28 Apr 2004 Legislative Assembly 559

WEDNESDAY, 28 APRIL 2004

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

OPPOSITION APPOINTMENT Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition (9.31 a.m.): Following the appointment of a Minister for Seniors by the Premier, I wish to advise the House of the appointment of Mrs Rosemary Menkens, the member for Burdekin, as the coalition's—the opposition's shadow minister for seniors. Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Sorry, the opposition's shadow minister for seniors. Rosemary has had enormous experience within the community in her own area and across Queensland, and certainly enormous experience in working with seniors, and she will do this job extremely well on behalf of the opposition.

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

Bus Services, Cairns Dr Lesley Clark from 353 petitioners requesting the House to firstly provide assurance that the current bus service operating to and from Cairns city and the suburb of Smithfield run to the scheduled timetable and to assist in the introduction of a more comprehensive schedule of services to and from the said areas as the current service to these areas restricts the safe access of residents to employment opportunities and to services and facilities (eg. James Cook University, religious services, campus and Smithfield shopping centres).

Tugun Bypass Ms Stuckey from 1,863 petitioners requesting the House to demand that the Queensland government immediately cease all planning on the proposed eastern based bypass and urgently resume negotiations with the New South Wales government with a view to constructing a bypass on the western side of the airport, as was previously agreed by all parties involved.

Traffic Lights, Redlands Electorate Mr English from 810 petitioners requesting the House to continue the ongoing improvement at the intersection of Cleveland-Redland Bay Road and German Church Road by installing traffic lights and consider all available sources of funding including federal government black spot funding.

PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by The Clerk— Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) ¥ Response from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee's Report No. 36 entitled The Queensland Constitution: Specific content issues, Report No. 41 entitled Review of the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission's recommendations regarding entrenchment of the Queensland Constitution and Report No. 42 entitled Hands on Parliament: A parliamentary committee inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' participation in Queensland's democratic processes MINISTERIAL PAPERS Minister for the Environment (Mr Mickel)— (a) Letter, dated 28 April 2004, to Mr Vaughan Johnson, Shadow Minister for Police and Corrective Services, in response to a question without notice on 27 April 2004 relating to Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service offices at Roma and Charleville (b) A proposal under Sections 32 and 70E of the Nature Conservation Act 1992, and a brief explanation of the Proposal. 560 Ministerial Statement 28 Apr 2004

ANSWER TO QUESTION FROM MEMBER FOR GREGORY Hon. R. J. MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for the Environment) (9.33 a.m.): I lay upon the table an answer to a question raised yesterday by the honourable member for Gregory.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Shafston International College Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.): The government has moved swiftly to determine if all is in order with Shafston college. As instructed, Education Queensland officers will meet today—that is, Wednesday—with the governing council of Shafston International College. This follows Monday night's airing of allegations against its former college president. As well, the Department of Employment and Training will conduct an audit of the institution in conjunction with Education Queensland under section 37 of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000. If any criminal matters are found, the information will be provided to police. Education Queensland is seeking an explanation from the governing council about its actions in safeguarding the welfare of college students. It seeks an assurance from the governing council that the college has proper processes in place to ensure student safety. The governing council is cooperating fully with the department. Education Queensland is responsible for the accreditation of four of the college's higher education courses. As well, the Police Commissioner yesterday ordered a review of an original investigation and that associated file. Police had received a complaint in relation to a male person. Those matters had been investigated and it was determined that there would be no further action. There was, however, insufficient evidence to pursue the complaint. There have been no other formal complaints. However, if people have new information and would like to make a fresh complaint or if people feel an offence has been committed, they should immediately contact police. If, through any of our audits or reviews, any criminal matters are found, the information will be provided to the police.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT PanBio Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): I want to record another Smart State success story and congratulate the PanBio company on its recent success in establishing a partnership with the Program for Appropriate Technologies and Health, or PATH. The partnership with PATH means that PanBio will gain funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop and manufacture an enzyme immuno-assay, which is a kit to detect Japanese encephalitis. Like dengue fever, West Nile and Ross River viruses, JE is a mosquito-borne virus affecting the central nervous system. It can kill and cause symptoms including coma and neurological problems. It is a problem for a massive three billion people or 60 per cent of the world's population who live in endemic regions. About 50,000 cases of JE are recorded in Asia each year, leading to 10,000 deaths. The number of unrecorded cases is thought to be much higher. However, through PanBio, Queenslanders are using tropical health expertise in an endeavour to save lives and ease suffering. The partnership between PATH and PanBio announced yesterday signals an important milestone in the growing list of Smart State success stories. Last year PanBio was the first company world wide to get United States Food and Drug Administration approval for its diagnostic kit for West Nile virus, giving the company a market for its kits which included 500,000 tests in 2002. Its new partner, PATH, is a giant in sustainable and culturally relevant health solutions, being a major player in the disbursement of aid funding to health programs for developing nations. PATH is funded to deliver this project through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So where has PanBio come from? The Windsor based company—which happens to be in my electorate, I should add—was a 2002 finalist in the Queensland Premier's Export Awards. In 1999 it was recognised with a Queensland Export Achievement Award for Small-Medium Innovative Manufacturers. In 1998 PanBio was awarded the Queensland Export Award for Small-Medium Innovative Manufacturers, and it has won several national awards to complement those 28 Apr 2004 Ministerial Statement 561 successes. It is a textbook case of the Smart State biotechnology sector growing, supporting and encouraging companies with the potential to save and improve lives the world over and create jobs as well. The Smart State strategy is working.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Innovation Festival Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.): At midday today I will have the pleasure of launching the Queensland section of the Australian Innovation Festival, which starts next Monday and will run until 16 May. Festival activities are organised in Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville and on the Gold Coast. They will showcase local technologies as well as provide information to potential innovators and businesses, and this will help them to turn their ideas into commercial products. The Queensland government offers innovators a range of financial and business assistance programs to help them move towards commercialisation. Two examples of innovative Queensland businesses that will be featured in the launch today are the Brisbane based Standfast Enterprises and Mitchell Boards from Caloundra. Cameron Baker from Standfast Enterprises got the idea to develop safety harnesses for boaties and truckies through his concern as a 12-year-old at seeing his brother almost swept off the rocks near Noosa. Now, his award-winning product is being used by transport giant LinFox and the Japanese Patrol Boat program. The new fibre composites skateboard, developed by Mitchell Boards, is set to revolutionise this popular sport. The material is ultra light, super strong and will replace the non-renewable timber skateboard decks in the same way that graphite racquets, a few years ago, replaced wooden racquets in tennis. Also in the spotlight during the Australian Innovation Festival will be the Brisbane Technology Park at Eight Mile Plains. This is Queensland's most developed technology park and is home to 45 companies, employs over 1,300 staff and has a combined annual turnover of more than $160 million. I am very proud of what we are achieving in the Smart State. I am pleased to support functions like this festival that help expose our Smart State products to the world and continue to develop the spirit of innovation that the government is determined to encourage as part of its Smart State strategy.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Peace Scholarship Trust Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.): Today, world peace and security are tenuous. Governments and communities are increasingly faced with the prospect of global and local threats to acceptance of cultural diversity. Ignorance and suspicion breed in a climate of fear and uncertainty and the proliferation of fascism throughout history has a worrying reflection in the prejudice that prospers as a result of terrorism. My government and the people of Queensland will, however, continue to celebrate the fact that the Smart State has a world of difference that enriches and enlivens us. Indigenous culture is now enmeshed with more than 150 different world cultures and this year I will be calling on all sectors of the Queensland community to support the government in a major promotion of the value of our shared humanity. We cannot succumb to the vagaries of racism. I am delighted, therefore, to announce my government's commitment to tolerance, through our support for a new Peace Scholarship Trust designed to build global peace and understanding through international education. Through Queensland Education and Training International, a dedicated unit within my department, the government will bring deserving international students from developing countries to study at universities across the state. Students from Colombia and Mexico will come to Queensland in July this year and they will be followed by students from Thailand, Brazil and other selected countries. That is only the beginning. At least 15 students will be funded each year over the next three years, with $150,000 provided by my government and the remainder provided by overseas governments, business and industry and individuals in a partnership arrangement. The money will pay for students to study for 562 Ministerial Statement 28 Apr 2004 one or two semesters in Queensland and that will be credited towards their academic degrees in their own countries. Four of the Peace Scholarships will be awarded to students to pursue a Graduate Diploma at the Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Queensland. All of the state's public universities have pledged their support for the program by offering to waive tuition fees, while Bond University was one of the founding donors to the Peace Scholarship Trust. The trust is a multimillion-dollar initiative of IDP Education Australia and has been supported by 30 universities across the country. IDP Education Australia is one of this country's largest international education and development organisations and I congratulate them for their vision and leadership in developing this trust. Queensland is currently home to more than 35,000 international students from more than 70 countries and it is this mix, reflected in our broader community, that we should value and promote. We must celebrate and support our diversity because education and empathy are the keys to overcoming racism and terrorism. Many of the senior business people that I regularly run into on my visits as Minister for Trade to the Asia-Pacific area, particularly Asia, remind me that many of them were educated in Australia as part of the Colombo Plan. This is not just doing the right thing to encourage diversity and tolerance. It has long-term investment opportunities for Queensland and Australia because those trade links will ensure that business is done with Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT State Government Job Advertisements Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): I am delighted to inform the House that regular readers of the recruitment section in Saturday's Courier-Mail may have noticed a change. Readers will be familiar with the Queensland government Careers in Government section which runs as a composite advertisement because it is more cost effective than individual ads. Since 10 April, the state government section has been halved in size—not because we are advertising fewer jobs, quite the contrary, but because we have changed the format. For example, on 28 February the government composite in the Courier-Mail comprised 49 entries covering two full pages. By contrast, last Saturday's government section comprised 38 entries for 54 jobs and occupied a single page. We have also reduced the size of our composite recruitment ad in the Weekend Australian. Despite the reduction in column centimetres, we are continuing to give ample information about positions vacant by promoting the government's jobs online web site. It is an important web site that we will be hearing more about in the future. We also publish contact phone numbers for jobseekers who do not have Internet access. This is about the prudent use of the advertising dollar. It is in line with job placement trends worldwide—and the taxpayer wins. We are looking at an estimated saving of up to $665,000 in the first year alone. That is a 22 per cent saving on recruitment advertising, based on figures from 2002—when we spent approximately $1.33 million on composite recruitment ads in the Courier- Mail and the Weekend Australian. About half of non-campaign print advertising dollars are invested in the very necessary area of recruitment. So this cost-cutting measure has a real impact. I am always on the lookout for ways of getting more for our advertising dollars. The government will continue exploring ways of using the web and other technologies as advertising vehicles, so we get the best bang out of the advertising dollar. I expect that the community would demand nothing less of the government in terms of not only achieving accountability but also getting good results for its advertising dollar.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Art Exhibition, Washington; Gab Titui Cultural Centre Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (9.46 a.m.): Queensland is home to some inspiring artists. I leave for the United States tomorrow to undertake a number of official duties, including the opening of the Out of Country exhibition at the Australian Embassy in Washington this Saturday. This is an exhibition of approximately 30 of Queensland's foremost indigenous artists and focuses on land and sea and their meaning for indigenous peoples. Included in this touring exhibition are paintings, prints, textiles and sculptures from 28 Apr 2004 Ministerial Statement 563

Lockhart River, east Cape York, west Cape York, the rainforest region of tropical north queensland, the Torres Strait, central and southern Queensland. Bronze and cast aluminium sculptures from artists from Aurukun on the west Cape York peninsula in far-north Queensland will also be exhibited. The focus of the exhibition is a new style of Aboriginal art—a departure from traditional materials like wood and fibre. The exhibition, presented by Queensland Indigenous Arts Marketing and Export Agency, will be held at the Australian Embassy in Washington until 24 May, and will include a public lecture series at the Smithsonian Institution. As I said earlier, Queensland is home to many aspiring artists. Many of these are from the Torres Strait and some will feature in the Washington exhibition. Earlier this month I opened the Gab Titui Cultural Centre—the first cultural centre for the Torres Strait which houses historical and cultural artefacts and tools of the region. The $3 million Gab Titui Cultural Centre is a joint project of the Queensland Heritage Trails Network and the Torres Strait Regional Authority. Queensland Heritage Trails Network, jointly funded by the state and Australian governments, provided $1.35 million in funding and the TSRA provided a further $1.65 million. The building includes space for exhibitions, artwork and workshops, with a specialised area to accommodate and display artefacts and cultural heritage material in a climate controlled environment. As the member for Cook will know, it has been a long-held dream of the people of the Torres Strait to establish a locally based facility that could house sacred art and promote modern island culture. I am delighted their dream is now a reality. I was pleased to celebrate the opening of the centre with the local member, Jason O'Brien. The name Gab Titui incorporates both the eastern and western languages of the Torres Strait with the combined name meaning journey of the stars. When in the United States—famous for its film stars—I will be highlighting our own bright lights, in particular our very talented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Imparja Cup; Indigenous Cricket Hon. E. A. CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (9.48 a.m.): On the main staircase of this building are two trophies. The first of these is the Imparja Cup—Australia's foremost indigenous cricket award. This is not a trophy that has been easily won. This year, for the first time, Queensland has an official indigenous cricket team. The Queensland State Indigenous XI boasts 12 talented players who come from around the state. Some of them are now playing county cricket in England. The players hail from Thursday Island, Innisfail, Cairns, Townsville, Woorabinda, Hervey Bay, Charleville, the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. We farewelled the team to its first Imparja Cup in Alice Springs in late February, and by March it was back home with the goods. The Imparja Cup is the largest indigenous cricket tournament in the country, boasting teams from every state and territory. In what was a great moment for Queensland, our team not only beat stiff competition to take the cup but won the team spirit award—and all of this was achieved in its inaugural year. The team spirit award is the second cup which now stands on the staircase of Parliament House. Late last week the Deputy Premier and Minister for Sport, the Hon. Terry Mackenroth, and myself were handed the Imparja Cup and the Team Spirit Cup to display here at Parliament House for the next two weeks. As ATSIC Commissioner Robbie Williams said— For the first time since 1868, when the first ever cricket team, who were all Aboriginal players, went to England, Indigenous cricket is no longer out of sight and out of mind, as it has been for more than 130 years. I would like to say that this is an occasion for great celebration. Once again, Queensland has shown itself not only a master of sport but also as a master of sportsmanship. Here is something we can all be proud of. I am also proud that the Beattie government, through the Department of Sport and Recreation, helped fund the Queensland State Indigenous XI by establishing an Indigenous Cricket Advisory Board Committee. I also acknowledge Queensland Cricket for its support. I urge all Queenslanders to make the trip to Parliament House to take a look at the trophies which are beautifully placed in the centre of the staircase—thankyou, Mr Speaker, for that—which mark this historic occasion. I now want to name the cricketers who made this possible: Captain Barry Weare from Cairns; Damian Watts from Charleville who plays for Toowoomba; Mount Isa all-rounder 564 Ministerial Statement 28 Apr 2004

