lot of the things that came out in 1989. Not only was I physically threatened; I received a number of very threatening phone calls and that caused me to resign from the Public Service and to move to safer territory. After 20 years service I was so concerned by the anonymous and absolutely gutless phone calls to my house from people who had National Party written all over them that it drove me out of the Public Service in 1986. Opposition members interjected. Mr GRAY: No, I cannot prove that they were, but I recognise them. Opposition members interjected. Mr GRAY: They do not like it. When it is thrown back at them they do not like it at all. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Member for Gaven. Mr GRAY: Look at them; they are like a bunch of pregnant cows. They know that something weird and wonderful is happening. Opposition members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gaven may continue. Mr GRAY: I will try to be more polite, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try but you can see the emotions are high. I, like many other public servants, suffered during that period of time. A lot of those people did not know that they suffered. They missed out on jobs because they were discriminated against. I resigned from the Public Service after 20 years. A year later I said, ‘This is not good enough. I am going to apply to go back.’ On four occasions—and I can prove every word of this—I was appointed to jobs throughout the state at senior guidance officer level. I had been a district guidance officer in the Public Service. At senior guidance officer level I was appointed on four occasions to various jobs around the state because I was the best candidate. On every occasion I was ruled out because it went up to the cabinet subcommittee. It vetted every appointment at B8 level or above in the Public Service. Mr Messenger interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett. Mr GRAY: Fancy him speaking. The man is a joke. On each of those occasions I was ruled out. People are still alive today who can testify to that. That is the way that those opposite treated the public servants. I think of the Wood brothers in Toowoomba. The member for Toowoomba South would know about the way those young teachers were treated. I can think of Ian Sinclair and his difficulty over Fraser Island. There are a thousand cases. There are another 10,000 cases of people who did not know why they missed out on an opportunity for promotion, who were not made principal of a school, who did not become a deputy principal. I can think of all those examples, but those opposite do not want to hear them. They know it is true. They have the audacity to come into this House and oppose the extension of the whistleblowers legislation. Where was their whistleblowers legislation? It did not exist. They would not think of it. They had the Special Branch. They did not need the whistleblowers, did they? 842 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

Mr RICKUSS: I rise to a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under standing order 236, I ask how what the member is debating is relevant. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! It is probably an idea to get back to the point of the bill, member for Gaven. Mr GRAY: I ask everyone in this House to remember what it was like under them and support this bill. It was the Labor government that bought in the whistleblowers legislation. We are extending it to make it better. We remember those opposite. Support the bill. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (4.27 pm): What I find most remarkable is the extent of the passionate opposition of honourable members opposite to something that is not going to happen. Their deeply felt concern that to somehow provide additional protection to people who go as whistleblowers to members of parliament is going to limit their capacity to be protected is really remarkable to behold. I cannot understand why it is that they are so deeply and inextricably opposed to propositions that they were asserting only a couple of weeks ago when we debated a whistleblowers amendment bill that was put up by the opposition in respect of the matters that they are today criticising and which are identical to the substance of this bill. It is really remarkable. It is though they are living in some sort of Orwellian Nineteen Eighty-four universe where black is white and where Oceania has always been at war with East Asia even though it was in fact a different set of alliances the time before. We have them asserting these remarkable things. Firstly, we have their proposition that giving security to members of parliament and to those who come to them with whistleblower information is somehow a restriction on both the security and the safety of the member and of the whistleblower. Secondly, there is the proposition that people ought to be allowed to go as whistleblowers to members of parliament and get whistleblower protection by going to members of parliament—which they were asserting only a couple of weeks ago—is now anathema to the opposition. It is really remarkable. This bill has two significant effects, and they are both very desirable. Firstly, somebody who goes to a member of parliament with a disclosure will become a whistleblower and will attract whistleblower protection. That means that they will be immune to defamation in respect of certain types of disclosures that are made and, secondly, that they will be immune to any reprisal. This adds to the mana—to the standing—of the member of parliament. It adds to the security of the whistleblower. For the opposition to somehow see this as though black were white—to see it as if it were the opposite of what it really means—is really remarkable and wondrous to behold. This legislation also extends whistleblower protection to a wider range of people—that is, contract employees within the Public Service. This is also highly desirable. It means in fact that people who were in the situation over the last few years who were not guaranteed whistleblower protection would now be able to get it. This is something that ensures that government is conducted in the clear light of day. This is something that ensures that those who exercise their democratic right to speak freely and openly on behalf of the people of Queensland to those who are in a position to have it fixed are protected. This is something which is entirely desirable. How members of the opposition—how the member for Toowoomba South or the member for Burdekin—can get out of this proposition for an extension that it is a restriction I do not know. How they can see giving somebody protection from defamation and protection from reprisal when they go to a member of parliament—protection they do not have today—as a restriction I do not know. How they can see this as an undermining of the capacity of a member of parliament to do his or her job of fearless representation on behalf of the people of Queensland I do not know. How they can see that black is white or that the moon is made of green cheese I do not know. Whatever they think, whatever they say, the truth of it is this: this bill extends whistleblower protection in two ways—both by giving the capacity of whistleblowers to approach their members of parliament an enhancement by allowing those members of parliament by their meeting with them to confer upon them whistleblower protection and, secondly, by bringing a whole lot of people under the aegis of whistleblower protection. This is entirely benign legislation. This is an entirely useful and good piece of accountability. That the opposition should fail to see that is a problem not for the people of Queensland but for the honourable members opposite. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (4.32 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this important debate today. I have to say that the closing remarks by Dean Wells, the former Attorney, the member for Murrumba, summed up many of the things that I will deal with. This bill represents a commitment by my government to strengthen an important component of the integrity framework in Queensland. This framework establishes principles of ethical conduct, accountability checks and provides avenues for bringing instances of suspected wrongdoing to the attention of the relevant authorities. Queensland is already a leader in Australia for protections available to whistleblowers, and we will now be a leader for providing avenues for people to raise public interest disclosures. As a result of this bill, people who want to make a public interest disclosure can go directly to their MP without waiting. I really think it would be very helpful if those opposite actually listened to what I am about to set out, because there is a huge misunderstanding on the other side about this bill. I say that in 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 843 a non-political way. Those opposite have actually misunderstood this and we need to be really clear with them, because I think if they understood what we are actually doing they will not have a problem with it. Queenslanders will be the first in Australia to be given this opportunity. I will really spell this out: we are the only jurisdiction that provides for protection disclosures to MPs without a waiting period and without prior referral to an investigative body. This reinforces the fundamental tenet of democracy— representative government. I am sure that all members will agree that the relationship between the people and their elected representatives should be immediate and direct, and this bill supports that relationship. A number of members have raised concerns that the bill limits their roles as MPs in this regard. I want to make it absolutely clear to members that they have absolute discretion—they have absolute discretion—as to when they raise issues in the House brought to their attention by a whistleblower, be they about a public sector entity, government owned corporations or a judicial officer, for example. There are no limits in this regard—no limitations in this regard at all. I also want to make it clear that there is no requirement that these issues are referred to an appropriate entity before they are raised in this House. I underline that. I heard some of the contributions in my office when I was working on other things. People have just simply misunderstood this. Members will have the ability to receive public interest disclosures and make a decision about whether or not to refer the disclosure to an appropriate body for investigation. This discretion will allow members to take into account the circumstances surrounding the disclosure and use their own judgement to make a decision that they consider to be appropriate. The member for Caloundra raised some issues which I will respond to as follows. He queried whether the erratum to change ‘must’ to ‘may’ in the explanatory notes was merely a drafting error or a deliberate change in the intention of the bill. I can assure members of the House that it was merely a drafting error. Members will note that this bill was correct. It was only the explanatory notes that required correction. So that is straightforward. The member also stated earlier in this debate that this bill was based on recommendations of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. It is not. My government authorised a review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act in response to recommendations of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee. The review was comprehensive and considered recommendations made about whistleblower protections in both the Forster and Davies reports. My government carefully considered all points raised and I believe that the bill before the House has achieved the balance required. The member also raised a concern as to why a member could have no part in a formal investigation. Let me make it clear that this bill is not intended to curtail the normal investigative role of MPs, and nothing in it says anything to the contrary. If anything, it is meant to expand their role and provide further assistance to their constituents. As I said earlier, there is no restriction on when a member can raise a matter in this House. It is in the best interests of the whistleblower and the efficient operation of the investigation that any formal investigation is conducted by an agency with the appropriate skills, experience and authority. I do not think anyone would argue about that—well, if people are serious they would not. It is imperative that the evidence in any investigation of serious allegations not be unwittingly compromised. As a solicitor, the member for Caloundra can understand that. Public interest disclosures are identified as a particular type of complaint, the investigation of which is often sensitive and complex. The bill explicitly allows MPs to inquire about the progress of the investigation and, more importantly, about the outcome. This will ensure that members can be satisfied that the matter has been dealt with appropriately. It is for these reasons that I would encourage members to refer to the appropriate investigative bodies to ensure that the matters are dealt with professionally and appropriately. The member for Caloundra is also concerned that whistleblowers cannot go directly to the media. Allowing public interest disclosures to the media would allow untested allegations to be made public which could prejudice the conduct of any investigation into the disclosure and erode the confidentiality of both the whistleblower and the person who is the subject of the allegations. Confidentiality is an overriding principle of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. This confidentiality extends not only to the person who is making the disclosure to help create an environment where whistleblowers will come forward; it also extends to people against whom allegations have been made to ensure that their reputation is not unjustly damaged by the airing of unsubstantiated allegations. We all know the difficulty of that. We can play our little games from time to time, but when it comes to this legislation we need to get that balance right. It is a very important balance.

The member also raised the proposal for the expanded role of the Ombudsman. The Forster report and the review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, conducted by the Office of the Public Service Commissioner, did not support an expanded role for the Ombudsman. The member’s proposal adds an extra layer to the process of complaint resolution, increasing the complexity of the process and potentially slowing it down. Sooner or later we have to get a conclusion to these matters, otherwise they will go on like Gwen Meredith’s Blue Hills and we will get no result. 844 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

The member’s proposal is potentially problematic for the role of the Ombudsman. People dissatisfied with an investigation into a public interest disclosure are often advised by investigating agencies that they may seek external review. By who? By the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman had an oversight role in the original process, either by monitoring or providing advice to the investigating agency on how it should progress, its ability to independently and impartially review the process would be, or may be, compromised. I reckon that is pretty logical. Mrs Reilly: That is right. Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely logical. This is about Caesar judging Caesar. To be perfectly frank, this principle has been around since Roman law. Since then it has been enhanced in the British system. I am sure even the Napoleonic Code made some provision for it. It did for most other things. The overwhelming majority of public interest disclosures—85 per cent to 90 per cent—are already subject to external oversight by the CMC. Therefore, having an oversight role for the Ombudsman only addresses a small percentage of complaints. The very small number of disclosures for which the Ombudsman would have oversight would not justify that extra layer of bureaucracy and the potential delay that that extra layer would cause. With regard to the request by the member for Caloundra for the Attorney-General to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for consideration for nationally consistent legislation, I point out that SCAG is not the appropriate forum for consideration of this matter. It is generally the responsibility of the Premier in other jurisdictions, as it is in Queensland. It is usually at the Premiers’ level. I consider this legislation to be model legislation. In any case, we would be happy if the governments in the other states chose to follow my government’s lead. No doubt at some point they will. I have dealt with most of the issues that were raised by the member for Caloundra because he is the opposition spokesman for this legislation. I have gone through systematically the issues that the member has raised. I hope that I have explained why we have introduced this legislation. Whether we agree on it is another matter, but I think I have explained the issues more than adequately. The member for Burnett raised many issues. I will respond to the issue of the cover for casual staff. I can confirm that casual staff are covered already. The bill is intended to additionally cover individuals who are engaged under a common law contract of service arrangement outside whatever industrial awards might apply. So we have covered the situation that was raised by the member for Burnett. I thank those members who spoke in support of the bill. In closing, I would like to remind members that when the Whistleblowers Protection Act was introduced in 1994, it was the first of its kind in Australia and, indeed, one of the first in the world of common law. This bill ensures that Queensland remains at the forefront of protection for whistleblowers. I commend the bill to the House. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 23—Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Langbroek, Lee Long, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr McARDLE (4.49 pm): I certainly took on board the comments that the Premier made in his reply regarding clause 4 and the CMC report No. 71 of 2006. However, the report goes one step further than simply imposing a regime for reporting. It puts in place a mechanism whereby the Ombudsman and the CMC work with the departments to try to eliminate the necessity of the report or the disclosure having to be made. The CMC report No. 71 creates a holistic approach to the problem. The Parliamentary Library’s research brief No. 24 states the following at page 18— It has been suggested that the key to creating a positive reporting climate is careful early intervention by managers rather than waiting to see if the problems eventuate before taking action. Recommendation 25 of report No. 71 of the PCMC states— The Committee recommends that the Ombudsman takes the lead role (supported by the CMC) for ensuring that agencies are appropriately administering their responsibilities under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. Recommendation 26 states— The Committee recommends that the CMC (in conjunction with the Ombudsman and the Office of the Public Service Commissioner) work together to develop guidelines to assist agencies to properly handle and record details of public interest disclosures. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 845

As I read the bill, it simply says that a disclosure can be made to a member of parliament. The recommendations of report No. 71 provide a holistic approach to dealing not just with that issue but the whole problem and maybe eliminating to an extent disclosures having to be made. That is where I believe that clause 4, in simply being limited to a member of parliament, is deficient. Mr BEATTIE: Clause 4 amends section 10 of the act to include a member of the Legislative Assembly as an appropriate entity to which a public interest disclosure may be made and provides that the member may refer the public interest disclosure to a public sector entity identified under the division. The term ‘may refer’ has been changed from ‘must refer’ in the explanatory notes, and I went through that before in reply. Section 10(3) is amended by replacing ‘unit’ with ‘entity’, ensuring consistent terminology is used throughout the act. By inserting ‘if it is a public sector entity’ in section 10(3)(b), clause 4 also clarifies that section 10(3)(b) does not apply to public interest disclosures made to a member of the Legislative Assembly. The point in relation to the report is this: clearly a number of reports make recommendations. In the end, government has to consider what is the appropriate way to achieve maximum public accountability. In relation to the matters that the shadow Attorney-General has referred to—that is, the role of managers and early intervention—one of the things that the CMC has done is to have an educative role. I can recall when I was chair of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee—and that was some time ago, thank heavens—that it set out to do just that. It did it with local government. It produced a number of reports, one of which studied six local authorities, if I recall correctly, and outlined what behaviour was inappropriate. Is there a place for the CMC to have an educative role? Yes, there is. Is there a role for the Public Service Commissioner to be involved in that? Yes, there is. But, as I have already indicated, we have to be very, very careful about the role of the Ombudsman. I am not trying to be cute about this, but the shadow minister understands this. The reality is that if the Ombudsman is involved in this process then there will be many people who will view that role as being compromised if the Ombudsman is then the body to whom a complaint later goes that the investigative process has not been effective. I want to make that point. I have spent a lot of time dealing with complaints over the years. I know that the perception of justice not only being done but being seen to be done is absolutely crucial. I think the recommendation in relation to involving the Ombudsman in this is philosophically incorrect, and I make no apology for saying so. The Ombudsman used to be in my portfolio. It is now in the portfolio of the Attorney-General I think. Hence, I am familiar with how the Ombudsman operates. I just want to make the point, and I think the shadow minister can understand this, that a body cannot be involved in the process—no matter how meritorious it might be—if at a later date the process is the subject of a complaint to that body. So, if the Ombudsman is going to be or could be the body to which a complaint is made about the investigation, it cannot be involved along the way. That recommendation is philosophically incorrect. I have tried to be very generous about those who have recommended this. I have tried to be very generous in that I have not gone out and made what I think is an appropriate comment about the philosophical error of the recommendation or the lack of intellectual fortitude that has gone into the consideration of that recommendation. I have tried not to do that, but the member has now flushed me out and I have had to share that with the parliament. They are wrong—absolutely wrong. There is also an interagency committee of the CMC, Ombudsman, the OPSC and the Auditor- General. They do provide guidance along the way. But complaints management has to be held by the OPSC in conjunction with the Ombudsman. In terms of agencies providing assistance, a complaints management directive has been issued which compels agencies to implement a system for managing complaints. I will not go on about it. I think I have made the point in response to what the shadow minister has said. Mr McARDLE: Report No. 71 puts in place a new regime. It proposes that the current regime be—’discarded’ is too strong a word—shall we say replaced by a completely new regime not dealing purely, as I said earlier, with the issue of the disclosure itself. It certainly puts the Ombudsman as a critical player in the new regime, then a member of parliament and then allows the media after certain time periods have expired to become involved in the process. The Premier has made comments in regard to the role of the CMC and other government agencies and bodies, and education. I think we have to accept the fact that this stems from the Davies report, the Forster report, the CMC report, the Hoffman issue—the whole box and dice so to speak. It is saying that we have now entered a new era in whistleblower protection necessity in this state. What we need to understand is that what did occur or what was in place did not sufficiently work in those circumstances. That is the whole thrust of the Davies report, is it not? That is the whole thrust of the CMC report No. 71. It did not provide the protection that this new system could well do for all members of the public and also for members of this House. So what it is saying is: let us replace the old with the new regime based upon modern history so that we can eliminate as much as possible future necessities for these matters to be raised in this House and additional inquiries having to be undertaken. 846 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