Arthur Isles; South Brisbane's Kieran Gibbs; Brisbane's Dean Morrison, who is a constituent of mine; Damien Budd from the Sunshine Coast; Brisbane's Keith Charles; Hervey Bay's Joe Marsh; Brett Smith from Innisfail; Townsville's Martin Rush; Woorabinda's Aaron Holt; Chris Mosby from Thursday Island; and coaches Rockhampton's Jason Smith and Queensland Cricket's Nev Paulsen.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Training Awards Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (9.51 a.m.): Nominations for the 43rd annual Queensland Training Awards have now closed, and I am pleased to inform honourable members that an outstanding 830 nominations have been received. The awards are an effective vehicle for the government and the Training and Employment Board to recognise the individuals and organisations that are the driving force behind our leading-edge training system. They highlight the substantial investment made by the vocational education and training sector and the state's industries in Queensland's work force. While we are only too aware that many industries across the state are currently facing skill shortages, the list of talented nominees across 14 award categories is certainly good news at a time when apprenticeship and trainee levels in Queensland are at record levels. It also reflects the broad range of career options available to Queensland apprentices and trainees. The Queensland Training Awards reward companies and individuals who value training and show by example how it can lead to personal fulfilment and improved business outcomes. Award finalists and winners receive recognition of their achievements in their local communities, media and industry. Regional finals will take place across the state throughout June followed by the state final in Brisbane in August. Queensland hopes to repeat last year's success by sending a number of first-class candidates to represent the state in the national final in Melbourne in November. Last year Queenslanders won six of the national awards, including Small Business of the Year, Employer of the Year and runner-up in the Apprentice of the Year award. Such impressive results are an endorsement of the Queensland government's commitment to vocational education and training. This commitment will only strengthen through the government's Education and Training Reforms for the Future. These reforms will provide young Queenslanders with unprecedented access to a range of learning options including apprentice and training opportunities while still at school, an area in which Queensland continues to lead Australia. The future for young people thinking about entering a trade has never been brighter. The Queensland Training Awards play a key part in spreading that news.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Capital Works Projects Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (9.53 a.m.): In this the Year of the Built Environment, I want to report to the House on a number of key construction projects injecting life in Brisbane's CBD. In particular, I am pleased to inform members about the progress of three capital works projects worth more than $900 million and generating around 4,600 jobs for Queensland. The Brisbane Magistrate's Court complex is taking shape at the western end of the central business district. By the time this project is handed over to the Department of Justice and Attorney-General at the end of the year, it will have generated an estimated 1,300 jobs. It includes 25 hearing rooms, day detention facilities, prisoner transfer facilities and $1.7 million worth of public artworks. This legal facility is also a model for environmental sustainability incorporating design principles to make the best use of the natural environment. Throughout construction, the managing contractor, Walter Construction Group, has demonstrated a strong commitment to training, taking on apprentices and stimulating interest in the construction industry by hosting a training day late last year. There are currently 31 apprentices on site. Work is also progressing on another great new project, the Millennium Arts project. This development will see a new Gallery of Modern Art and redevelopment and expansion of the State Library of Queensland for Brisbane's cultural precinct at South Bank. Managing contractor Bovis Lend Lease was appointed in September last year and early site works are now well under way. There are currently 20 tradespeople, including five apprentices, on site. Meanwhile, rapid progress 28 Apr 2004 Ministerial Statement 565 continues at the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, the first inner-city development of its kind in Australia where a government and university have come together to plan and develop a new integrated community from the ground up. With the completion of $38 million in infrastructure, including new public roads, parks and landscaping, the stage is set for 800 residential units, including 200 affordable housing dwellings, QUT teaching, research and community facilities, shops, restaurants and cafes all connected by parks, streets and paths that promote walking and cycling. The Department of Housing has expressions of interest in the marketplace for the development of several lots, including a seniors centre, student housing and a boutique hotel. As you can see, Mr Speaker, the Queensland government has been achieving some major milestones in its capital works program, with further advances to come. I am proud of the significant contribution the Beattie government is making to our built environment and, in so doing, is stimulating employment growth and new business opportunities in Brisbane.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Police Housing Policy Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (9.56 a.m.): Attracting and retaining quality staff in rural and regional Queensland is a problem our Police Service shares with many other professions. However, the commissioner and I are determined to find a solution by first tackling the standard and availability of housing, which is a very real concern to many police, particularly in the regions. This was one of the priorities identified by the police union in our first meeting and has become one of my priorities. I am pleased to advise the House that the service recently completed a draft housing policy and talks with unions are now under way. The review was undertaken to ensure we create a modern policy which allocates housing across the state through consistent, equitable and inclusive practices. The Police Service currently owns more than 800 residential facilities, including over 700 houses, as well as barracks and duplexes. The Beattie government has allocated more than $10 million for police housing since 1999. In this financial year alone, $2 million has been committed to building an additional eight police houses in regional and remote places. Two three- bedroom duplexes are being built at Palm Island, Yarrabah and Mornington Island, with a house completed at Ravenswood and one planned for North Tamborine. In addition to the regular ongoing maintenance of Police houses, Q-Build is providing $100,000 for work on four of the most remote police houses at Thargomindah, Eromanga, Muttaburra and Yaraka. I am committed to the provision of a good standard of housing, and I plan to head out west next week to meet some of the officers and to see where they live. The new police housing scheme will be based on four objectives which focus on the areas and people in greatest need. Firstly, we will support staff who have the required skills, qualifications and desire to transfer to regional and remote communities and remain in those areas where they are most needed. Secondly, housing will be provided in areas where there is a recognised shortfall in private rental accommodation. That accommodation will also be of a standard that is in line with community expectations. Most importantly, we will aim to manage the Police Service's housing assets equitably and in a way that allows the scheme to operate on a financially viable basis and attain a level of self-sufficiency. Of course, emergency accommodation will still be available on compassionate grounds. It will be the job of a new Queensland Police Service Housing Management Committee, chaired by the Deputy Chief Executive of Resource Management, to turn these objectives and the draft policy into a blueprint for the future and to oversee the scheme. Police from the regions will be represented on this important committee, working alongside the Queensland Police Union of Employees and the Queensland Police Commissioned Officers Union. Like them, the Beattie government is committed to recruiting quality people and supporting them in the best police service in Australia. We know police are needed in remote communities, not just the south-east corner of the state or the major coastal centres, and we do not underestimate the difficult job police in the country face—the distances they travel, the multitude of duties they have to perform and the fact that they never clock off. They need incentives, and I expect the new police housing policy will set a benchmark for attracting quality staff and retaining them in rural and regional Queensland. We intend to release the final policy, which I expect will be presented to cabinet before the end of the financial year. 566 Ministerial Statement 28 Apr 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.00 a.m.) Two years ago in this place, I talked about a bold new initiative in the coordination of pro bono legal work in our state. That is legal work provided by lawyers on a voluntary basis for public interest causes. The Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House—or QPILCH—was the result of a positive partnership between our government, private law firms, community sector legal agencies, the Queensland Law Society, the Queensland Bar Association, Legal Aid Queensland and Griffith University all working with the same goal to help Queenslanders access legal representation. I am delighted to advise that two years down the track, QPILCH is making a real difference. It now has over 35 member firms, as well as barristers, associate members such as university law schools, and government legal members such as Energex and the ACCC. Pro bono work valued in excess of $110,000 has been undertaken in just a few of the cases that have been finalised so far. QPILCH is not a substitute for legal aid. It focuses on public interest work and its strength is its ability to marshal the resources of government, the private profession, and the corporate and university sectors. One of its first projects was to establish a homeless person's legal clinic. Working in partnership with welfare agencies such as Wesley Mission, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, the clinics are run at the shelters where the homeless feel most comfortable in accessing legal advice. More than 100 lawyers from 11 Brisbane law firms are now involved in helping the homeless at these clinics and the service is set to expand to regional areas such as Toowoomba, the Gold Coast, Townsville and Cairns. QPILCH is also operating a refugee and immigration legal support project to help refugees and asylum seekers. This project coordinates lawyers in private practice to augment a service provided by the South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Service. QPILCH estimates some 400 asylum seekers will need assistance over the next year or so. QPILCH is also currently looking at pro bono needs in rural and regional areas in conjunction with Queensland University of Technology's School of Justice Studies. At a time when the legal profession in Queensland is undergoing considerable reform, it is important we recognise the very good work being undertaken by QPILCH and the many lawyers who are giving their time to provide a positive contribution to citizens in need. This is a positive contribution made by many of our solicitors, barristers and other legal professionals throughout Brisbane, and particularly the south-east Queensland region. May I take this opportunity to congratulate Tony Woodyatt, the coordinator of QPILCH, and all lawyers and legal firms involved in supporting this initiative.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fire Ants Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.03 a.m.): It has now been three years since the discovery of red imported fire ants in Brisbane. This was the first detection of fire ants in Australia. Fire ants are one of the world's most invasive and serious pests. No other country has successfully eradicated fire ants. With the support of all states, territories and the Commonwealth, we are mounting a very comprehensive strategy to eradicate fire ants from south-east Queensland and protect the rest of Australia from its spread. Earlier this month, I attended the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council in Adelaide where I updated all states, territories and the Commonwealth on the progress of the eradication campaign. I was able to report to the council monitoring results from the core treatment zone show that approximately 97.6 per cent of previously infested properties no longer have viable nests after two years of treatment. I also requested support from the council for an extension of the program from five to six years and increased funding by $37.5 million to $175.9 million. The need for the extended program followed the declaration of the south-west eradication treatment area, including parts of Ipswich city and Beaudesert shire in response to new detections of fire ants in Purga, South Ripley and Yamanto. I am pleased to say that the ministers gave their in-principle support for the extension and also the additional moneys. 28 Apr 2004 Ministerial Statement 567

I can announce today a further advance in the fight to eradicate fire ants. For the last two years, the Fire Ant Control Centre has collaborated with Robert George, a postgraduate researcher from the University of Queensland, to develop a model to predict preferred habitats and likely spread patterns for fire ants. Using satellite imagery, this research has been able to identify land types not suitable to fire ants in what we call the fire ant habitat identification system. Under this system, there is now 13,000 hectares of land that is no longer of interest to the Fire Ant Control Centre. It means that field officers and inspectors will need to inspect fewer properties and 13,000 hectares is half of the current surveillance area, so it is a significant area. This will mean savings of up to $4 million per annum in surveillance costs of the program. We are confident about the progress of the eradication plan and the use of satellite imagery is just another part of our armoury. When people ask me if we are winning the war against the fire ant, my simple answer is this: we can find fire ants and we can kill fire ants. For the interest of all honourable members, when we break for lunch today, on the Speaker's Green I will have copies of satellite maps and the parcels of land regarded unsuitable for fire ants.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Dee River, Dams Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy) (10.06 a.m.): The Beattie government is committed to improving the water quality of our rivers and protecting them from contamination. That is why today I am announcing a $7 million project to decommission three small dams and clean up the Dee River near the former Mount Morgan mine site in central Queensland. The remediation project, which will commence next month and finish by December, will remove the three dams as well as contaminated tailings from the bed, banks and immediate vicinity of the Dee River and Dairy Creek. Unfortunately, the Dee River has been polluted over the years as a result of seepage and run-off of hazardous materials from the mine. This project will ensure that further contamination of the river does not occur and provide Mount Morgan with a clean riverine environment that can be enjoyed by residents and tourists alike. The three dams in question were constructed at Mount Morgan in the 1880s by the mine owner. However, a recent government study found that the three dams do not meet current design standards and, in their present condition, could potentially fail. Failure under flood conditions would not only result in further contamination of the Dee River but could also place at risk the occupants of six residences downstream. The $7 million project will permanently remove the hazard posed by the old dams and stop further contamination of the Dee River from the old mine site. The three small dams being decommissioned are heritage listed. We will protect their heritage values by retaining and restoring small sections of the dams and constructing interpretation facilities. These facilities will identify, explain and preserve the history of the dams, including the reasons for their removal. This project continues the important work the Queensland government is undertaking in the Mount Morgan area. The Queensland government has spent about $8.5 million on the Mount Morgan site since it took over its management in the early 1990s. Earlier this month the Queensland and Commonwealth governments jointly committed $2 million for a new water treatment plant for the Mount Morgan mine site under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. This latest project will complement the government's existing rehabilitation activities within the Mount Morgan mine site and enhance the tourist potential and amenity of this historic town. To that extent I acknowledge the strong representation by the member for Fitzroy, Jim Pearce, on behalf of the Mount Morgan community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Child Protection Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.09 a.m.): I am pleased to inform the House that submissions have been received from six of the seven Queensland universities contacted by my department after I urged these institutions to work more closely with the state government to ensure that graduates are fully prepared and equipped to work in the challenging field of child protection. The CMC inquiry into foster care was critical of the level of skills and knowledge that graduates possess at the time of recruitment to the role of family services officers, or child safety 568 Notice of Motion 28 Apr 2004 officers as we intend to rename them. It is clear that a number of gaps exist in the knowledge, skills and abilities of some graduates to perform their roles effectively as frontline staff. The department had already formed a university curriculum liaison committee before the CMC inquiry, and I am determined to see the work of this committee expedited. At a meeting early last month I provided representatives of each of the universities copies of documents identifying departmental needs that should be covered in course curricula, including key issues surrounding child protection. The next phase of this exercise involves representatives of my department meeting individually with the universities to discuss in detail the proposals they have sent to us. These proposals will then be given to an evaluation panel comprising key people from my department and representatives from the non-government sector. The University of Queensland and James Cook University have already indicated a preparedness to establish a graduate certificate course in child protection, and we will be looking at ways to make this happen. It is important that the universities recognise that many child safety officers are needed throughout the state, including in rural and remote areas and in particular in indigenous communities. The Department of Child Safety wants to see key partnering arrangements with the universities which include recognition of prior learning and advanced standing for vocational education and training qualifications that can lead to articulation with degree courses. We are keen to see innovative strategies that include the delivery and marketing of courses across Queensland. We will also be considering university proposals for the state government, through my department, to support course content and curricula in the form of scholarships to provide some certainty to these partnering arrangements.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Disability Service Standards Hon. F. W. PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (10.11 a.m.): Recently I had the pleasure of launching the Queensland disability service standards. The standards are the cornerstone of the disability sector quality system. This positive initiative will lead to significant benefits for people with a disability who receive services funded through Disability Services Queensland. Mr Speaker, as you know the Beattie government is committed to improving the quality of life for all Queenslanders. My department has particular focus on Queenslanders with a disability. I want to make it clear that many service providers are already delivering quality services to people with a disability. However, the new quality system involves a process of independent assessment and verification to ensure that all service providers are delivering a consistent quality of service. I recognise that service providers will need time to develop and implement their internal management systems, and for this reason the system is being phased in. This will allow time for service users, their families, carers and other sector stakeholders to become familiar with the concepts and the issues. I am pleased to announce the release of almost $1 million to non-government service providers for the first phase of this process. This release honours the commitment made by the Beattie government in Future Directions for Disability Services in 2003. Firstly, Disability Services Queensland will provide up to $700,000 in non-recurrent grants to allow the first steps to be taken by service providers. This will be supported by a series of workshops to introduce and explain the quality system to up to 1,500 representatives from 251 organisations right across Queensland. The remaining $275,000 is allocated to a joint project with my department and the National Industry Association for Disability Services Queensland to work closely with service providers to put systems in place. The allocation of this funding is not the end of the story. We are beginning a new era for the disability sector. I urge all members to support the implementation of this initiative to enhance services to Queenslanders with a disability.