Mr BEATTIE: Of course this has come about as a result of a number of matters involving recent history. I have to say quite bluntly—and I do not want to get into the history of all of this—that if some of the mechanisms which existed prior to the Bundaberg Hospital process had not existed then none of this would have happened. There would not have been a revelation of any kind. The transparencies in the system that have been in place for some time were partially effective. They were not as effective as I would have liked. Hence, we have ended up with the recommendations that are before us today. I understand the member’s view about this, but my point is that I think he should give this a go. I think this is a better system. We have spent a lot of time trying to work it out. The member knows that there were some conflicting recommendations that the government had to make a decision on in the end. If someone has different pieces of advice, someone has to make a decision, and the government has made a decision. In the end, we are elected to do that; any cabinet is. If the member for Caloundra was the attorney in the government he would do the same. I think it is important to point out that it is now possible under this bill to make disclosures directly to a member of parliament. This provides the extra protection necessary. That was the point. The member raised the issue about the history of this. That was one of the shortcomings. We have now addressed that. My view is very simple. I think we should give this a go. This is a living piece of legislation in the sense that I think we can all learn from our experiences. I think this legislation is the best that is available at this time. While we can argue about the ins and outs of it, I think this is the best system that will work. I think that we should give it a go. Division: Question put—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 50—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 24—Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Langbroek, Lee Long, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 5— Mr McARDLE (5.06 pm): Premier, clause 5 deals with section 26. I want to discuss section 26(2). Section 26(2) would appear to limit the capacity of a member of parliament to receive public interest disclosures concerning court tribunals, judicial officers and GOCs et cetera. I understand that in his contribution the member for Keppel raised the role of parliament in relation to the judiciary. This parliament ultimately does have the right to remove a member of the judiciary in the rarest of circumstances. Of course, the parliament will always consider any request by the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge or the Chief Magistrate to review legislation if they find determinations are contrary to the public goodwill or public interest. I am concerned that this particular clause does, in fact, limit a member of parliament from looking at a public interest disclosure including the judiciary. There are instances in New South Wales where a judge is facing allegations. If that situation came before a member of this House, I would have thought that it would have been appropriate for that person to become involved in investigating that disclosure. What I am looking for from the Premier is confirmation that this clause is not going to prohibit the right of members of this House to look at judges and judicial officers. Mr BEATTIE: I think, if I recall correctly, it is already in the act under section 34. In terms of the point the member made, this does not actually change the position. It is in an existing act. I have just confirmed that with my advisers. That was my understanding. In terms of the particular point the member opposite makes, it does not change the existing law. Clause 5 omits the heading and inserts— When public sector entity or member of Legislative Assembly is an appropriate entity. It establishes that— A member of the Legislative Assembly is an appropriate entity to receive any public interest disclosure. That is the first point. The same limitations apply to a member of the Legislative Assembly that apply to public sector entities under section 26(2) of the act. Clause 5 specifies that a member of the Legislative Assembly is not an appropriate entity to receive public interest disclosures about courts. That is currently the position. Just to allay the member for Caloundra’s concerns, I do not think that is an issue that changes the current position. I have confirmed that with my advisers. I should have said to the member before, and I mention this now, that if members are concerned about their ability to identify what constitutes a public interest disclosure, then we will provide some sort of training regime for members to go through that. I think, clearly, we need to ensure that we back up some of this legislation. If we can organise this, I will give a commitment that through the department we 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 847 can run, at some appropriate time, a forum where we can involve all members about identifying what constitutes a public interest disclosure. There will also be ongoing advice available from specialist agencies such as the CMC and Ombudsman. I think that will overcome some of the other matters. I do not think there should be a concern because it does not change the existing section 34. Mr McARDLE: Thank you, Premier. I am querying the comment the Premier made that if a member of parliament is given the right to receive public interest disclosures—and I accept the law as it currently stands; I know that section 34 deals with that issue very clearly—what is the rationale for that member of parliament not being allowed to accept that disclosure and pass it on? If we are giving members of parliament the right to receive disclosures generally, I believe it is important that a member of parliament, as the ultimate provider for the community need, should have the power to look at disclosures in regard to judicial officers. Is that not part of the process we are involved in here as MPs? Mr BEATTIE: I am trying to be clear in my mind about the point the member is making. I am not quite sure that under the existing position that is the case. If the member looks at 34(3)— A public interest disclosure under section 15 about the conduct of a judicial officer may be made only— (a) to the chief judicial officer of the relevant court or tribunal; or (b) to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. In other words, a public interest disclosure under section 16, 17, 18 or 19 about the conduct of a judicial officer may be made only to the chief judicial officer of the relevant court or tribunal. If a reprisal, that is, conduct of a judicial officer, is taken against a person for making a public interest disclosure under this section, the person may make a public interest disclosure about the reprisal only to the chief judicial officer of the relevant court or tribunal or, if the reprisal is official misconduct, to the chief judicial officer of the relevant court or tribunal or to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. It still ends up with the CMC or the Chief Justice. The member mentioned before that the parliament has the right to remove a judge. In my political lifetime the only judge who was removed was Justice Vasta who appeared before the bar of the parliament. Admittedly it was prior to my time in the House. The member for Murrumba, Mr Wells, however, was a member of the House at the time; it was before he was attorney. That power does exist. I think that it is quite reasonable that if a complaint exists about a particular member of the judiciary then surely the appropriate person to receive that complaint should be the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the District Court or the Chief Magistrate. If we are going to have a separation of powers it is very important that we keep politicians as much as possible out of the running of the judiciary other than in the final role of removing a judge, should they be guilty of misconduct or the other matters that the member referred to. I highlight what I said before in section 34(3) subclause (b) that a complaint can be made to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. That then is the appropriate mechanism. We deal with the principles of the separation of powers in terms of the roles of members of parliament, but the mechanism of complaint to whatever it may be—Supreme, District, Magistrate or to the Crime and Misconduct Commission—is adequate. I think that covers the member’s point. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I would ask the Premier for clarification on a particular point. I apologise if he has already referred to this and I have not been able to fully understand it. Constituents come to us with complaints and they do not give a great deal of detail in terms of whether the complaint should go to the judiciary because they are alleging that the judge did them wrong. I am thinking of a particular instance in my own experience where a constituent has been through a very unfortunate set of circumstances and finds himself without his farm because it has been taken from him. He has a significant complaint against the judicial process, but also has a lot of concern about the banking process as well. He brings those complaints to me. I acknowledge that the Premier has said that this does not change what is already in existence, but will it in any way preclude me from sending his complaint on given that they may not have either the financial ability to send large amounts of documents on or, indeed, the ability to formulate a complaint whereas the member of parliament can send it through to the Chief Justice or to the CMC? Mr BEATTIE: The answer to the member’s question is no. Most of those would not be public interest disclosures anyway. They are a very narrow area. If someone came in with a complaint of that nature the member would be able to send it off to the CMC. Members have raised concerns about their ability to look into matters raised by their constituents. The bill does not affect the capacity of members to follow up matters brought to their attention. Public interest disclosures in terms of the act are very rare. Most complaints will continue to be dealt with in the normal way. I think that answers the member’s question. I have put that clearly on the record so that there is no misunderstanding about it. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. 848 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr McARDLE (5.17pm): Clause 8 incorporates the new sections 28A and 28B. 28A(1) commences with the words— If a member of the Legislative Assembly receives a disclosure, the member may refer the disclosure... Immunity is provided to whistleblowers under sections 38 and 39 of the act. That refers to the immunity being provided to people who make a disclosure. What this refers to is a member of this House simply referring a disclosure. There is a distinction between making a disclosure and the terminology here which is referring the disclosure. Is there a risk that the member of parliament referring the disclosure on to the relevant public authority is exposed to a lack of immunity given defamation laws in this state? Mr BEATTIE: Is the member asking if someone wrote to the member and he referred that on to the CMC would he be caught by defamation in the sense of publication under the defamation law? Mr McARDLE: What I am saying is under the act there is a blanket immunity from civil and criminal liability to a whistleblower making a disclosure but this act refers to a member receiving a disclosure and then referring it on. That person is not making a disclosure, he is referring it on. Section 28A(1) may, in fact, open up defamation proceedings against a member of parliament who simply refers it on. If he had made the disclosure—and there is a distinction between the two terms of ‘referring’ and ‘making’—is that potentially a risk down the track? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Premier, the member for Gladstone would like to speak, too. Are you happy to wait? Mr BEATTIE: Yes, of course. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I wish to talk about a different clause. I thank the Premier for his summing- up because it clarified that this legislation will not in any way affect how members of parliament carry out their duties, particularly in their electorate offices. During one of the divisions, I spoke with one of the Premier’s officers about the definition of ‘investigating’. Constituents often come to our offices and make allegations or claims, and I think they overwhelmingly do it with a very genuine desire to see a wrong or a perceived wrong on their behalf corrected. Oftentimes, even with very serious allegations—and I referred in my speech in the second reading debate to health matters where allegations are made against a hospital—as members of parliament we make a number of phone calls just to understand the accuracy, appropriateness, depth or seriousness of the allegation. There is no definition of ‘investigating’. Is investigate a couple of phone calls? The Premier’s adviser said to me that he did not believe that it would be that—that ‘investigate’ is the detailed manner in which an entity such as the CMC, the Ombudsman or another appropriate entity would investigate. Could the Premier clarify that? In our role as a member of parliament, if we were to follow up a complaint with a couple of phone calls prior to referring it on when it is shown that the gravity of the complaint is such that it warranted being referred on, does that constitute ‘investigating’? Mr BEATTIE: Member for Caloundra, was there something else you wanted to raise? Mr McARDLE: I can do it after you reply to the member for Gladstone. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to wait to the end if you want to say something else. You are chairing the show, not me. I am quite happy to hear the lot and then only have one go. I’m that sort of guy. Mr McARDLE: Generous to a fault Mr BEATTIE: I would agree with that. Mr McARDLE: The word ‘fault’? Mr BEATTIE: No, just ‘generous’. Mr McARDLE: I thank the Premier. The member for Gladstone raises a couple of points in my own mind as well. What is the true intent of the words ‘has no role in investigating the disclosure’? Two points are raised here. When does a thing become a disclosure? I think the Premier raised this before. It can be very difficult for a member to actually come to a determination on that without proper and adequate training. So the process goes on before an issue becomes a formal disclosure and it may not become a disclosure after the first time a person approaches the member of parliament; it may be after the fourth occasion that the person goes to the member. Therefore, this is the difficulty: when does the investigatory role or potential investigatory role of the member cease? In addition to that, what happens when a disclosure is made to the member, he or she refers it on to the appropriate body and then other information which is ancillary to or in conjunction with the first information hits the table? Does the usual investigatory role as an MP continue, or does it cease? I am concerned that there is so much grey in there about the receipt of disclosure, what a disclosure is, what the role of the MP is in normal circumstances to investigate a matter and what happens in a matter where information is received on an ongoing basis. The potential is there to limit the capacity of an MP to investigate matters that come before them on a day-to-day basis. 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 849