NOTICE OF MOTION Nature Conservation Act Hon. R. J. MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for the Environment) (10.13 a.m.): I give notice that after the expiration of at least 14 days, as provided in the Nature Conservation Act 1992, I shall move— 28 Apr 2004 Private Members' Statements 569

(1) That this House requests the Governor in Council to make a revocation by regulation of the dedicated and protected areas in forest reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 of those areas as set out in a proposal tabled by me in this House today, 28 April 2004; and (2) That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament convey a copy of this resolution to the Minister for the Environment for submission to the Governor in Council.

NOTICE OF MOTION Government Accountability Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.14 a.m.): I give notice that I will move— That this House expresses its serious concerns about the systematic abuse of accountability and transparency mechanisms by the Beattie Labor government as recently evidenced by hiding embarrassing documents in cabinet for 30 years, abuse of FOI laws and its handling of the Lockhart River cover-up and calls for the public release of all statements and other evidence relating to the Lockhart River cover-up and supports the call by the member for Cook, Jason O'Brien, for the CMC to release the details of his statements given to police.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Answers to Questions Without Notice Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.15 a.m.): Yesterday in this place all members, the media and those in the public gallery were subjected to the spectacle of the Premier and other government ministers not answering questions directly asked of them by the opposition. The Premier was asked quite clearly about his knowledge of certain issues surrounding the Lockhart River cover-up. Also, he was asked for his view of those members of parliament and members of his own staff in government who deceived police, misled police or in some way concealed information. The Premier was unable or unwilling in this place to give a statement of his standards and the standards that he expected from not only members of parliament but also other officers employed by his government, notwithstanding the fact that there is a very clear code of principles which binds members in this place and also a very clear code of conduct which binds members and those employed as government officers. We also witnessed the spectacle of the Premier not wanting to be accountable and tell this parliament why Teresa Mullan was being paid $100,000 a year and what she was doing. The Premier was unable or unwilling to answer that particular question. There is a very serious concern about the way this government is increasingly treating this parliament with contempt and is refusing to answer direct questions asked of it. It is a standard which is not good enough for this Premier. It is a standard which is not good enough for this parliament. Increasingly, many people in the community at large are also asking why people such as the Premier are unprepared to come into this place and answer questions directly. Is it because he is hiding something? Is it because— Time expired.

Ocean Terminal, Townsville Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (10.17 a.m.): I rise to lift the tone of this place by supporting the tourist industry in Townsville. Last Wednesday I read an article in a northern newspaper which stated that Townsville was not a tourist destination. Members can imagine my surprise on reading that, when I know that Townsville is a city that boasts Magnetic Island, Paluma and Mount Elliott National Park. We have the Museum of Tropical Queensland, Reef Headquarters, the Strand, the Maritime Museum and the Billabong Sanctuary, not to mention the Cowboys, the Fire, Greek Fest, the Crocs, the Cultural Fest and the Great Barrier Reef. This comment has to have come from some very ill-informed people. In 2003 there were over one million visitors to the Townsville region. Do honourable members remember the Rugby World Cup? These comments were made in relation to the decision our government made to support the establishment of an ocean terminal in Townsville, which we all know is the paradise of the north. The Beattie government has confirmed its interest in the ocean terminal as a project priority for the region and the state. I am proud that this government is serious in acknowledging Townsville as a force in the tourist market. 570 Private Members' Statements 28 Apr 2004

The international cruise industry is growing at a rate of about eight per cent a year, and state government statistics show that cruise ship passenger numbers to Queensland in the 2003-04 season almost tripled on the previous year's total. Traditional cruise destinations such as the Caribbean are becoming overcrowded and customers are looking for new experiences and alternative destinations. There is also an expected growth for Queensland of military and cruise vessels visiting our shores. Already in 2004 Townsville has seen a promising start to the season with four luxury ocean ships coming to Townsville for visits and more visits scheduled later this year. These, combined with several world-class cruise ship dockings in Townsville last year, demonstrate the importance and necessity of an ocean terminal. Instead of people condemning the decision, they should be embracing the opportunity to work together to ensure both north Queensland and far-north Queensland are known as the top cruise and military ship destinations. Time expired.

Girder Timbers, Tender Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.20 a.m.): The DPI have been putting to tender all girder timbers since 2003. After three months delay in the tendering process, tenders closed on 6 February 2004 for proposals from Mr Torrens from Kilcoy to purchase five lots of 250 linear metres each from Gympie and Maryborough forestry areas. Mr Torrens included in his proposal copies of orders from Queensland Rail and Main Roads totalling 900 linear metres for girders and piles. The orders were to be filled by 30 June 2004. Plus a further order of 200 linear metres came from Mackay Sugar Cooperative. Orders were placed with Mr Torrens as a preferred supplier by the above groups because of past experience and reliability, and in confirmation of this reliability Main Roads have since placed another order for 500 linear metres to be supplied by December 2004. Businesses do not keep ordering if service is bad. Mr Torrens has now been advised his tender was unsuccessful and instead it has been awarded the Dale Myers Sawmill, which, it is believed, is sawing the girder logs into crossarms for electricity line piles. Mr Torrens was informed that the next tender issue will not be until this month, 2004, and more girder timber will be available after June 2004. This has left Mr Torrens with no timber supply from DPI Forestry to fill his orders, despite buying timber from DPI Forestry for the past 16 years to supply Queensland Rail and Main Roads. Both Main Roads and Queensland Rail desperately need girders for ongoing maintenance, and the only timber available is sold to sawmills for sawing up and any private timber source is so small that it would not be viable to use that particular source. The Queensland government through DPI Forestry owns the timber desperately needed for ongoing maintenance for its own government owned corporations. The question has to be asked: is there no communication within this government? This is a ridiculous situation and the government should be asked to justify why it is selling scarce girder timber to sawmills to be cut up when timber is needed by its own companies.

Citect Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.22 a.m.): It is with great pleasure I inform honourable members that the smart city of Logan just got smarter. Queensland's skilled IT graduates have lured the world's largest independent supplier of industrial automation software to expand its business located at Springwood by establishing a software division. Citect will establish the new industrial information management software division which will create 61 new jobs and further boost Queensland's growing IT sector. This is great news for Queensland and extremely great news for Logan, particularly Springwood. Sydney and Adelaide were in the running for the new division. But how could anyone go past Queensland's skilled IT graduates? In the end it was impossible to go past Queensland, and Logan won. Citect is already located in Springwood. They are impressed with Queensland's reputation for producing job-ready IT graduates skilled in leading edge technologies. 28 Apr 2004 Private Members' Statements 571

The company already has developed close links with IT departments in both Griffith and QUT universities. Recruiting of staff has begun, as has the move to larger premises. I am extremely pleased to say that once again they chose Springwood for their new premises. Citect has been providing engineering services and software to the industrial automation market for over 30 years and its client base includes BHP, Coca-Cola Amatil, BMW and Siemens. Apart from the skilled graduate pool, other critical factors in Citect's decision to locate in Logan was the Springwood bus station, easy access to the M1 and the redevelopment of the Springwood CBD. What can I say but that Springwood attracts only the best. I would like to thank the State Development Department, Department of Innovation and the Logan Economic Development Board for giving their support to Citect. I know they met with key staff of Citect to ensure Queensland had the best submission possible. To Cam Dumesny and the team at Citect I say well done. This has been a long and hard process but in the end the best state won. Attracting this division of Citect and creating 61 jobs is a win for Queensland, a major win for Logan and a reflection of the strength of the Smart State, Smart Logan ICT industry. I am sure that after the division is set up I will be standing here often informing the House of its success in the world of IT.

Government Accountability Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.24 a.m.): Yesterday in this House I directed a question to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. The minister reached a new low in accountability in this parliament by refusing to explain to the people of Queensland the simple details of the question that I asked. It is a standard that has fallen in this parliament over a whole range of answers to questions that have been given by the minister, but the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy certainly established a new low. One of the key purposes of this parliament is to hold the executive government accountable. All of the ministers are members of executive government and one of the reasons that they come into this House every morning is to be accountable to the people of Queensland. Half of them do not even bother to come. We have had empty seats here all morning. One of the key purposes of this parliament is being made a mockery of by ministers who refuse to be accountable in a government that refuses to be accountable. It does not understand the basic requirements of the accountability mechanisms that make government work in a democratic system. We have two dud ministers who sit at the back of this cabinet— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr SEENEY:—neither of whom would be in this cabinet if members were appointed according to merit. Both of those ministers have shown themselves to be totally incapable of performing the roles that they have been appointed to. Government members interjected. Mr SEENEY: You have to wonder what the talented members on the Labor backbench think when they come in here and see the performance of the two ministers who sit at the back of the chamber there and either cannot answer questions, will not answer questions, cannot stand up in this House and explain to the people of Queensland or be accountable to the people of Queensland at a very basic level—the sort of basic level that is a basic requirement for somebody in those jobs. Not only will they not answer questions— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Toowoomba North. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat.

Public Liability Insurance Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.26 a.m.): Members would be well aware of the public liability crisis over the last three years. A recent example is the imposition of a fee of $25 to an organisation to lay an Anzac wreath in Sydney to cover the cost of insurance. It was widely promoted by the insurance industry that the cause was the increase in litigation. 572 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004

Queensland has led the way in legal reform by way of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act, amendments thereto, and the Civil Liability Act. Already results show a reduction in notification of bringing of claims—for example, 13 per cent fewer motor vehicle injury claims notified, and I congratulate the Premier on passing on the CTP premium savings of $21 million to motorists. However, it follows that many people are missing out on their previous right to just compensation. In relation to this matter I believe that the focus should be shifted from dwelling on compensation to dwelling instead on the causes in the first place of liability and how to minimise this. The aim should be to deter negligent doctors, negligent hospitals, negligent employers, negligent employees, negligent motorists, negligent shopping centres et cetera. The best method of avoiding a legal claim and possible compensation is not to have an accident in the first place. In this regard I congratulate the Minister for Employment on the release of his workplace health and safety strategy yesterday, concentrating as it does on reducing workplace risks. I believe that as a trade-off for restrictive legislation on claims governments should insist on risk management and claim prevention measures. The ridiculous increase in insurance premiums was promoted on the basis that insurance companies were losing money. Is this still the case? Recent results show that there has been a radical turnaround in insurance company profits. For example, Suncorp had a net profit of $281 million, an 81 per cent increase for the six months to December 2003; IAG, $153 million net profit for the year to 30 June 2003 compared with $25 million loss to 30 June 2002; and, finally, QBE $241 million net profit for the six months to 30 June 2003.