Mr MESSENGER: I listened very carefully to the response the Premier has given to the member for Caloundra and previously, and just simply saying, ‘We should give it a go on this legislation,’ does not really cut it for me. It is the sort of reason I give to my fiancee if I am trying to convince her to see the next Jerry Bruckheimer film. What I am saying is that, as the Premier would know, this is a very serious bill before the parliament. It is to do with people’s lives. How many people will die if we do not get this right, and how many whistleblowers will have their lives ruined if we do not get this right? I say that because I know the facts; I have spoken to Toni Hoffman. She went through a great deal of angst, and she will only just return to work in a few weeks’ time. I am very concerned about clause 8 and the insertion of new section 28A(2). The member for Caloundra spoke about this. It states, ‘For the purposes of this Act, the member has no role in investigating the disclosure.’ Why even have those words in the bill? Why have them there at all? That is one of the things I would like the Premier to answer, if he could. It seems to me like it is putting some sort of legislative restriction on the role of a member of parliament. I would also appreciate, and the member for Caloundra raised this too, if the Premier could say what happens if a member of this place is found guilty of transgressing new section 28A(2) and found guilty of investigating the disclosure. Mr BEATTIE: Let me start with the last point first. Of course this is serious legislation, but we have to make certain that there are actually outcomes. It is all very well to want to politically grandstand—and I am not talking about the member for Burnett; I am talking generally about these things for members—but it is absolutely imperative that, if whistleblowers are going to be given a go, there is actually an appropriate investigative body that will do just that. New section 28A(2) states that a member of the Legislative Assembly has no investigative role under the act. It is not the intention to curtail the normal investigative role of members of parliament. That is what the member for Burnett is really worried about. This bill does not restrict what he is concerned about and what he did in Bundaberg, as he said. We may have a different view about what he did but, if he is worried about what he did, this does not curtail that in any way. In fact, I want to put that on the record. It is not the intention to curtail the normal investigative role of members of parliament, so he should not be concerned in terms of the role he sees he played. I am being generous; I am not trying to get into an argument with the member for Burnett about politics. However, public interest disclosures are identified as a particular type of complaint, the investigation of which is often a sensitive and complex undertaking. If there is a detailed investigation, then it really needs to be done by the CMC—and, with the Bundaberg case, that is what happened—or the inquiries that my government establishes. That is the appropriate body or mechanism that will look at them. It is imperative that no action is taken by any public official that might impair the protections afforded to complainants and respondents under the confidentiality provisions of the act or that might compromise any investigation undertaken by an appropriate authority. It is designed to ensure that once the investigation has started we do not have members of parliament interfering with what is an appropriate investigation by that body. I do not believe the member for Burnett should have any concerns about this. I think I have adequately answered his question in relation to new section 28A(2). Let me go through the matters raised by the member for Caloundra: no other agency has special immunity for referring a public interest disclosure and no extra protection is regarded as necessary. In terms of what a member of parliament has—as the member for Caloundra would know from his law practice—all members have qualified privilege and under those circumstances it would apply. The member for Gladstone raised the issue of investigation. Investigation is the detailed inquiry into the allegation. That is what it means. In terms of investigations, they may lead to further formal action—for example, disciplinary or criminal action. The member for Caloundra raised the issue about what happens if additional information comes along. Any additional information should be referred to the agency responsible for the investigation. In that case, the member would become, if you like, a clearing house in referring it. In relation to the matters raised by the member for Caloundra earlier, if it is the CJC or the CMC, as it is now called, members should continue to refer that material on. I want to make another point to the member for Caloundra, because he referred to this several times, and the member for Burnett partly came in on this too. What we have done is get the appropriate balance for when someone goes to a member with a complaint and it is then aired publicly—which is what he was referring to and nothing stops members from doing that—and an appropriate detailed investigation is done by a body like the CMC without any interference. That is the balance that we have tried to get here. I think we have got it right. That is the way we see it. Members do not have the expertise or time to carry out a careful examination of matters that are often very complex and sensitive. I think the member understands that. We are talking about a complicated, complex matter as opposed to someone coming to one of my members or one of the members of the opposition about a matter they want to air. The member is not an investigator or a policeman and nor am I. Some matters are very complex and therefore need to be thoroughly and properly investigated. 850 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 08 Mar 2007

Public interest disclosure may result in very serious action against the people who are the subject of the allegation. MPs are not in the best place to draw those sorts of conclusions. I think I have answered the issue. It is in the best interests of the whistleblower and the efficient operation of the investigation that any formal investigation is conducted by an agency with the appropriate skills, experience and authority. It is imperative that the evidence in any investigation of a serious allegation not be unwittingly compromised because the outcome of that may be disciplinary action or it may be some charges or it may be referred to an appropriate place. We all know that police officers or CMC officers are the best people to do that. Mr McARDLE: Section 28B(1) states quite clearly that the powers of this House and its members are not limited by the contents of a disclosure. The Premier has indicated in his second reading speech that there would be amendments to the standing orders with regard to the guidelines provided— Mr Beattie interjected. Mr McARDLE: I am not sure whether I am allowed to discuss them because they are not before the House at this point in time, but I have certainly seen them. My concern with the amendments to the standing orders is that they do not prohibit a member from raising issues in the House but they certainly caution, should I say, as to the extent or breadth of the statement that they may make in the House. As I understand it, that is the schedule to a particular order. What I am concerned about is the standing orders providing a guideline whereby MPs are told that in these sorts of matters there is no finite point that they can touch. For example, the sub judice rules. They are quite clear. We understand those quite clearly. I understand that these are going to be very open ended. It really is a matter for the Speaker or the relevant officer in each individual case to make a determination as to whether or not a member has gone past that point of no return. That uncertainty in the standing orders does create a real problem for debate in this House if we accept that this House, subject to clear-cut guidelines, is the appropriate House for full and frank disclosure of issues. Mr BEATTIE: If I recall correctly, they have been circulated for consultation. Obviously, I have approved them a little time ago. We have circulated them to get input. They are obviously not part of the bill today and part of what will be passed. If the member has those sorts of concerns, then let us talk about them at the appropriate time. Robert Schwarten, the Leader of the House, is distributing them. I understand the member’s concern about how the Speaker or chairman may interpret these things. Frankly, the way the standing orders are interpreted in this parliament—and it has been the case for the 17 years that I have been here—is very generous, and sometimes more generous than others. The toughest Speaker I knew was Neil Turner. He was very fair but very tough. I have to say that there would have been a lot fewer of those opposite sitting over there in the last week had Neil Turner been running the show. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: As the member for Toowoomba South knows, when he gave someone the evil eye they knew that if they did it again they were gone. He was very tough. Some of the points of order that members take and some of the matters of privilege suddenly arising that members raise and then argue would have meant under him that they would not be sitting here. We are generous. Every one of the Speakers subsequently have been, including the current chairman. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I hope you are not reflecting on the chair. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Chairman, you just demonstrated your tolerance by letting me weave on. Thank you for reconfirming the point I just made. We have to have standing orders. I think that, frankly, what we have put forward is quite reasonable. The standing orders are a guide only. I think we all know that. It is very clear that they are not mandatory. So it is not clear under what circumstances the Speaker would make such a ruling. I think if the member has issues he should pursue them. I think they are quite reasonable. Thank you for your tolerance, Mr Chairman. Division: Question put—That clause 8, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 51—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Finn NOES, 21—Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Langbroek, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 9— Mrs CUNNINGHAM (5.41 pm): This clause inserts obligations on the chief executive officer of a public sector entity to keep certain records. There are no devolutions and there are no delegations in this clause. If the complaint is about the chief executive officer himself or herself, how will that obligation be fulfilled? 08 Mar 2007 Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 851

Mr BEATTIE: I just want to be clear. MPs do not have to keep their own records, so I just want to be clear about that. Is the member for Gladstone concerned that the officer has to do it physically himself or herself and cannot delegate? Is that her concern? Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My concern is that the CEO is the one required to keep the records. If there is no delegation and if the complaint is about the chief executive officer, in the absence of a delegation, who will do it? Mr BEATTIE: What would happen in those circumstances—and I accept that may occur if, for example, the member for Gladstone is talking about certain public entities—is that it would go specifically to the CMC and it would have some form of record. It could then designate the public entity itself about how that record would be kept. If the CEO was being investigated, it may well be that they may be stood down and someone would be acting in that role, in which case they would be responsible for keeping that record. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My query there is whether clarity would be better achieved if it was the chief executive or an appropriate person, because quite honestly I understand the words the Premier has said but it does not mesh with that particular clause. The clause is very categoric. It states— The chief executive officer of a public sector entity must also ensure that a proper record is kept about each disclosure referred to the public sector entity under section 28A, including ... The clause then goes on to cite what has to be kept, but it does not give any option if the chief executive officer of that public sector entity is the person about whom the complaints are made. Mr BEATTIE: Can I just make the point to the member for Gladstone that I understand what she is trying to say here, but under the normal legislative framework that exists it is CEOs who have the responsibility to do annual reports. They are the ones who are required to ensure that any reporting process is complied with. That is the normal system. That is one of the reasons why most of the bills that the member for Gladstone sees actually specifically set out that the CEO is the appropriate person to do it. Let us go again to whether the CEO is the person subject to the investigation. If that matter went to the CMC, as it would, the CMC would then take appropriate action against someone if there was some offence to be found. They would be stood aside and the acting CEO would then take that role, and I think that is the answer. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr McARDLE (5.45 pm): Clause 15 amends schedule 6 and it is subsection (2) that defines the word ‘officer’ which I ask for clarification on. In particular, the Alert Digest at page 37 with regard to this bill makes the comment that the bill amends the definition of the word ‘officer’ to enable an additional category of persons to make public interest disclosures. The Alert Digest states— The committee notes that the definition of ‘officer’ already includes ‘employees’ of the entity, ‘whether employed on a permanent or temporary basis’ (paragraph (b) of the definition). The Alert Digest then states at page 38— As noted, the Act already applies to employees, even if only employed temporarily. It also seems clear that the policy intention is not to include independent contractors. Given the several references to ‘casual nurses, IT professionals and engineers’, it might have been assumed the target group was persons supplied to the relevant public sector entity ... In such cases the person, whether or not at law an employee of the employment agency, would not be an employee of the public sector entity. So the question is: what additional individuals are covered by the word ‘officer’ as a consequence of the changed definition or the insertion of subsection (2) in schedule 6? It does appear as though the definition already covers the officers or individuals the Premier referred to earlier. Mr BEATTIE: It is normally people like engineers, IT professionals and those sorts of people. I think that is self-evident. I can give the member a long-winded explanation, but he asked specifically for examples. That is whom we are talking about. They are employed under a common law contract. The member understands what that means. Clause 15, 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. 852 Adjournment 08 Mar 2007