Kirra-Currumbin Rotary Club; National Accident-Free Day Ms STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (10.28 a.m.): I draw to the attention of the House an initiative of the Rotary Club of Kirra-Currumbin and ask for the support of all honourable members for a national accident-free day. On the 99th birthday of Rotary, the Rotary Club of Kirra-Currumbin Inc. officially launched its centennial project, a national accident-free day. This is to be held on 23 February 2005, when Rotary will celebrate its centenary. Rotary International invited clubs worldwide to introduce a special community project to celebrate this event. Kirra-Currumbin is a small club with a big heart. Membership stands at only 15 people. The club is 37 years old and during this time they have raised in excess of $300,000. The idea of a national accident-free day came up because accidents affect everyone in all walks of life. Despite the introduction of breathalysers, radars, speed cameras, demerit points and scare tactics, the death toll on our roads keeps rising. Around 1,750 deaths occurred last year on Australian roads; many of these could have been prevented. For an accident-free day to be successful, we all need to spread the word to let people know it is happening. The Rotary Club of Kirra-Currumbin is looking for support from local, state and federal government representatives. They will be relying on the support of 1,199 Rotary clubs nationally. I ask all members of this House to contact their local Rotary clubs to make sure they are aware of this project, to energetically get behind this road safety initiative that will keep Aussies alive. I invite members to contact me for a free starter kit, a bumper sticker or any other details. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE John Tonge Centre Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. The minister will remember that, when she was asked about the backlog of 11,000 outstanding DNA samples at the John Tonge Centre, she claimed that this information was out of date. She said 'issues relating to the backlog have been addressed'. She also said that the centre would now be able to stay up to date. The current position is that there are now more than 13,000 outstanding samples and last month the backlog fell behind a further 1,130 samples. The minister will vividly recall that she has already been moved from one portfolio to another because she covered up and deceived victims— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a question? You will ask your question or resume your seat. This is not a time for statements. 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 573

Mr SPRINGBORG: Will the minister now outline to this House why she misled it last week and provided false information to this parliament? Ms SPENCE: It is a dishonest question from the Leader of the Opposition, who well knows that when I was quoting that the information on the FOI submission was out of date I was quoting from a senior police officer's report which the Leader of the Opposition tabled with the report in the parliament. I was quoting from a senior police officer and the member knows that very well. He tabled the report with the FOI document in the parliament, so it is available for all members to see. It is very dishonest for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say that I made that claim when I was quoting from the police. With respect to DNA samples and how they are being dealt with, for example, to date—I have some statistics for the member—1,083 persons have been linked to DNA found at crime scenes, including 186 prisoners whose DNA matched that found— Opposition members interjected. Ms SPENCE: I will get to that. I do not carry around all those figures in my head. That figure includes 186 prisoners whose DNA matched that found at the crime scenes of previous unsolved crimes. Those opposite do not want to talk about the successes that we have had. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I think most people in this House are having difficulty hearing the minister answer the question. I can't even take a point of order without them trying to bully me. Mr Horan: That's the Speaker's job. Mr BEATTIE: I ask for a withdrawal. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South will withdraw that comment. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The comment about bullying. Mr Horan: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Ms SPENCE: Samples relating to the most serious offences or those required for court are given a high priority by Queensland Health Scientific Services. Samples relating to volume crime offences are currently awaiting analysis, and I am happy to talk about the backlog. There are an estimated 6,700 cases in the backlog, including unlawful entry and stolen vehicle offences. Of the 13,000 outstanding crime scene samples, four per cent relate to offences against the person and 93 per cent relate to property offences. The police have advised me that with the new money we have allocated to the John Tonge Centre we are making inroads into the backlog, and they are satisfied that the most serious police cases are being investigated in a timely fashion by the John Tonge Centre. It is shameful for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest otherwise.

Government Jet, Alcohol Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. I refer to the Premier's refusal yesterday to tell this House what job self-confessed liar Teresa Mullan is doing in his department. As the taxpayers are paying $100,000 for Ms Mullan's services each year, they deserve to know if she has a fair dinkum job or is just being paid hush money. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Are you going to ask the question? Mr SPRINGBORG: I was being interjected on. Mr SPEAKER: I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition ask the question. I also suggest that if you complain about interjections that you and all the other people on your front bench also refrain when the answer is being given. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the taxpayers are paying $100,000 for Ms Mullan's services each year, they deserve to know if she has a fair dinkum job or is being given hush money. They also deserve to know— Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have talked about the length of questions before. This is a statement. 574 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004

Mr SPRINGBORG: I was going back and starting again so everyone could hear, Mr Speaker. To make it simple for the Premier, will the Premier tell this parliament why he refused yesterday to outline what Teresa Mullan actually does with $100,000 worth of taxpayers' money in his office each year? Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to do all of that. Yesterday I had a meeting with Karen Struthers, who is my parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do those opposite want a serious answer or are they going to be rude all day? I am happy to answer this specifically. If I do not get a chance, let the onus rest exactly where it is: on the rudeness and bullying attempts of those opposite. Yesterday I met with Karen Struthers, who is my parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs, and she presented to me a strategy that would highlight to the community the strengths of multiculturalism for Queensland. I had asked Karen to work with Hurriyet Babacan in my department and also Teresa Mullan to come up with a strategy that will be funded out of my department and which we will see over the next three years. That strategy was presented to me by Karen yesterday. I am happy to inform the House today that as a result of viewing that strategy—and more work still needs to be done—I am satisfied we have a strategy that will highlight to Queensland the strength of multiculturalism. Teresa Mullan has been working on it. Teresa Mullan will have particular responsibilities over the next three years to work with my parliamentary secretary to implement that strategy. The bottom line is: is that a real job? Yes, it is. Is that important for Queensland? Yes, it is. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Whenever they get answers, they do not like it. This strategy— Miss Simpson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroochydore! Mr BEATTIE: What the opposition is deliberately determined to do is come in here and bully the parliament this morning. That is what it has decided to do. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We have not had a member of parliament thrown out of this place for being a bully; they have. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: I will let the people of Queensland judge. We have Mr Nasty at his worst today. Let me finish the answer. I actually want to answer this question. Will the Leader of the Opposition please let me answer the question and stop being rude? This strategy has been worked on now for some weeks, as Karen knows. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I appeal to you: I cannot answer questions in this parliament. The opposition is wrecking parliament. I am trying to answer the Opposition Leader's question. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I cannot believe how you are trying to ruin this parliament—the lot of you. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about what Teresa Mullan is doing. I have explained to him that she has been working on this strategy over the last few weeks and— Mr Springborg: Why couldn't you answer yesterday? Mr Hobbs: He didn't know yesterday. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. This is my final warning. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, we are not being allowed to answer questions in this place and it is impossible for the government to be accountable if we are being bullied. This is a strategy that we have been working on for some time. I have now answered the question. If there are any supplementary questions you want, because we are so accountable, I am only too happy to answer them. 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 575

Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn the member for Warrego under standing order 123A. Before calling the member for Mansfield, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of St Agathas Primary School in the electorate of Clayfield.

Prime Minister, Queensland Visit Mr REEVES: My question is directed to the Premier. The Prime Minister, laden down with bags of gold, is in Queensland today and tomorrow joining us in doing the right thing by the sugar industry. What else should the Prime Minister do while he is in Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I welcome the Prime Minister to Queensland. I say to the Prime Minister that he is always welcome in Queensland. We are always happy to have him here. As members know, the tree clearing laws, as passed by this parliament, have almost delivered the Kyoto outcome which the Prime Minister has committed himself to, without costing the Commonwealth one cent. The Prime Minister's is taking brownie points for the green outcomes that Queensland has contributed to and delivered without contributing one cent to Queensland farmers. The Prime Minister had a lot to say about Kyoto. His government agreed to the greenhouse targets. It is only fair that if Queensland is delivering when it comes to greenhouse gases and almost delivering the Kyoto outcomes that Queensland be paid the $75 million that he promised. I have a letter that the Prime Minister wrote to me on 7 March 2003 and another he wrote to me on 15 May 2003. In his letter of 7 March he says— Assuming a satisfactory outcome he is prepared to pay to Queensland on an equal basis up to a maximum Commonwealth contribution of $75 million. I say to the Prime Minister, 'Where is it?' I think any journalist worth their salt would ask the Prime Minister during his visit whether he is going to contribute to the greenhouse outcomes that Queensland is delivering. In his second letter of 15 May, he stated— I would be agreeable to your government placing an immediate moratorium on the issue of further permits ... I seek to incorporate both those letters in Hansard. Leave granted. Prime Minister Canberra 7 Mar 2003 The Hon Peter Beattie MP Premier of Queensland PO Box 185 BRISBANE ALBERT STREET QLD 4002 My dear Premier Thank you for your letter of 19 February 2003 regarding your government's proposal to address land clearing in Queensland. As you know, the Commonwealth has long held an interest in achieving a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by reducing land clearing activity in Queensland. Similarly, we consider there are nationally significant benefits for biodiversity in working with Queensland to protect 'of concern' native vegetation. My understanding of your government's proposal is that it meets, and in fact goes beyond, the Commonwealth's objectives for reduced land clearing activity in Queensland. I note that the proposal will likely raise concerns with a number of stakeholders. I am pleased to advise you of my government's interest in the proposal, subject to clarification of two key issues. Firstly, I do not consider that we presently have sufficient information to understand the impacts of the proposal on rural industries and regional communities. This information will assist in evaluating the adequacy of the proposed assistance package. I therefore intend to commission as soon as possible a socio-economic study into these aspects by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Bureau of Rural Sciences. The study would be conducted on a confidential basis, drawing on existing information, and its report would be available within four to six weeks. I would welcome the cooperation of your government in providing input to this study. I then propose that our governments jointly conduct focused consultations with key stakeholders in order to gauge their reactions to the proposal. While I acknowledge there may be risks of possible 'panic permit seeking' from such an approach, I am not proposing a lengthy process. I do, however, feel obliged to adopt as open an approach as possible with stakeholders on this matter, and would not be comfortable committing to the proposal in advance of such consultations. 576 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004

Assuming a satisfactory outcome is achieved on the above aspects, the Commonwealth would be prepared to contribute towards an agreed assistance package on an equal basis with Queensland, up to a maximum Commonwealth contribution of $75 million. With your agreement, I propose that our officials now meet to set out a timetable for taking the issue forward. I look forward to our progressing this important initiative. Yours sincerely (Sgd) John Howard

Prime Minister Canberra 15 May 2003 The Hon Peter Beattie MP Premier of Queensland PO Box 185 BRISBANE ALBERT STREET QLD 4002 My dear Premier I refer to the discussions currently in progress between our officials on the proposal regarding land clearing in Queensland. The Commonwealth has recommenced consideration of this substantially developed proposal. Your officials have raised the issue of a moratorium on issuing new permits to clear remnant vegetation, reflecting the fact that there has been a considerable escalation in land clearing permit applications over the past month and particularly over the last week. I am advised that this situation seriously threatens the integrity of the proposal we are considering. I therefore wish to advise that I would be agreeable to your government placing an immediate moratorium on the issuing of further permits, pending consultations with stakeholders and further consideration of the proposal by our governments. As indicated in my letter to you of 7 March 2003, my preference has been that our governments run joint consultations with key stakeholders to gauge their reactions to the proposal, in advance of a final decision to proceed. Given that this proposal is now at an advanced stage, landholders have raised concerns about the lack of information. This lack of information is fuelling ungrounded fears and has to a degree resulted in the recent surge in clearing applications. In addition to the moratorium, I feel there would be value in the Commonwealth meeting with landholders to outline progress to date and what is being proposed. The Commonwealth therefore intends to consult Agforce and QFF on progressing this important initiative. I would intend that the joint consultations then take place soon after. I look forward to continuing a cooperative approach to this issue. Yours sincerely (sgd) John Howard Mr BEATTIE: I also seek to incorporate in Hansard correspondence between the Prime Minister and me on this issue so everyone knows exactly what the record states. Leave granted. JOHN HOWARD AND DAVID KEMP ON TREE CLEARING 18 November/00—Prime Minister John Howard letter to Premier Peter Beattie "In relation to the specific issue of Queensland land clearing, I wish to make the Commonwealth position very clear. The Commonwealth would be prepared to offer assistance with compensation for land clearing restrictions, but only on a basis that will: ¥ achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the reduction achieved form the implementation of Queensland's existing legislation; and ¥ secure a cap on the rate of clearing as an essential means of achieving a significant greenhouse outcome." 24 July/01—Prime Minister John Howard letter to Premier Peter Beattie "... I recognise that it is in the national interest to reduce the very high rates of land clearing in Queensland to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the reduction likely to be achieved through the implementation of Queensland's existing legislation. Accordingly, I reiterate that the Commonwealth would be prepared to provide a financial contribution commensurate with the land clearing reduction negotiated and implemented by your government, and on the basis that it is over and above the combined outcomes of Queensland's existing vegetation management regime and the National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality. The Commonwealth would be prepared to provide assistance if Queensland negotiates and implements further land clearing restrictions that would: ¥ achieve by 2006 and be at least sustained thereafter, a significant, certain, an cost-effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the reduction likely to be achieved from the full implementation of Queensland's existing vegetation management regime and its commitments under the National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality." 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 577

16 February/02—Prime Minister John Howard letter to Premier Peter Beattie "As set out in my letter to you of 24 July 2001, the Commonwealth's offer to provide matching assistance recognises the national interest in reducing the high rates of land clearing specific to Queensland to assist in meeting Australia's international greenhouse commitments. "I also indicated the Commonwealth would be prepared to provide a financial contribution commensurate with the reduction in emissions from land clearing negotiated and implemented by your government. Achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will involve a sizeable and sustained reduction in "business as usual" clearing rates over the past decade beyond that flowing from the vegetation management regime and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. For example, a guaranteed reduction in the order of 20 to 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually could provide significant abatement to secure national outcomes from Commonwealth investment." 7 March/03—Prime Minister John Howard letter to Premier Peter Beattie "As you know, the Commonwealth has long held an interest in achieving a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by reducing land clearing activity in Queensland. Similarly, we consider there are nationally significant benefits for biodiversity in working with Queensland to protect 'of concern' native vegetation. My understanding of your government's proposal is that it means, and in fact goes beyond, the Commonwealth's objectives for reduced land clearing activity in Queensland. I note that the proposal will likely raise concerns with a number of stakeholders. ... Firstly, I do not consider that we presently have sufficient information to understand the impacts of the proposal on rural industries and regional communities. This information will assist in evaluating the adequacy of the proposed assistance package. I therefore intend to commission as soon as possible a socio-economic study into these aspects by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Bureau of Rural Sciences. The study would be conducted on a confidential basis, drawing on existing information, and its report would be available within four to six weeks. ... Assuming a satisfactory outcome is achieved on the above aspects, the Commonwealth would be prepared to contribute towards an agreed package on an equal basis with Queensland, up to a maximum Commonwealth contribution of $75 million." 23 May/03—Prime Minister John Howard on ABC TV Stateline: "(Land clearing) is a very important environmental issue and I want to work co-operatively with the Queensland Government, and we are prepared to put money in. I'm optimistic, but I want to be fair to farmers whilst trying to achieve a very important environmental objective." 19 May/03—Federal Environment Minister David Kemp on ABC Country Hour: "The Commonwealth's objectives in relation to Queensland land clearing, and to achieve a substantial and sustained reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, that's the national interest involved. And, of course the protection of biodiversity which is very important to landholders and the general community, as well as to the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government." 16 May/03—David Kemp media doorstop interview: "Today I'm delighted to announce that a moratorium has now been imposed on new applications and permits on land clearing in Queensland. This is a very significant national announcement and it arises from the action of the Howard Government working in close partnership with the Labor Government in Queensland. We're putting Australia first, we're putting the health of the environment first, we're putting the health and prosperity of Australian communities first. There is not the slightest doubt that land clearing is one of the major—if not the major—environmental challenge facing Australia at the present time. Mr BEATTIE: The Prime Minister should deal with tree clearing. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics estimates our tree clearing package will cut greenhouse gases by 25 megatons a year. That is not a bad outcome. The other issue he ought to be dealing with while he is here is the Tugun bypass. I wrote to him on 8 April seeking his intervention. Paul Lucas, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, and I have released the legal opinion that enables him to do so. I table both my letter and the legal opinion for the information of the House. I say to the Prime Minister, 'I appreciate the partnership we have on sugar reform. We are working together. We have brought the reforms to this House'—and I cannot discuss them because they are before the House—'but we are delivering our side of the proposal, plus the $30 million.' The Prime Minister will be delivering his own, and that is a good partnership. We should have the same partnership when it comes to appropriately funding farmers under tree clearing and we need some leadership from the Commonwealth in relation to the Tugun bypass. It is not unreasonable. If they can build an airport across the border between Queensland and New South Wales, what is wrong with a road? 578 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004