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Health Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Acting Minister for Health) (5.48 pm), by leave: I now have additional information relevant to a question asked this morning by the member for Surfers Paradise. In relation to the Gold Coast Hospital and Gold Coast Hospital interns, the Gold Coast Hospital director of medical services has today advised my office that all 72 of its first-year interns are fully registered. I also have additional information in relation to medical graduates awaiting registration at Cairns Base Hospital. As reported in the Cairns Post newspaper on 24 February, the Deputy Director of Medical Services, Dr Ric Streatfield, admitted that he had ‘dropped the ball’ by hiring foreign medical graduates before they were registered by the Medical Board of Queensland. Dr Streatfield explained that it was the first time that the hospital had hired foreign medical graduates as interns. When I gave my answer this morning I was not aware that Cairns Base Hospital management had sought human resource advice about this situation. That advice was received by the hospital yesterday. It said that the three graduates should be suspended while waiting to be registered. Accordingly, this morning the three graduates were suspended on pay and given notice to show cause within 48 hours as to why they should not be suspended without pay until they are registered. I also have to correct a matter of fact in my answer to the honourable member’s question this morning. I said that there were 14 registered interns who had commenced work at Cairns Base Hospital. In fact, I was wrong. It is much better than that: there are 21 registered interns and that is a record number for Cairns Base Hospital.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (5.50): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Religious Education Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (5.50 pm): I would like to share with this place the concerns that Pastor Brian Robinson of the Coral Coast Church has with the provision of religious education. Pastor Robinson wrote the following letter to me— Dear Mr Messenger, As you would be aware, the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 retained the previously existing arrangements for religious education in Queensland’s State Schools. During the review process of the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989, it had been proposed to change the arrangements for religious education to an ‘opt-in’ rather than an ‘opt-out’ situation, as well as introducing provision for other ‘spiritual and philosophical programs’. However, after significant public outcry, the State Government decided to not proceed with these changes, and this decision was announced prior to the last State election. In fact, I have in my possession a copy of a letter, dated 20 July 2006, from the Premier to a member of our church in which Mr Beattie states, ‘The status quo will remain, as the existing arrangements regarding religious instruction in State schools have been in place for some time and have not brought significant objections from either parents or the general community.’ It has been quite disconcerting, therefore, to discover that a number of principals of State Schools in our district have been advised that the arrangements for religious education are now on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Apparently, principals in our district—and perhaps in other parts of the State—were advised at an in-service training event towards the end of 2006 that parents now have to give specific written permission to opt their children into religious instruction programs, and that without such written documentation, children were not to attend religious education classes. Previously, a child’s attendance at RE classes was automatic and based on the religious affiliation nominated by his or her parents upon enrolment in the school. Parents could subsequently opt their children out of RE classes by supplying written advice to that effect, but, without such an ‘opt-out’, it was assumed that the children would attend RE classes. Pastor Robinson stated further— It was commendable, therefore, that the Queensland Government decided to retain the existing arrangements for religious education in State Schools, but it is extremely disappointing that these arrangements, in practice, are apparently not being implemented. I would request that you inquire into this matter, and raise my concerns with the parliamentarians or Education Queensland officials responsible for these matters. I ask that the Minister for Education consider the concerns of Pastor Robinson. He has personally written about this matter to the principals of three state schools with which his church has links. He is very concerned. 08 Mar 2007 Adjournment 853

AusLink Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (5.53 pm): It has been reported that the federal government will soon consider funding for AusLink 2. If the figure for AusLink 2 is $19 billion, then again we have been short-changed by Howard and his Liberal team. AusLink l was $15 billion over the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09 and Queensland’s allocation was $2.166 billion over five years. This allocation allowed for $66 million to maintain the federal government’s National Highway. That is an average of $430 million per annum, which represents only about 20 per cent of all Queensland’s total road funding—far short of the necessary expenditure required on the National Highway system to meet the high growth in this state. It is far less than the $7.3 billion that the Beattie state Labor government will spend on road construction and maintenance over the same period. The upgrade of the Bruce Highway, which runs through my electorate, is already behind schedule and we need to ensure that money is made available for stage 3, which will see six lanes from Uhlmann Road to north of the Bribie Island interchange. The federal government collects a whopping $14 billion in fuel tax every year. Fuel is taxed twice by John Howard through the imposition of the fuel tax and the GST and he gives back only 17c in every dollar collected to the states for roads. I ask members to compare that figure to the state government’s contribution. Much more money is spent on state controlled roads than is collected from motor vehicle registration. This financial year $846 million will be collected in registration, with the state government spending in excess of $1.5 billion. Thank heavens for a Labor government in Queensland. While there have been decades of federal underinvestment in Queensland’s roads and other vital services and infrastructure, the Beattie government is getting on with the job of funding many priority road projects. In the area I represent, currently the second stage of the Caboolture northern bypass, at a cost of $65 million, is well underway. A number of successive governments had put this project on the backburner. I am proud that I am part of a government that has started it and will finish it by August this year. The Bribie Island Road has been allocated around $225 million. Most of that money— $170 million—will see the four-laning of the road from the McDonalds to Bestmann Road West. Although no decision has been made on whether there is a viable bypass for the Ningi township, at least there is money set aside for planning if the decision is made to go ahead with that road. I know that the decision as to whether to construct a bypass or four-lane the existing road has taken some time. When the decision is made I will lobby for the work to be done. I ask members to bear in mind that when the conservatives were in power in the mid-1990s, they said that they would push the four lanes through Ningi township without any consultation whatsoever. But when they were elected, they reneged and did absolutely nothing. Once again, the Liberals and the Nationals have shown that they cannot be trusted. Some of their recent actions are pretty dumb. At the moment the Liberal Party is being ‘flegged’ to within an inch of its life. Of course, I am speaking of the announcement last month by Liberal leader—and I use the word ‘leader’ only out of courtesy— that in the event of a coalition winning the 2009 state election the National Party leader will become Premier, even if the Liberals win more seats. Strangely, this decision took place early in the year and at a time when a Morgan Poll was released that showed support for the Liberals at 23 per cent and support for the Nationals at a miserable 9.5 per cent. It is no wonder that the organisational wing of the Liberal Party is choking on it champers. Ms Jones: They’re ‘flegging’ a dead horse. Mrs SULLIVAN: I take that interjection from the member for Ashgrove, who is a rising star. Motorists in this state need the Queensland Liberals to show some fortitude and leadership and start pressuring their mates in Canberra to urgently increase road and rail investment in Queensland well beyond Queensland’s share of a possible $19 million—a shortfall of over $5 billion.

Queensland Cancer Fund Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (5.56 pm): Just about every person has been touched by cancer, whether they have suffered it personally or whether another family member or friend has been affected by it. Sadly, too many people still die from cancer. But since 1961, the Queensland Cancer Fund—which will soon be renamed the Cancer Council Queensland—has provided a vital link between the public and people with cancer. The main objective of the Queensland Cancer Fund is cancer control through all actions that aim to reduce the burden of cancer on individuals and the community. The Queensland Cancer Fund is not funded by the government; it relies on public support through donations. It has 50 volunteer branches statewide. Recently, I was privileged to attend the AGM of the Bundaberg branch of the Queensland Cancer Fund and I was inspired by their dedicated members. 854 Adjournment 08 Mar 2007

The many successful fundraising and promotional programs carried out by this valued organisation encapsulates the great community spirit of the people of Bundaberg to support this great cause. This highly dedicated team is headed by chairperson Deneise Dalziel, vice-chairperson Rosemary Edey, secretary Pam Davis, treasurers Richard Cooke and Diane Moller, the 2006 Nurse of the Year Entrant Derek McCabe, Challenge for Cancer entrants and branch members. The total amount of monies that was raised in the Bundaberg area for 2006 by Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea, Relay for Life, Run for a Cure, doorknocking, Daffodil Day as well as many other events was a staggering $187,000. Queensland Cancer Fund Director of Fundraising, Kym McDougall, attended the AGM and had the highest praise for the Bundaberg branch, whilst presenting two statewide outstanding service awards: one to Deneise Dalziel and the other to Bundaberg, which became the first branch to receive this coveted award. These awards were a fitting tribute to Deneise and her group of unsung heroes who are true champions of the community. Deneise is never one to seek any personal acknowledgement or fanfare. She loves her involvement in the organisation. She is extremely proud of it and her enthusiasm, which is all in the name of caring for others, is infectious. Deneise would be the first to state that the Queensland Cancer Fund is not just a fundraising branch; it is a unique group that promotes all available cancer support services in our community, including breast cancer support Services, B’R’est Friends, a prostate cancer support group, Look Good, Feel Better, Canhelp Cancer Support Group, with many other community groups also involved. Deneise states—

We are one big happy family all working for a common cause. Without these people, cancer sufferers would find it much tougher to fight their battles with this ruthless disease. All Queenslanders owe a great debt of gratitude to members, volunteers and supporters throughout the state. I ask all Queenslanders to throw their full support behind their endeavours. In conclusion, this year the Bundaberg branch’s major fundraiser will again be the Relay For Life, with chairperson Lorraine Tyson and her team aiming to top the $100,000 mark. I ask all Queenslanders to take a leaf out of the books of the likes of Deneise Dalziel and Lorraine Tyson and help try to make this world a better place.