Government Jet, Alcohol Mr SEENEY: My question is directed to the— Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SEENEY: If the Premier is quite finished. Government members interjected. Mr SEENEY: It is all right when you interject. It is not rude when you interject. Mr Beattie: If you do not want the leader to interject, tell him to be quiet. Mr SEENEY: You were the one interjecting, as you always do. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to both front benches this morning that there is too much talk across the chamber. I am going to start warning people who yell across the chamber, whether the Premier, ministers, the Opposition Leader or the opposition frontbench. Take that as a warning. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr SEENEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. When I asked the minister yesterday to be accountable to this House, the minister again hid behind the CMC. Can the minister tell members where the CMC said she did not have to be accountable to this parliament and thereby the people of Queensland? Can the minister now, given the Premier's assurances this morning, start to be accountable to the people of Queensland by telling us when she first knew her party was taking alcohol to the Lockhart River community? Mr Terry Sullivan: Grub. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not know who called out 'grub'. Whoever did it will withdraw it. Mr Terry Sullivan: I withdraw. Ms LIDDY CLARK: The opposition, if nothing else, is pathetically relentless. If we are talking about all time lows, as was mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he talked about duds, I suspect he was possibly looking in a mirror. As I have stated in this parliament ad nauseam, the commission has made its determination and there is nothing more to add.

2004 State Election Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Is the Premier aware of any independent analysis of the state election results? Can the Premier advise the House whether there have been any signs of disunity impacting upon the performance of politicians in Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am happy to advise the House that Professor Paul Reynolds has completed his assessment of the 2004 Queensland state election, which I table for the information of the House. Interestingly, Dr Reynolds found that Labor was the party which can and does win seats across all of the regions. That is an alarming conclusion, especially for the National Party, which was once a political powerhouse in Queensland. The voters have pulled the plug on that powerhouse. It is especially the case in regions like the Gold Coast. The Liberal Party should listen to this because it is very interesting. In 2001, the Nationals had received one-quarter of the vote. In the last election the Nationals' share of the vote on the Gold Coast was reduced by 12.4 per cent to a total of 12.5 per cent. Like the Liberals, however, the Greens almost— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I cannot answer if I am being interrupted. Like the Liberals, however, the Greens almost doubled their vote on the coast to 7.8 per cent. The Nationals' result in provisional cities seats is almost worth mentioning. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I will come back to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in a minute and take that interjection. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Let us deal with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I was really pleased to see that his predecessor, Di McCauley, in her book said, 'It seemed to me that Seeney was 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 579 indeed the ugly face of politics and I wanted nothing to do with him.' Di McCauley says it all. Not only that, she said that she would not even vote for him. Good heavens! Let me get back to question. It says it all. This is what the Liberal Party should listen to. On page 8 of the report which I have tabled it says that the Liberal Party vote in 2001 on the Gold Coast was 13.8 per cent and in 2004 it went up 28.8 per cent. The swing to the Liberal Party was 15 per cent. For the National Party it was 24.9 per cent in 2001 and 12.5 in 2004—that is, a swing against them of 12.4 per cent. Bob, you do not need them! I look now at the results for provisional cities in Queensland. The Liberal Party improved their vote by 6.1 per cent; the National Party lost 7.6 per cent of the vote. I see all the nonsense from Mr Springborg about one conservative party. That is something that was floated by Sallyanne Atkinson back in 1989. I will table that proposal for the information of the House. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition is being rude again. I say to the Liberal Party: if they have one political party they will drown. They are the only ones gaining votes, not the National Party.

Alcohol Management Plans Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the Honourable Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Minister, how many people have been charged with offences in relation to breaches of alcohol management plans? How many of these offences have occurred at airports? In particular, how many people have been charged with these offences at Lockhart River airport? Ms SPENCE: I do not carry those statistics around in my hand, but I do have some general statistics here with me. From 1 July 2003 to 31 March 2004, there were over 350 reported liquor offences in the 10 communities that had an alcohol management plan in place for all or part of that period. They are the best statistics I have with me today, but I am happy to provide more detailed statistics if the member wishes to put a question on notice about that issue. When the House brought in the alcohol management plans, it was done so with the support of all members of parliament. When we sat in that historic parliament in Townsville and debated this issue, we knew that that would not be the end of the story, that it was groundbreaking legislation, that legislation like this—laws like this—had not been attempted elsewhere in Australia. We knew that we were not necessarily getting it right the first time, that we would have to make changes to the laws as we saw how they were going to work— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, that is my final warning. Ms SPENCE: We knew that we would have to make changes to the laws as we saw how they worked over the passage of time. It has already been seen that we have an issue about whether tarmacs are going to be declared a public place. The police have already talked to me about some other minor issues, and they are going to make suggestions to the Premier and me about how we might change the laws to make them more perfect in the future. I think a comparison might be when the drink-driving laws were introduced in the 1970s. We did not get it right. We tweaked those laws over the years because people had found ways around those laws until finally we have the laws we have today for drink-driving which are workable. The same is going to be the case with the alcohol management plans because they are new laws. We also made the point at the time that these laws were going to work only if the community supported them, and we knew at the time that not all members of those communities were going to support alcohol restrictions. They certainly do not. But, generally, the communities do support these plans, and they are going to help us make it work. We knew that they would only work if the police do their job and police these laws. That is one thing I am confident of. The police are doing a very good job in all of these indigenous communities in helping the communities and helping the government make these laws work. They have a lot of prosecutions. They are stopping sly grogging, and I take my hat off to those police who live in those communities and who are living under the same alcohol restrictions as every indigenous person in that community. Mr Schwarten interjected. Ms SPENCE: They are not breaking the law but are helping those communities make those laws work. 580 Privilege 28 Apr 2004

Education Funding Mr ENGLISH: My question is to the Minister for Education. On Friday the minister attended a national meeting of education ministers in Sydney. In the lead-up she told us that the gloves were off over the Commonwealth's schools funding package. How many rounds did the minister go with the federal minister, and what was the outcome? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question and for his interest in the schools in his electorate and Queensland generally. Not surprisingly, at the ministerial council meeting on Friday the main area of discussion was about the Commonwealth's proposed four- year funding package for schools across the country. I regret that I have to advise the House that the Commonwealth at this stage remains unmoved by the pleas from the state ministers and has confirmed that there is nothing new for public schools in its package for the next four years other than the normal indexation that is applied to those funds. So the money that is being offered will buy exactly the same in four years time as it is buying now. He had to confirm that the package does maintain the growing inequity between the government and non-government school sectors in some areas. Government school students in Australia do not receive even the same minimum allocation as that provided by the Commonwealth to their counterparts in the non-state sector. The state and territory ministers have a united position in relation to this. We have developed what we believe is a very fair adjustment to the package that would make the same minimum investment in all students—regardless of what school they attend, regardless of what school their parents choose for them. It does mean an extra $3 billion over the next four years, but to put that in context what it means is $330 a head per year for students in public schools. It is not even a dollar a day. When we think about the sort of investment we should be thinking about for the future of Australia and the next generation, it seems like a very reasonable ask in the context of a very healthy Commonwealth surplus. I should stress that the package being put forward by the state and territory ministers means no loss whatsoever to the non-state sector, so it is really about catch-up for those schools that are lagging behind. Unfortunately, as I said, the federal minister was unmoved and has refused to budge on the funding formula. Probably the most disappointing thing for ministers was his comprehensive inability to justify the package. It was, in my view, his weakest performance to date, and I can only explain that in my view because he knows in his heart that this is wrong. He knows that it is unsustainable. He is not relaxed or comfortable about the package that he is presiding over. He is not the architect of it, yet he has to support it. His worst performance, however, came when ministers asked him to defend the Prime Minister's comments about the values that are taught in public schools in Australia. When he was asked why he did not at any stage come out and defend the great job that is happening in Australia's public schools, he said we had to understand that he was on leave at the time. I think that the Prime Minister would be interested to know that that was the strength of his defence of the Prime Minister's comments. We did, however, win one small victory, and I hope it is the beginning of many. We did get the Commonwealth to back down on what is a ludicrous proposal, and that was its proposal to give the minister powers to remove funds from those schools where children were struggling most in literacy and numeracy. It is the beginning of what I hope will be further victories. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE Election Report, Comments by Premier Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.55 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. Earlier in answer to a question from a government member, the Premier misled the parliament in quoting from Dr Paul Reynolds's research regarding the National Party's votes. If he had read on further, he would have read where Dr Reynolds said— That the National vote is seen as apparently collapsing is somewhat misleading as, under the terms of the coalition, they only contested three seats, compared to six in 2001. There is a detailed analysis of it. I do not mind if he wants to challenge us in this place, but 'Shifty Pete' is— Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not having a debate now. 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 581

PRIVILEGE John Tonge Centre Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.56 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The Leader of the Opposition dishonestly questioned my integrity in a question on the John Tonge Centre earlier this morning when he suggested that the statement I made about information from the FOI document being out of date was my words, and I want to table and quote from the letter that was written by the Acting Assistant Commissioner of Operations Support Command to the Leader of the Opposition about that report where it said— Much of the information provided in QPS report 04/667 is either out of date or based on personal unsubstantiated observations. It also says— The report has not been forwarded on from the Officer in Charge of the DNA Unit, due to the failure of the author to provide factual information to support opinions expressed within the report. It also says— The issues raised by the report relating to the backlog of crime scene samples are dated in light of the additional funding being provided by the government to clear the backlog of crime scene samples. It also says— The author of the report makes a number of unsubstantiated statements relating to what the author describes as general discussions ... and conversations ... This report was discredited by the Police Service. It was sent to the Leader of the Opposition with this letter which he tabled. So he dishonestly stood up in this House and failed to mention that, and he should apologise.

PRIVILEGE Election Report, Comments by Premier Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.58 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The Leader of the Opposition took a matter of privilege before. I stand by what I have said to this House. I refer to page 10 of the report where Dr Reynolds summed up the Nationals' performance in provincial city seats in this way— Contesting eleven seats, the Nationals sustained a notable loss to marginally trail the Liberals in a class of seats where they have usually performed strongly. The statistics in here do not lie. The Liberals outperformed the National Party on the Gold Coast and in provincial cities, and I stand by what I have said. The facts speak for themselves.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 580.

Fire Appliances, Smart State Numberplates Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer to his first decision as minister to order Smart State templates to be attached to all numberplates on existing fire engines, and I ask: how smart was it to spend money on this useless exercise instead of replacing old safety equipment used by volunteer firefighters? Mr CUMMINS: I would like to thank the member for the question. We on this side of the House are not frightened to stand up for the Smart State. Members will see that fire appliances have around their numberplates the Smart State proudly emblazoned. An article in the Courier- Mail of 21 February titled 'Firies money wasted' stated that there were approximately 460 firefighting appliances throughout Queensland. Obviously, two numberplates—one on the front, one on the back— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I now warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition under standing order 123A. You are now warned. 582 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004

Mr CUMMINS: The 460 sets—two per appliance—that cost approximately $2 each will be fitted. Mr Schwarten: Two bucks each. Mr CUMMINS: Obviously, the members opposite have a problem with arithmetic. So $2,100 has been allocated. Mr Rowell: 800. Mr CUMMINS: No, $2,100 to have them fitted. They will be fitted when the appliance goes in for normal servicing, or maintenance. Obviously, we on this side of the House think that is money well spent.

Ipswich Motorway Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. I hear the minister will meet with his state and federal counterparts in Perth at the Australian Transport Council meeting. Will this meeting address funding for federal roads in Queensland such as the Ipswich Motorway, which, incidentally, was completely blocked again today? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. She is one of the most active members of parliament in this place when it comes to advancing the interests of motorists in her electorate. A lot of people live in Ipswich and work in the greater Brisbane area so the Ipswich Motorway is of critical importance to them. It is very interesting that we talk about the Ipswich Motorway. When the Premier gave me the honour of being the Transport Minister, I thought, 'Gee, great, new job, big promotion'—and all of that sort of stuff—and I was very pleased about doing that. One of the first people who wanted to come and see me was the member for Moggill. So I thought, 'We have state roads issues. We will have to talk to the member for Moggill'. He made an appointment to come and see me. So he came in to see me and he spoke to me about a number of state road issues. I was happy to hear those. But his major complaint was about the federal Liberal Party and Cameron Thompson. Do members know what his complaint was? Too much planning! The federal government has required the state government, as a condition of $60 million in urgent work on the Ipswich Motorway, to do a ridiculous study for a half bypass of the Ipswich Motorway that will only connect back on to it through the member's electorate. That is what happens when we have a federal government that has ad-hoc planning policies. We have heard other comments from Senator Campbell about that. When I get to Perth, I will be saying that we have $600 million worth of work to do on the Ipswich Motorway. The honourable member for Ipswich referred to that accident the occurred on the Ipswich Motorway that essentially made it unpassable. Some people talk about whether three-laning or six-laning is a good idea. I want to point out that that is what the opposition did when it came to the Pacific Motorway. That was their solution for the Gold Coast. If it is good enough for the Gold Coast, it is good enough for Ipswich. But I will be going to Perth and I will talk about federal funding. Interestingly, about 18 months ago Mr Anderson announced AusLink, which was supposed to be the new big federal funding thing. I should say that, in Queensland, the new big federal funding thing means a $223 million cut and $200 million a year being spent. AusLink is not even on the agenda. I had to ask for AusLink to be put on the agenda for this week's Australian Transport Council meeting. We have a lot of things to do. Again, I see in an article in the Courier-Mail that Senator Campbell has announced the federal government's road policy. The grand gesture is $600 million for the Melbourne to Brisbane corridor. I will tell members what $600 million will get them. It will not even get them a pat on the back; $580 million for a range bypass for Toowoomba, which will not even get to the border, it will hardly get out of Toowoomba, and $600 million for Ipswich. That is his grand gesture. We have a very, very big backlog of federal work to do on our National Highway. Twenty- seven per cent of National Highway journeys in Australia are conducted in Queensland, second only to New South Wales. I welcome federal government interest in roads, because for so long we have been telling them about things like the Brisbane urban corridor, like the Logan Motorway, like the Gateway Motorway, like the Bruce Highway, like the Douglas Arterial and like the four- laning of the Kuranda Range crossing in Cairns. 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 583

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Gympie, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Indooroopilly State School in the electorate of Indooroopilly.