Confraternity of Brothers Leagues Clubs Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (5.59 pm): I would like to advise the House tonight of the successful annual Confraternity of Brothers Leagues Clubs conference, which was held at the Ipswich Brothers Leagues Club over this past weekend. I had the pleasure of addressing this conference on Friday and in so doing welcomed delegates from both Queensland and the Northern Territory. I should point out that I felt especially privileged to address the conference because when I grew up in Ipswich practically the only winter sport available was . As such, I was fortunate enough to play for the brothers club and St Edmund’s College for a number of years. In fact, my lad is also there in the juniors at the moment. I should also point out that, when one looks at the facilities and amenities available to both the players and the public, it is easy to understand why the Ipswich Brothers Leagues Club is so popular. It should be recognised that the Confraternity of Brothers Leagues Clubs is the only sporting organisation of its type in the world, and can boast 47 member clubs situated right across Queensland and the Northern Territory, with a combined membership of 250,000. That is right—250,000. It is therefore no wonder that after the it is the largest Rugby League organisation in Queensland. It is also significant that this conference has been running for more than 30 years and, as such, has become an important event on the Rugby League calendar here in Queensland and of course in the Northern Territory. It is important because it gives all brothers club officials and administrators a chance to get together at the start of a new season and plan how best to meet the challenges that arise in running their clubs. This conference is specifically designed to point towards how to improve the way the game is run. This was obvious from a review of the agenda, which I noted included discussions and sessions on subjects such as ‘how to enhance the purchasing power of the clubs through the confraternity’ to ‘a detailed explanation of the changes to the smoking legislation’ right through to advice on ‘club taxation’ and ‘how to apply for government grants’. The showpiece of the brothers setup is undoubtedly the Confraternity Carnival and, judging by the amount of interest shown in recent times by the number of NRL talent scouts present, it is only going to get more and more exposure. This is because this annual competition, which started in 1980, has grown into one of the most formidable schoolboy Rugby League competitions in Australia. 08 Mar 2007 Adjournment 855

From a government perspective, Rugby League, as well as being an exciting and enjoyable sport to participate in and watch, has also been recognised as a great way for people, especially youngsters, to get active. I am sure members are all aware that it is one of the government’s objectives to encourage people to develop a passion for physical activity from a young age so that they can carry it through into their adult life. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the confraternity, and especially Mr Mark Hennelly, the Manager of the Ipswich Brothers Leagues Club, for their kind invitation to join them on the day. We all know that the government is aware that it is important to recognise the efforts of the administrators and volunteers who contribute so much to the success of our Rugby League clubs, but it is also vital that they constantly improve their skills and knowledge in order to grow sport and active recreation across the state. I feel confident that, with organisations such as the Confraternity of Brothers Leagues Clubs leading the way, the future of our children is in very good hands.

Traveston Dam Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (6.02 pm): I rise tonight to highlight two reports recently released concerning the supply of water in south-east Queensland and the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. The first report was released on behalf of the Mary River Council of Mayors, which I attended in Gympie on Friday, 23 February. The second report released by the Deputy Premier earlier this week talks about economic futures for what is now called the Traveston Crossing region. The difference between the two is that the first report was a carefully considered document compiled by experts and sponsored by our local authorities; the other is a base piece of Labor Party propaganda which tries to justify the government’s position on the proposed dam at Traveston Crossing. I want to compliment the Council of Mayors and, in particular, thank Professor Stuart White, from the Institute for Sustainable Futures from the University of Technology in Sydney, who presented the findings of the report. On the same day that the mayors’ report was released, the Deputy Premier issued a media statement calling it, amongst other things, ‘a flawed assessment’. She then attempted to justify the Beattie government’s poor position on Traveston and added this incredible line in her media statement: ‘It fails to take into account the impact of spending $1.7 billion in this community and the economic spin- off that it will create.’ This statement was quickly followed by this report, which tries to justify the Beattie government’s reasoning. Any child with a computer can look up census and other data and present 98 per cent of what is in this report. Population projections, age demographics, manufacturing businesses, shopping habits et cetera are readily available to anyone. When it comes to how the government is going to spend the $1.7 billion, the Deputy Premier’s report includes lines such as ‘there is an opportunity to consider’, ‘the region may benefit from’, ‘there is also potential’, ‘it would be valuable to investigate the viability’, ‘the region could use the stimulus’, ‘it may be useful to identify’, ‘it may be useful to investigate’, ‘one possibility may be to explore’. That is the extent of planning and preparation for the so-called Traveston Crossing region. There is nothing in this report that has the least benefit to existing residents in the Cooloola shire, the Noosa shire or anywhere else for that matter. The mayors’ report proves that this proposed dam may not be of any use. It is not needed and it is certainly not wanted. But our propaganda experts on the other side of the House have spent taxpayers’ money producing what a schoolchild with a vivid imagination could produce. The Premier has admitted his mistakes before and on many occasions. Why won’t he admit his government has made a mistake to build the Traveston Crossing Dam?

Narangba Valley State High School Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (6.05 pm): Previously in this House I have spoken about the Narangba Valley State High School. I have had the opportunity as the local member since the school opened in 2000 to observe and strenuously support its growth. The school began with 300 year 8 students and with great teaching staff, a parents and citizens committee and, most importantly, the support of all residents of Narangba and Burpengary. The school now has a student population of 1,558. Narangba Valley State High School is a practical example of the government’s vision for Queensland as a dynamic and progressive Smart State. In the budget debate in 2001, I said that the school was developing students in Narangba and Burpengary for their futures and creating a knowledge culture in these young people. As I said, Narangba Valley State High School is a very young school. The school conducts a focused approach, concentrating on special accelerated learning classes in English, maths and science. There are various academy programs and the school undertakes an intensive Queensland core skills test preparation program. The aim of these activities is to ensure that Narangba Valley State High School students are in the very best possible position to achieve to their full potential. 856 Adjournment 08 Mar 2007

The results of this hard work have been immediate and direct. As a practical example, year 12 students of 2006 demonstrated outstanding performances with regard to OP scores. We should not forget that Narangba Valley State High School opened with only grade 8s in 2000, just six years earlier. OP 1 to 15 data, the measure by which schools are compared, shows that over seven out of 10 students achieved OP scores from 1 to 15. This result has placed Narangba Valley State High School as the highest performing state high school both in the Sunshine Coast South District and for the entire Sunshine Coast region—a truly great achievement for such a young school. Incidentally, individually the school achieved two OP1s and six OP3s.

I have previously said that Narangba Valley State High School is a beacon of learning within our local community. With these results in 2006, it is now a beacon of learning on the Sunshine Coast. Great credit is due to the diligent and hardworking staff, the school’s leadership, the school’s parents and citizens committee and the local Narangba and Burpengary community. But most credit is due to the Narangba Valley State High School student body.

Election Campaign, Printed Material

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (6.08 pm): Listening to the Premier lecturing MPs about dishonesty this morning reminded me of that famous line uttered by the third President of the United States, the great statesman Thomas Jefferson—’An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.’ While the Premier’s fetish for unfettered power and intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens is a topic for another time, Jefferson’s definition leads one to question Premier Beattie’s honesty credentials. This morning the Premier tabled an election brochure of mine because the document was apparently conclusive proof that I was dishonest and corrupt with regard to my printing arrangements. My crime? The document did not contain the line ‘not printed using taxpayer funds’. He claims that Labor Party MPs are more honest because that statement was printed on the bottom of all of their election material during the 2006 election. It may come as a surprise to some members opposite that section 161 of the Electoral Act sets out the requirements of what information must be printed on electoral material and not the gospel according to the Premier. Section 161 outlines that it is the name and address of the person authorising the material that must be printed on the brochure. Section 161 does not say that the statement ‘this was not printed using taxpayer funds’ must be added. The Premier knows this, yet this morning tried to insinuate that by leaving this statement out a candidate is committing a heinous crime. What holds for the opposition must also hold for the government. The Premier’s gospel is that if one does not put this statement on a publication covered by section 161 then, in the Premier’s words, that person is dishonest and corrupt. It is important to note that section 161(5) says that the word ‘publish’ covers material published on the internet. A quick look at the Team Beattie web site—a web site used widely during the campaign— will reveal that no statement claiming that the web site was not set-up or maintained using taxpayer funds. Does this make it illegal? No. However, if the Premier is going to go around saying that we are dishonest and corrupt for omitting that line, then obviously he and his party are also dishonest and corrupt. After all, they have a publication covered by section 161, and they do not have the magical line in it. The Premier may argue, despite what it says in the act, that I am talking about the internet and that the internet is totally different. So let us apply the Premier’s gospel to other candidates for election endorsed by the Queensland Labor Party and its printed material. At the 2004 federal election printed material from the Labor Party that was distributed to voters in the Gold Coast seat of Moncrieff did not contain the statement ‘not printed using taxpayer funds’. Applying the Premier’s golden rule, that would make David Parrish, the ALP’s candidate at that election, dishonest and corrupt. Further, according to the Premier’s definition, as contained in accusations against the Liberal Party this morning, such activities by a candidate would prompt asking the question: did elected representatives of the same party in that area assist the candidate with this printing? For the House’s information, the Moncrieff electoral boundaries at the 2004 election covered parts of the then Labor held state seats of Southport, Gaven and Mudgeeraba. Let us hear from those members next week. The Premier is being grossly deceitful and dishonest on this issue, and he is abusing the privileges of this place. Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Would people making comments please return to their own seats before they do so. 08 Mar 2007 Adjournment 857