Police Headquarters, Gympie Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Can she advise the latest developments in regard to the building of the replacement police headquarters in Gympie? Ms SPENCE: I am happy to talk to the member privately about that. The police have about $40 million each year to spend on capital works, which is for the upgrade and the provision of new police stations across the state. They have formulated a three-year forward plan for the next three years. I know that Gympie is on that plan. I am just not sure which year it is in, so if the member would like to come and see me, I would be happy to give her the exact details.

Telstra Mr SHINE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I ask: what are primary producers telling the minister about the privatisation of Telstra? What advice can he offer to people who are totally against the sale of Telstra? Mr PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question. As honourable members would know, the member for Toowoomba North has always been a strong representative for not only his own electorate but also for people in rural and regional Queensland. No matter where one goes and no matter to whom one speaks in either rural or regional Queensland, our primary producers are saying that they are not satisfied with the services that they are receiving from Telstra. Sure, some of the services have improved, but those people believe that unless they have the same services provided to them that are provided to the people in the city they will not support the full sale of Telstra. To anyone who is totally against the sale of Telstra, my advice is quite simple: you cannot vote National and you cannot vote for the Liberal Party. Those two parties are out there trying to promote the full sale of Telstra. In the 2001 federal election campaign John Howard promised 'No more'. It will not proceed with the full sale of Telstra this term. Twice members on both sides of the House—and by that I mean the Liberals and the Nationals—voted as one for the full sale of Telstra. Every National and every Liberal MP representing Queensland in either the Senate or the House of Representatives has voted for the full sale of Telstra. None of them abstained and none of them crossed the floor. Therefore, I was pleased to listen in this House to the first speech of the honourable member for Charters Towers, who said— Although I may support the sale of a public asset when it is no longer profitable to remain in government hands, I am totally against the sale of Telstra. Telstra remains a high profit making public asset and an important public utility. More importantly, the lack of mobile phone coverage in my electorate demonstrates that there is much to be done to bring rural and regional telecommunications up to an acceptable standard. If Telstra is fully privatised there will be no incentives for improved services, especially in rural Queensland. I agree with him and all honourable members opposite, especially the ones in the National Party, will agree with him as well. But the member for Charters Towers is supporting the Labor Party case against the full sale of Telstra. If I could just go back to my school days. Sister Mary Filomena, my grade 4 teacher, said to us in the classroom, 'Stand by your principles.' Therefore, I say to the honourable member for Charters Towers: stick by your principles. They are on record. Vote Labor at the next federal election.

Drug and Alcohol Workers, Cape York Mr COPELAND: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Given that the Premier has found $100,000 to employ Teresa Mullan in his department, can the minister now advise what progress he has made in finding the resources to employ additional drug and alcohol workers in the Cape? Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is always difficult to recruit people to work in those regions. Having said that, Queensland Health has over 208 people working in the Cape in relation to delivery of health services for the people of that region, which is quite substantial. In relation to the specifics that the member has asked for, there are positions for 584 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004 three workers. My understanding is that there is one vacancy, one person is there working and another person has been recently recruited. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Pumicestone, I welcome to the public gallery leaders of state schools in that electorate—Minimbar, Morayfield State, Caboolture East, Banksia Beach and Bribie Island.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. I refer to federal government claims that, while Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose slightly in 2002, it appears Australia is on track to meet its 108 per cent of 1990 emission levels target by 2008-2012. What role will Queensland play in helping the Prime Minister achieve his greenhouse reduction outcomes? Mr ROBERTSON: John Howard will achieve his greenhouse outcomes largely on the backs of Queensland farmers and without contributing one red cent to compensate them. Twelve months ago, as we heard this morning, the Prime Minister and the Premier agreed to a joint $150 million package to assist land-holders affected by the decision to phase out broadscale tree clearing of remnant vegetation by December 2006. The reasons John Howard entered into this agreement are as follows. Although the Prime Minister refused to sign up to the Kyoto protocol, he nevertheless committed his government to emissions reductions by 2008 as if he had signed the protocol. The Prime Minister understands that one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions is ongoing broadscale tree clearing of remnant vegetation, and he understood that action was required if he was to meet his greenhouse reduction targets. To achieve this, the Prime Minister sought reductions of up to 25 megatons of carbon emissions from the cessation of broadscale clearing in Queensland. He also required that the clearing of remnant vegetation cease by the end of 2006 so that emissions did not impact on his 2008 international reporting requirements. Acknowledging the benefits that the Commonwealth would get from all of those measures, Howard reached in-principle agreement with the Premier to contribute $75 million out of the total $150 million package, as is evidenced by the letters the Premier tabled in parliament this morning. As we know, the Prime Minister has since welched on the deal. Federal National Party Minister Truss has confirmed forecasts by ABARE and the BRS that actions Queensland is taking in relation to clearing will provide $600 million in savings to the national economy. That is $600 million in savings each and every year. It is time for rural Queensland to hold Truss and the federal government to account for their continuing politicking at the expense of land-holders in this state. John Howard gets his greenhouse gas emission problem largely fixed in one fell swoop as a result of our new tree clearing laws in Queensland. It means that farmers are carrying the Howard government on their backs and paying for John Howard's greenhouse outcomes, as evidenced by the release from federal Environment Minister, David Kemp, on 13 April this year, when he claimed that the Australian government is leading action to reduce emissions from agriculture and managed land systems. But what do Queensland land-holders get in return from the Commonwealth? Not one red cent! Why? Because in a childish fit of pique it now refuses to contribute its $75 million for the most spurious and cynical reasons. I note that Agforce now says it will lobby the federal government for more money for land- holder compensation in addition to the $150 million we are providing. And so it should. It is time rural Queensland took John Howard and Warren Truss to task and shamed them into paying their dues for the benefits the Commonwealth will receive from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Hospital Emergency Departments Dr FLEGG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to his ministerial statement of yesterday in which he criticised the AMA-backed Australasian College of Emergency Medicine's report into hospital overcrowding as incorrect and naive. He went on to say that trauma cases now represent the minority of cases in our emergency wards and blamed GPs for this. If this is the case, why have 19 out of the state's 21 reporting hospitals failed to meet the emergency treatment standard time for urgent cases? Is this not just further proof that Queenslanders should believe the real doctors and not the spin doctors on the other side? 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 585

Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member for the question. There are a number of issues surrounding the question raised by the member. You cannot simplify everything into one report in terms of people being dealt with in our emergency departments in our hospitals. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr NUTTALL: I think that is important. You cannot just sit there and say, 'We have one report.' The report basically says, 'Put in more beds and that will fix the problem.' That will not fix the problem. I have consistently said that the problem is that we do not have bulk-billing. Bulk- billing has reduced substantially. Members opposite can argue until they are blue in the face. The reduction in bulk-billing has forced more and more people to go to our hospitals for treatment and care. To address that issue we made some election commitments in terms of an additional emergency centre, which we will be building at the Prince Charles Hospital. We will be allocating an extra 242 beds over the life of this government. I have to say that it is not a simplistic answer to just put in more beds. It is not like that. There is a whole range of issues around looking after people in emergency areas. The member knows that and I know that. The member knows that probably better than I do. Being a doctor himself, he should understand that. He should understand the work that is being done in our emergency departments and the incredible work that they do. Let me tell the member what has happened in the last three years. More than 110,000 people have attended our public emergency departments in the last three years. Mr Schwarten: How many? Mr NUTTALL: One hundred and ten thousand. That is a 13 per cent increase in the last three years. The member cannot say that that has happened because there is nothing wrong with bulk-billing. One relates to the other. Of course that is going to put pressure on our emergency departments. As I have said, we have committed to spending a substantial amount of money in our emergency departments over the coming years. I can go through that in detail if the member wants me to. If he wants me to stand here and give him the statistics, I can do that. But he should not stand in this place and get a few of his mates to give him a few ideas about what he might want to ask in terms of hospital issues in Queensland. The member needs to come to me with some suggestions about how to fix it. Just putting in beds is not the answer. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Mount Ommaney, I welcome to the public gallery a second group of students from Indooroopilly State School in the electorate of Indooroopilly.

Skills Training Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Earlier this week Australia's biggest employer groups called on the Commonwealth government to urgently inject new funds into skills training. Can the minister inform us about the current skill shortages and what the Queensland government is doing to overcome them? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question, because the member has always taken a very keen interest in skilling people in her electorate and in the rest of the state. Very clearly, the Beattie government, during its two terms in office and already in this third term, is very proud of its achievements in increasing the number of apprentices and trainees in this state and upskilling current employees. In the last 12 months the number of apprentices starting out in areas with critical skill shortages rose by 14 per cent. That is a massive increase. The media in the last few days, particularly in an article in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, has referred to a survey by the Australian Industry Group which indicated that employers are more concerned about the availability of skilled workers than they are about their company's tax burden. Both the Australian Industry Group and also the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have called for an urgent injection of funds into skilling employees by the federal government. They see it as the most important issue facing their member businesses. The Beattie government wholeheartedly agrees with those two major industry groups. The issue of skill shortages was identified by this government when we came to office in 1998. We began offering incentive payments to employers to address that in those critical areas, as well as 586 Questions Without Notice 28 Apr 2004 doing things with the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative which helped to spur record numbers of apprentices and trainees in this state. Since 1998 more than 12,358 employers have received $42.3 million to employ an additional 16,840 apprentices and 6,935 trainees in industries with skill shortages. We also did things like setting up the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund, which helped to meet the critical skill shortages in that industry after the previous minister, Santo Santoro, refused to set it up after industry had called on him to do it. What we are seeing now, of course—and this parliament has been told regularly by my predecessors in the Beattie government—is the Commonwealth dudding the state, which it has for very many years, on its allocations for vocational education and training. In fact, most recently, all of the states and territories agreed to knock back the Commonwealth's offer and criticised it for being totally inadequate for the next three years. I should tell this House that this state, as part of that offer, got dudded by a further $6 million. Very clearly, we need to address that. In 2003-04 this government is spending a record $781 million on vocational education and training, but I support the two major national employer groups which are very clearly calling on the Howard government to increase the amount of funding that it is putting in to vocational education in Australia to meet those skill shortages. It is about time the Howard government listened to the employers of this nation and supported us.

Mareeba Hospital, Maternity Services Ms LEE LONG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. To allay community concerns about the future of the maternity services at Mareeba Hospital, especially in light of the Atherton Hospital experience in 2002-03, will the minister make publicly available the Queensland Health Northern Zone 2003 clinical services planning framework information sheets 1 to 10? Mr NUTTALL: You must have them. I am not sure of the particulars that the member is seeking at the moment, but I am happy to go and seek the information that is required and see what I can do to assist her inquiries. Let us just have a look at the issue of the Tablelands Health Service District and see what work does go on up there and not be too specific about one little area that the member might have a problem with. We need to have a look at the big picture. I think one of the problems is that we have not had a look at the big picture in the area to see the good work that is being done. There are 561 people in the Tablelands delivering services. Last year 7,435 people visited the hospital in the Tablelands. Five hundred and nine people were looked after in same-day surgery. In the Emergency Services Department, over 25,000 people were cared for and looked after. I think it is important, when you start talking about isolated services, to look at a bigger picture to see what is really being done. In terms of the Atherton Hospital, let us look at what we are doing there: $2.3 million for the refurbishment of that hospital. The member knows as well as I do that we have spent a lot of money in the Tablelands improving a whole range of services in that district. When you stand up in parliament and criticise one particular area, it is important to be honest and point out the services that are provided and to have a look at the bigger picture and all the things that are being done.

Australian Health Ministers, Meeting Ms BARRY: My question without notice is also to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the recent meeting of all Australian health ministers in Canberra and I ask: can the minister outline any decisions of that meeting that will benefit the people of Queensland? Mr NUTTALL: Can I thank the honourable member for the question. On Friday I attended my first ministerial council meeting in Canberra as the Minister for Health. There were a number of issues that I indicated to the parliament that I had intended to raise that were vital for the betterment of Queensland Health and the people of this state. 28 Apr 2004 Questions Without Notice 587

One of the first things I indicated was that we needed to properly plan for our health work force in terms of university places, working with the private sector, planning better for our ageing population and, of course, looking at the areas of high-risk medical needs. On Friday we were able to secure agreement with all the states, and work will begin on actually determining the number of medical doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in all our states and work will be done in terms of projections over the next 10 years. This, of course, will be particularly important for Queensland, given that we often have difficulty in recruiting those types of staff in the regional and rural parts of our state. One of the things that did surprise me was that at the moment that data is not available. We will now have a national register of doctors and I am pleased to say that the register will finally show some data that will be worth while. The register at the moment, while it shows the number of doctors in the country, does not show how many of those doctors are actually practising, how many might be working part-time, how many might not be working or how many might be away overseas on holidays. So it is very difficult to get a picture of the actual number of doctors we have and the actual number of doctors we need. That is what we intend to do. What we want to do is to develop a strategy in terms of working out how many university places we need to increase so that we can attract more young people to study medicine. As I have said in this parliament before, 5,000 young people last year applied to study medicine and only 1,500 positions were available in our universities. That is simply not good enough for a knowledge nation. We need to do better than that. What we need to do is plan how many doctors, how many nurses, how many allied health staff we need over the decade, and I am particularly pleased that we have been able to do that.

John Tonge Centre Mr HORAN: My question is to the Minister for Police. This morning the minister questioned the accuracy of a report that said there was a backlog of 11,000 DNA cases at the John Tonge Centre. I have in my hand a letter dated yesterday saying that the backlog is 13,395. The author of that letter is none other than Gordon Nuttall, Minister for Health. Is the minister doubting his accuracy too, or will she now admit that this backlog is growing massively? Ms SPENCE: I have certainly seen the Minister for Health's letter to Mr Springborg yesterday and, in fact, there is no inconsistency here. I talked about a 13,000-odd figure backlog in my reply this morning; the same figures are mentioned in the Minister for Health's letter to you. There is no inconsistency. We all acknowledge that there is a backlog, that there is a problem. This government acknowledged that when it allocated an additional $11 million in our election commitments to clear the backlog. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order, the Leader of the Opposition! My final warning. Ms SPENCE: Obviously that backlog is not going to be cleared overnight. It will take some time. We have set aside the money and the staff to clear the backlog. You keep going on about this issue. It is an issue that we acknowledge and we are fixing. What I am here to tell you is that the police are working very closely with the health professionals at the John Tonge Centre to make sure that priority cases— Mr SPEAKER: Order, the member for Cunningham! Ms SPENCE:—get attention. The police advise me that there is no problem in their relationship with those health professionals and priority cases are, indeed, getting attention. What people do not realise is that in the last couple of years we have taken DNA samples from every prisoner in this state, and we have almost four and a half thousand people in secure custody at the moment. We have taken DNA samples from people in open custody. That is why we have a backlog. We have done this huge body of work and those samples will require testing down the line. We are now taking DNA samples from every single person entering a watch-house, for example. In the past there has been an acknowledgment— Miss Simpson: Why are you not testing it? Ms SPENCE: That is a simple, trivial, unintelligent thing to say. Why does the member not listen? 588 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

Mr Schwarten: It is embarrassing. Ms SPENCE: It is embarrassing. One of the other reasons we have had the backlog is that DNA testing is new in this state. In the past the police have bundled up a lot of gear from crime scene locations and sent a whole lot of stuff for DNA testing. What we are doing at the moment is training police to be more discerning about the samples they send from scenes of crime for DNA testing. So we are addressing this issue on a number of fronts. I am pleased to say that, as far as the Queensland police are concerned, things are progressing very well with clearing that backlog. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

SUGAR INDUSTRY REFORM BILL Committee Resumed from 27 April (p. 552). Clause 1— Mr HORAN (11.33 a.m.): The reason I want to speak to this clause, which is purely about the short title, is to make some general comments. I want to respond to the minister's comments last night in his summing up on the second reading stage. I think it was a pity after some constructive yet robust debate that— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am not going to allow you to do that. You can make your comments in a suitable place. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr HORAN (11.34 a.m.): This clause is a very big clause covering some seven pages. It covers in a quite substantial way CPAs, supply contracts and arbitration. So there are a number of queries and explanations required throughout this. I take offence at what the minister said in his summing up last night when he childishly said that National Party members were deriding other members of the parliament simply because there were some members on this side of the House who knew and understood all the arrangements of supplying cane because they happen to be farmers. It is okay for the minister to listen to the derision and insults hurled from his side, but in his summing up he carried on with childish rubbish. The minister was entitled to 30 minutes. He used 12 and decided to finish up, which I think on an important bill like this is a shame. He said that he would be writing to all members regarding issues that he did not cover, and I look forward to receiving that response. This clause that we are debating at the moment—clause 5—is a very important part of the debate because it is about the replacement of cane production areas. This goes to one of the principal reasons for our opposition to the bill. I said in my speech on the second reading stage that there was a part of this bill which we supported because we thought it was progressive, and that was the exemptions from vesting. In talking to many growers around the state and in talking to various organisations, I found that they all want to go forward but the growers are experienced and smart enough to realise that they can go forward in areas like field production, regional plans and all those things that they have done to improve the productivity of their properties and the efficiency of their harvest. They realise there may be other ways they can improve that, but they are wary, suspicious and simply opposed to theoretical legislative reforms that supposedly will help them reduce their costs when they know that it will not reduce their costs but erode their negotiating strengths, erode some of the cornerstones of what they had before and simply make them, as primary price takers, more vulnerable in the negotiations. The minister may well say that this will make negotiations and arrangements more flexible and open up some sort of opportunity, but the growers are absolutely fearful because they have seen these sorts of things happen before. The only reason they have CPAs, statutory negotiating arrangements and arbitration is the uniqueness of this industry, which I spoke about in my speech last night. Because of the limited window of production of around about five months, because of the variance of the c.c.s. of cane throughout that period—and that needs to be shared equitably amongst all the growers—because of the complicated arrangements for transport of this crop that is so bulky and requires so much in the way of transport and harvesting arrangements to be put in 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 589 place, and because of the distances that some have to cart and others do not, there needs to be a system of fairness. Farmers see this legislation as taking away those hard fought systems of fairness—systems like the cane production area which provided them with a guarantee for a certain area. They would produce cane in that area and the mill would take it. It also provided the mill with a certain knowledge of what areas were being harvested and grown, and on it went from the cane production area right through to the supply contracts and all those arrangements down through that particular chain. Now they see the shift—those strengths and guarantees are being shifted so they lose some strength, they lose some negotiating arrangements, and that strength and negotiation moves from them across to the millers. It is important to have a good partnership and cooperation between the two. It was a sound arrangement. They fear they are losing their rights and strengths in this difficult area of negotiation. This clause covers arrangements for supply contracts which will replace the CPA, or cane production areas, from January 2005 to December 2005. It is for next year's harvest. The next clause we will debate will deal with the arrangements flowing on from that period. The government is moving to a system that they say is going to make it simpler, easier or more flexible, despite the fact that experienced growers know they are going to lose some strength. They are in a vulnerable position already as primary price takers. They need some strength not only when negotiating price but also when arranging for harvesting and delivery of their crop. They need fair access to the varying c.c.s. and fair treatment in terms of the arrangements for cane trams and harvesting. Like the minister, I am not in the industry. I have researched this by talking to people and looking at it from an outsider's point of view. The government is moving to a system that will be extremely complex. It will be a system whereby growers can enter into supply contracts in collectives or with a number of collectives or with a number of individuals. There will be complex arrangements for harvesting times, the programming of trains and ensuring everybody gets a fair chop at the optimum c.c.s. Mills may well have to deal with a number of collectives or a number of single people. At the moment they can be part of a collective and there can be separate contracts, but the adverse effects principle comes into play. If someone with a single supply contract has something that causes an adverse effect upon others—people in the collective, for example—then that has to be detailed. In other words, it is open and accountable. I think I would be correct in giving this example. If there were arrangements for people not in the collective to send their cane at the best time—when they would get the highest c.c.s. and therefore the most money—and everybody else was on the fringes of that harvesting period so they had a lesser c.c.s. and had to contend with more inclement weather, then that had to be put forward. The mill supply committee would then negotiate so all people were treated fairly and there was no adverse effect. I think it has been said in the CIE report that the adverse effect was holding the industry back. I do not see how it could be if the adverse effect principle was simply about people being treated fairly and equitably in what is a very complex system. The other option would be for one group to have the chopper in at the right time and then the rest sending their cane in at a time when they get a lesser price. They may not get the crop out because of wet weather. That is the wisdom of the past decades. The industry leaders have developed this system. The growers know that the problem they have is the price they are getting. They know that the only way to fight against that is to endeavour to reduce their costs or be more efficient in greater production. They cannot see this clause doing anything in that regard. All it is doing is taking away some of the very limited negotiating strengths that they once had. I would like the minister to comment on that because that is very important. Other members on this side of the House may wish to speak. Mr PALASZCZUK: Sure. As the minister I certainly went through the same questions that the honourable member for Toowoomba South has gone through. At the end of the day, when we had a look at the different reports that had come in, when we had spoken to growers from different facets of the industry—I mean young growers, innovative growers—of course there was some resistance. Of course there was some resistance from the established growers. Change is very hard to take. Any sort of change is difficult. But, at the end of the day, what the government decided to do was bring in minimal change. 590 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

By bringing in minimal change we expect the least amount of disruption for Queensland canegrowers. We know that the majority of systems have been in place since 1915. They have been there for a long time. When we sat down and had a good look at what we thought would be the best way to do things we came to this conclusion. Of course, CPAs and arbitration are difficult issues for the government. If we did not believe that by implementing this change, by implementing this new regime it would benefit the sugar industry, we would not be doing it. We have gone through a great deal of pain for the past two years dealing with this issue. We believe that what we are doing is in the best interests of the industry. We have the support of the Canegrowers organisation. My understanding is that at the executive meeting the vote was 24 to one in favour of these changes. We have the support of the Sugar Milling Council. We also have the support of the Prime Minister. It is quite obvious that there is widespread support for this. There is also support from canegrowers. We believe that by bringing in these changes the industry will be in a better position to accept the challenges that it faces currently. Up until 1998 things were not all that bad. We had our ups and downs, but when Brazil came on the scene and took over the mantle as being the most efficient producer in the world—we were the most efficient producer before then—unfortunately the writing was on the wall. The fact that 85 per cent of our sugar is exported overseas is another important issue that made the government go down this path. As I have said previously, we would not have gone down this path if there was no reason to go down this path. We have taken the hard decision. We are going down this path. I do not want to look backwards. I want to look forwards. I believe the three changes in this legislation will see the industry in good stead for the future. Mr ROWELL: The minister talks about the industry being in agreement. It was quite clear prior to the election that the government had said that if it could not get agreement it would introduce the previous legislation which we did not support at the time and the industry was not very supportive of. When the government won the election it was given to understand that it had a mandate to implement the legislation that it had brought in prior to the election. When we talk about mandates in sugar seats, the government probably does not have one, but that is beside the point. The fact is that the government quite clearly said to the industry that it had no other option. Therefore, industry people—canegrowers, millers and so on—had to make a decision as to how they were going to deal with the mandate that the government believed it had in terms of the sugar industry. I do not think they had any other option. I think they were between a rock and a hard place. They were in a position of having to deal with a government that had just won power and was quite clear about what its intent was. So that made it extremely difficult for them to do anything other than get the best arrangement they possibly could, and that is what they attempted to go about doing. That does not necessarily mean that they were supportive of what they agreed to. Sometimes one has to compromise and sometimes if one is in a position— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am the chair, member for Hinchinbrook. I remember the member making these comments in his speech on the second reading—these exact comments. We are talking to a clause about cane supply, and I think we should get to that clause. Mr ROWELL: Okay. Thanks for your forbearance, Mr Chair. It was very kind. The CHAIRMAN: The member made these comments during the second reading debate, and repetition is not allowed in this chamber. Mr ROWELL: The important issue is that there were changes brought in to the industry which I do not think are going to be all that beneficial. Being a cane farmer myself— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I actually asked the member to get to the clause we are debating. Mr ROWELL: I am just talking about the changes. The CHAIRMAN: Well, talk about the clause then. Mr ROWELL: I am talking about the changes, which I do not think are going to be all that beneficial. I just want to go through some of the proposals contained in clause 5, and that is the clause that we are now debating. The CHAIRMAN: That is good. Mr ROWELL: We are preventing small groups of growers using the compulsory mediation and arbitration system. That may be a furphy. The clause states— 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 591