Jim Donaldson Place

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (6.11 pm): It was my great pleasure to represent the minister for public works and housing, Robert Schwarten, on 16 January this year at the opening of a public housing complex at Government Road in the electorate of Southport. The complex was named Jim Donaldson Place in recognition of a local identity, Jim Donaldson, who has given many years of service to the community housing organisations on the Gold Coast and also for his outstanding service to the St Vincent de Paul Society in the Gold Coast region. I had no hesitation in recommending Jim to the minister as deserving of the highest recognition in the Gold Coast community. Jim has a strong commitment to social justice and social housing issues. This commitment has always been demonstrated through his work with the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Gold Coast Housing Co. Jim initially became involved the with St Vincent de Paul Society in 1983. In 1986 Jim became a committee member of Majella House, a domestic violence refuge on the Gold Coast. In 1992, Jim became the first chairman of the Community Rent Scheme on the Gold Coast, and in 1996 he was elected president of the Gold Coast Housing Co., a position he held for 10 years. I believe in naming public buildings after local identities who have made a significant contribution to the community. It is one way that the contribution can be recognised and noted for future generations. For Jim Donaldson Place the state government provided almost $6.3 million for the purchase of the land and the construction of 25 units as part of the Department of Housing’s community managed housing program. This program provides funding for the purchase or construction and furnishing of properties for use as accommodation for low-income earners who are homeless or at risk of homelessness with an emphasis on single people who are socially marginalised. Tenants at Jim Donaldson Place will benefit from its close proximity to public transport, shops and medical centres. The complex will be managed by the Gold Coast Housing Co., the biggest community housing provider on the Gold Coast and one of the largest in the state. The company currently manages more than 200 properties under a range of programs. Housing delivered by community organisations is playing an increasingly important role in providing for the housing needs of the most vulnerable people in our community. The investment that the state government has made in Jim Donaldson Place adds to the more than $58 million spent on public housing and housing related services in the Southport electorate since 1998. That does not include the $15 million announced yesterday by the minister which goes to the Gold Coast Housing Co. I also congratulate the Gold Coast City Council for agreeing to contribute $3 million over the same period to the Gold Coast Housing Co. This government leads a concerted effort to reduce the incidence of homelessness on the Gold Coast.

Ballistic Protection Vests

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (6.14 pm): It has been brought to my attention that prison officers in the state of Queensland have been issued with level IIIA ballistic protection vests, which are only capable of stopping bullets discharged from handguns and not bullets fired from high-powered rifles. Historically, in armed assaults on the perimeters of Queensland correctional centres it is shown that high-powered firearms have been used to help prisoners escape. So why are prison guards parolling perimeters in equipment set up to fail to meet any expected challenge? Queensland police are issued with level IV vests capable of protecting against high-powered rifle fire and are able to choose from a range of sizes. The level IIIA vest issue is a one-size-fits-all vest designed to protect the wearer against the equivalent of a .44 magnum or a nine-millimeter handgun, not the high-powered rifles historically used against prisons. The government has already noted that these level IIIA vests, secure up the centre in the front of the body with velcro and, when taking into account the speed and impact velocity of the projectile, this allows the bullet to slip through and enter the wearer’s chest. To compensate for this known inadequacy, a further ‘slip over’ vest has since been supplied for perimeter patrols at correctional centres to increase the wearer’s level of protection. Two vests then do the job of one vest. If someone is well over six feet tall, well built and the vests fit reasonably well, they might get away with wearing the vest. But what if someone is only five foot six or under or a woman? The original issue one-size-fits-all vest would swim on these people and would come almost to their knees. However, to give these people the same security they would have expected from the first vest when facing a high- powered rifle, they then have to don a second vest. It is not exactly ideal, and it has to make people question who is making the decisions. Would the minister wear one of these vests and willingly offer to be shot at with a high-powered rifle to test the vests? I do not think she would. She is too smart to take such a risk. 858 Adjournment 08 Mar 2007

Must we wait for one prison officer to be badly injured or killed to see a lawsuit launched against the government because the department has failed in its duty of care before the government realises that it is not the number of dangerous situations one might face but the degree of danger in the incident. Why does a smaller prison officer have to float around inside an extra large vest? How does this comply with Workplace Health and Safety laws? It is appropriate that officers are issued with bullet- proof vests. One would expect that Queensland police and the corrections department would supply such equipment as a matter of course and expect no praise for doing that. People in general and workplace health and safety would expect that issued equipment would at least be suitable to meet the possible demand placed on it. The vests issued simply do not meet the ballistic stopping standards, and concerns have been raised within the service. I was appalled to find that prison guards who are patrolling the perimeters of our prisons in Queensland are issued with what could only be described as substandard vests for protection. What is the potential for litigation for such a ludicrous situation? Not only can’t officers in Queensland correctional centres work out, as they once did, at their work premises, as do inmates, but they are further hampered in their duties by being forced to conduct their activities in two vests, and often some officers have to do this in oversized vests. How will the government plead in such a lawsuit? It certainly cannot feign ignorance. I expect that the government will not have a leg to stand on. We have the two departments, Correctional Services and Queensland Police Service, both under the same ministerial portfolio. Why have these departments not brokered a better deal? Time expired.

International Women’s Day

Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (6.17 pm): On this International Women’s Day 2007 I am delighted to speak of and recognise the young women in my electorate of Mount Isa. As elected representatives, I believe that we are very privileged that we are invited to participate in people’s lives simply by virtue of who we are. It is certainly very humbling. Tonight in Mount Isa people from all walks of life are celebrating International Women’s Day, as they do each year in the form of a gala dinner which the Zonta Club of Mount Isa has organised. This event is proudly sponsored and supported by the collective business, corporate, government and non- government organisations in the community. Two young Indigenous women, who are from the gulf region, and students of the award-winning Spinifex Residential College will attend the dinner. These fine young women are Shonelle Thompson from Mornington Island and Sarsha Scarabrough from Normanton. The Spinifex Residential College is one of the great success stories of the Mount Isa electorate and the Beattie Labor government. It is the only public boarding facility in our state. The residential college has been running to full capacity and carrying a substantial waitlist since opening some five years ago. Its success is due to district and senior staff of the three campuses, teachers, boarding parents and the extended community but most of all the students who make it the success it is today. It is in this environment that these young women will complete their education close to home. On a different note, two weeks ago I was made aware of two young year 8 students, Shanice Medwin and Tianna Thompson from Mornington Island, who have embarked on their secondary education at a college in Brisbane. They have each received scholarships and other support to attend the school. The transition teacher on Mornington Island, Steve Moore, working with people in Brisbane sent out a message to Uncle Kevin Bond, the chairman of the Inala elders, to see if they could assist with some extra support for the girls. Uncle Kevin contacted my colleague the member for Inala who in turn referred the request to me. Through further contacts, a wonderful Brisbane couple, Greg Maguire and Tracy Watts, have come on board and extended their hand of friendship as they support these two wonderful girls in this next step of their life journey. In fact, the girls, Brendan from the college, Uncle Kevin, Aunty Edna, their daughter Lynette, and Greg and Tracy all came to Parliament House yesterday afternoon. I, along with our newly connected group, am looking forward to participating in their education and journey over the coming years. These four young women are the future leaders of my electorate. While I highlight a glimpse of their story, I acknowledge and celebrate all women in the Mount Isa electorate from all walks of life and cultures. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 6.21 pm. 08 Mar 2007 Attendance 859

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

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2007