... enabling access, by growers, mill owners and interested third parties, to mediation and arbitration disputes about the terms of supply contracts. I think this is a very interesting concept, because it was not in the previous legislation. The clause uses as examples— 1. a harvesting contractor who is engaged by a grower or a miller owner to harvest cane 2. a producer of ethanol 3. a person who transports cane to a mill Correct me if I am wrong, but this could include people who are involved in supplying arranged goods to a grower. They will be involved in an agreement where they think they have an interest. How did the minister go about defining the interests of the third party? While the bill gives examples, it would be interesting for the minister to expand on that because I believe that somebody could take up the cudgel there and make a decision that they should be involved in the process. Of course, that then means that the grower could be at the wrong end of it. If negotiations have to go on with the harvester at that point in time and there is a mediation process, it could be to the detriment of the grower as to what he can actually afford to pay for the harvesting operation should this third party or the hauler or whatever it might be set down a circumstance that they believe they are entitled to put forward in terms of negotiations for the supply agreement. I think that that could be extremely detrimental, because we are in a situation now where we are in an extremely difficult position and we have to ensure that we remain viable. I do not know that this third-party intervention in the supply contracts is going to necessarily benefit the interests of the industry. It could create a number of very contentious issues. I would ask the minister to supply some information on that, because I am not clear as to what his thinking on it is. Time expired. Mr PALASZCZUK: Of course this is something that was not included in last year's proposed bill. The honourable member spoke about mandates, elections and so on. Let me just say at the outset that we were almost there in terms of agreement with the industry halfway through last year, way before the election. There was only one small sticking point, and that was the length of time that we would continue with compulsory arbitration. That was the sticking point. After the election, industry and government sat around a table. Everyone came with goodwill and, as a consequence— Mr Rowell interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Let me come to that. As a consequence of that goodwill, it only took us about a week to reach agreement. So let us forget about the mandate. I just think that there was a spirit of cooperation there between industry and government to ensure that we had some change. In terms of part of that change, we also consulted with and had at the table harvesters and unions. What is wrong if a collective decides to include the harvesters as being part of the contractual arrangement? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with a person wanting to invest in ethanol in a particular area and wanting to produce so many hundreds of thousands of litres of ethanol? That person needs security, and to get security they need a written contract. Not only do they need a written contract between the person and the miller; they also have to have a guaranteed supply of cane. So the contract will have to be written between the grower, the investor and the mill. It is as simple as that. It is just a matter of wait and see. It is up to the collective. If an investor came along and said, 'Listen, I've got money. I want to invest in value adding at this mill but I won't invest money if I don't have security'— Mr Rowell: Good point. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, and basically that is it. We need to allow third parties to be able to enter into contractual arrangements with growers and millers to be able to value add, and that is what we are all about. Mr HORAN: How much time do I get, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN: The member gets five minutes now. Just for members' understanding, the shadow minister gets 10 minutes and then two lots of five minutes and other members get two lots of five minutes. If they wish, they may ask specifically for those two five minute lots to be taken as one 10 minute lot. Mr HORAN: I have a couple of questions arising out of the comments by the minister and other aspects of this clause. Minister, this clause gets rid of cane production areas. In the act that currently exists, it says that a cane production area is property and may, for example, be sold, 592 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 leased, subleased or otherwise transferred subject to requirements under this part. With this legislative change contained in this clause, the minister is actually looking at taking away what has been regarded in the act as property and what has been regarded by many canegrowers as an asset, particularly those who paid for that asset in the purchase of their property under the existing act at the time. I spoke about the cornerstones of the industry that are gradually being slid away from underneath the growers, and that is one area where they will be suffering a particular loss, not only financial or potentially financial or which would have been regarded as part of their assets in many parts of the state but something that they felt gave them a degree of security. Can the minister tell me, firstly, how the deletion of cane production areas will reduce the costs of producing cane or allow for greater productivity, if we use those two terms? Also, when the minister was talking about interested third parties, does that then mean that the growers could actually contract with, for example, an ethanol producer rather than a mill? For their entire biomass that they harvest, could they contract with that interested third party for that biomass to go straight to the mill, or in that contractual arrangement could they say, for example, 'We want the ethanol producer to receive our cane at a particular stage of processing through the mill'—not what the mill owner might require. It might be straight after the second squeeze that they want it to then be diverted to the ethanol producer. Mr PALASZCZUK: There are two issues there. The first issue is in relation to the cane production areas. Let me just say that we believe that the contracts that will be signed will be a form of cane production area. I will use the experience of the New South Wales industry, which is totally deregulated. In that unregulated environment in New South Wales, cane production areas are called production area entitlements. In many ways these PAEs resemble the attributes and the functions of the CPA. Detailed information on a grower's PAE is provided as part of an individual contract between the farmer and the cooperative. This information contains details on the location of their PAE in a particular parish and county mill area in which sugar cane is grown, a description of the plot, the exact number of hectares and farm tonnage quotas. Cancellation, alterations, transfers and grant of PAE is implemented on the basis of a recommendation of a local farm rating committee to the board of the cooperative according to the conditions outlined in the agreement. That regulation also includes aspects of sugarcane growing, cultivation of only approved varieties, environmental issues, disease protection, harvest, access ways, acquisition payments and dispute resolutions. All of these arrangements are developed and sustained without any government intervention. I can visualise that the contractual version of CPA can be addressed. It could also address the member's concern about the alleged loss of value of cane farms by the removal of CPA. My information in relation to the CPA is that it is usually bound up with the land to which it is attached. The trading of CPA is not common and I have been told that the amounts paid are low. Any value that CPA has is related to its ability to access mill crushing. This ability will be replicated in a contractual form and it is this contract that will replace the CPA. In relation to the other issue that the honourable member raised about whether an interested third party can in actual fact sign an agreement with a grower—yes, that can be done. But they need a mill to crush. So they really need the mill to be involved as well. Mr Horan interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, if that is negotiated, that can be done. Mr Horan interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Before calling the member for Burdekin, can I welcome in the public gallery teachers and students from Indooroopilly State School in the electorate of Indooroopilly. Mrs MENKENS: I appreciate the amount of work that the government has done on this bill. I am also certainly aware that it has caused a great deal of heartache. But there are also some very good things in this bill that canegrowers are certainly very happy to see. My question follows on from the CPAs—the cane production areas. Even though I do not like harking back into history—we are moving forward on this—the CPA has actually created the value base of every farm. I know that the real fear among the canegrowers in my area is that the removal of the CPA will actually take away that value. Of two farms, one next to each other, the one that has a CPA or, as it was called, an assignment attached to it, is worth a lot more. Similarly, when the Burdekin River irrigation area was opened up, those farms were very slow to sell, but once an assignment as such was attached to each of the farms, the prices skyrocketed. People have paid a great deal of money for the benefit of having that CPA, or assignment, attached. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 593

Mr Rowell: It was a bonanza to the government. Mrs MENKENS: Yes, I guess the government did make a lot of money out of it. It certainly was a bonanza for the government. The real fear is whether the value will remain in that farm. I appreciate that the minister has answered my question to a certain extent, but how will this change actually flow through into our areas? My other query is that, although I can see the reasoning behind allowing farmers to be able to move from one mill to another—although as we pointed out rather vocally last night, it is going to affect only very, very few farmers—in the instance that they move across to another mill, they will become an individual contract. Will they be disadvantaged if there is a collective at the mill as well? Will an individual, having an individual bargaining position, be disadvantaged against the collective bargaining position? Mr PALASZCZUK: My understanding of the 1999 act is that the value of the CPA was in the value of the land. Reasonably, once a contract is negotiated with a mill, that value still remains. So we are replacing a CPA with a contract. To use the example of what has happened in New South Wales is the best way of explaining that. In relation to the other issue of transferring, we thought about transferability rather than removal of the CPAs, but we did not find that to be a feasible alternative. That is why we have gone down this path. Sure, with the removal of CPAs, growers will be able to transfer from mill to mill. We understand the reasons why some growers will transfer. The issue that the honourable member raised in relation to a particular grower who transfers to another mill area is freedom of choice. That grower can then become part of that collective, or that grower can negotiate an individual contract with that mill, or if that grower wants to supply sugar cane to both mills, that grower can negotiate a contract with both mills or join the cooperative. That is the beauty of this. There is the freedom of choice there for growers to do what they want to do. Mr MALONE: Clause 5 is a very substantial clause. It goes across seven pages of this bill. There are a lot of issues involved in it. I was interested to hear the minister say that we need to take on board what happens in New South Wales. It is a whole different ball game. I am sure the minister understands that the industry in New South Wales is totally different from the industry in Queensland. Just one example off the top of my head is that all of New South Wales cane supplies the domestic market and New South Wales is able to achieve premiums because it is close to the domestic sugar markets. We are unable to do that in Queensland, particularly with the ministerial directive, where we are selling sugar into the domestic market at world market prices. There are huge differences in terms of the size of the industry and in terms of the ownership of the industry. In New South Wales it is a cooperative. They bought the mills from CSR at scrap value and built them up themselves and, in partnership with Manildra, built a refinery there. In New South Wales there are a lot of small farms and a lot of part-time farmers. They went into cooperative harvesting to the extent they did because there was nobody in New South Wales big enough to run a harvester stream. Trying to force the industry in Queensland to emulate what happened in New South Wales is a fallacy, quite frankly. That is my view on that. The issue of CPAs is a very complex one. Once we start drawing up contracts between individuals or groups of farmers and putting in time lines in terms of delivery of cane to mills, there will be an adverse effect on others who are not in the same boat. A group of bigger farmers will say, 'We need to supply our cane between July and the end of October,' and the crumbs will be negotiated. I would imagine some farmers will have to supply cane at different times. The CPA gives a regulated area of cane to an individual mill so that it knows at the beginning of each year that it has a certain amount of cane it will need to crush, depending on the season. It will therefore do maintenance on the mill—it will upgrade or not—to cater for the crop that it has. Does a mill have to wait, then, to sign an agreement and find that one of its extension lines—it may have 100,000 tonnes of cane—is suddenly shifted off to another mill? This is ridiculous. There is an opportunity in this bill for farmers to shift from one mill to the other. That opportunity was there before, but this bill provides an opportunity for them to do this fairly quickly. A mill owner may have spent $5 million upgrading the boiler, putting an extra tram line in or upgrading the mill to cater for the crop he expects he might get under contract. Half a dozen big farmers down the end of the line who are reasonably close to another mill may say, 'Bugger you. I can get a better price over there,' and shift over to the other mill which, because is has not done upgrades on the mill, may or may not be able to crush the cane in an effective time and therefore disadvantage everybody else in that mill area that has taken the extra cane on. 594 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

There are a whole lot of issues here, for example equity in harvesting. CPA was a great way of ensuring that there was certainty in terms of supply of cane to the mill. The farmers knew that there was harvesting equity, where the harvesters moved around the mill area and the cane was taken off in a progressive and timely manner. I refer to the event in 1998. The minister mentioned that that was when everything fell in a hole. We had a huge amount of rain in August and all of the mills stopped for nearly two months. That was the start of the end of the industry in Queensland. If harvesters are forced to go into the paddocks when they are flooded or soft and boggy, the paddocks are absolutely destroyed. The CPAs were a very effective way of governing all of that. We are just saying that it is all open slather now and they should do the best they can. We can have third party people involved— Time expired. Mr PALASZCZUK: I hope I have not misled members opposite. We are not copying the New South Wales system at all. I am using New South Wales as an example of how an industry is able to progress and prosper in a deregulated environment. Mr Malone interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, it is. I understand that, but I am using that as an example to explain how CPAs in Queensland could operate being replaced by contracts. Industry in the end will devise its own systems. I was using New South Wales as an example to try to explain the government thinking in relation to CPAs and the new contractual arrangements. The member for Mirani also raised that under the removal of CPAs there could be half a dozen growers who might get a better price for their cane at another mill. Is that not what this is all about? It is about freedom and allowing growers to negotiate. Mr Malone interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: All of those things will work out. It will just put pressure on the mills. It will put pressure on the mills to ensure they maintain their throughput. I am not a grower like the members for Hinchinbrook and Mirani—they are much closer to it than I am—but, in my own humble opinion, I think in three to four years time we will see the fruits of this legislation. The member for Mirani might laugh, but that is my honest opinion. One of the reasons I am up here this afternoon trying to get this legislation through the House is to give our growers more flexibility. The member for Toowoomba South mentioned quite a few times that we need legislation in Queensland because of the uniqueness of our industry. If I can go back to New South Wales, the way it does things shows us that that is not the case. It does not really need legislation. At the end of the day, a mill needs to arrange cane supply. We do not need legislation and regulations to do that. Mr HORAN: I think the time for comparisons with New South Wales is over. Ours is a different arrangement. Our industry exports 85 per cent and supplies 15 per cent to the domestic market. New South Wales operates under one cooperative and the vast bulk of its production goes to the domestic market. Clause 5 refers to a period of time—from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005. I would like the minister to go through the time frames that will exist. For example, is there a set date by which the supply contracts have to be in place so that mills know who is supplying them and how much they are likely to supply so that they can then have the time in which to program and organise how many locos, gangs, drivers and lines they need? That is all part of the complex transporting arrangement. I refer to the individual contracts and the collective contracts. From his discussions with various industry bodies or other people, does the minister have any expectation that there will be numbers of collective contracts or individual contracts? For example, will it end up that in a sugar town like Tully a lawyer sets himself up as a negotiator for collectives—or cane farmers do or other people who think they know a bit about it do? How does the minister see these individual and collective contracts coming together? Like the minister, I am not involved in the industry, but say there are 20 individual contracts and three collectives. How are they going to pull together the different arrangements they may have negotiated with the mill and how are they going to overcome the adverse effects? The CIE report said adverse effects are holding the industry back. How fair would it be if one particular collective was able to negotiate, for example, that their cane could be harvested in September. That might be the best time in that five month window, with the least chance of rain and so on. They get the absolute premium time to harvest and premium c.c.s and the others are just left standing around. You will end up with a range war. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 595

Mr PALASZCZUK: I do not believe that to be the case. If we are talking about the period up until the end of 2005, I do not envisage too much change to what we have currently. The negotiations are under way now for this season. Next season we have no time line. It is up to the growers and the millers to arrange their own contracts. I cannot see too much change from what we currently have in place. In relation to your other point, I think at the end of the day it is really up to the mills to be able to work through those issues with the collective or the individual grower. As far as collectives and individual growers are concerned, if we look at what has happened in the South Johnstone area there is a dispute over the elections there. I can probably see two collectives negotiating with the mill there. Collectives engaging in negotiations with mills is not the sort of climate we would like to see. There might be a very large grower—we have got some very large growers up in the Burdekin—who does not want to be part of the collective who might want to do some evaluating himself or herself. They might have a contract arranged for the export of bagged sugar overseas and they will just enter into their own individual contract with the mill. At the end of the day I believe that all those contracts, whether they be individual or collective contracts with the mills, would enhance the industry. Mr ROWELL: Minister, we are talking about the intention to contract and for section 19 an intention to contract must state the amount of cane each member of the eligible collective for a mill intends to supply to the mill in the crushing season 2005. I presume there will also be the individuals there. I am not quite sure whether they have been excluded for some reason. Perhaps the minister could respond to that. If a person is going to sign their name on the dotted line about how much cane they are going to supply to a mill in any one year it can vary considerably. There can be a whole range of issues why they do not supply that level of cane to the mill. There does not appear to be any level of flexibility. It could be determined to write down, 'I could supply anything from 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes to the mill.' I am not sure if that is what is intended here, but certainly by putting this into the legislation it makes it very clear that growers somehow or other have got to do the almost impossible, and that is make a determination about how much cane they are going to put into a supply agreement. That is quite different to what was in the previous legislation where there were CPAs. I do not want to go into them too much, but what they did was give a person the right to grow on a certain area. It was in the lap of the gods as to what came out of it. I have to tell you, Minister, that as far as a grower is concerned one has all the best intentions to produce as much as one can. In fact, I do not believe there are any farmers out there at the present time doing otherwise. One can go through all the humbug of the CIE and what it was about, but at the end of the day a grower can have an adverse situation as far as weather is concerned. It can be too dry. The grower hopes that he can irrigate the crop but has not got the water to irrigate. That happened last year. Or there can be frost as in the case of Mackay and some sections of Ingham where they had to harvest a crop that was totally immature. They could not predict that frost was coming. They are in the invidious position of having to put down some figure that they have to abide by in this contract. It is quite evident that whoever drew up this part of the legislation is not very familiar with what happens in the real world. It could be that it was too wet and could not be harvested. So where is the obligation as far as the grower is concerned to firstly make the commitment and then to realise it, because quite clearly what is faced by growers quite often is a very precarious situation about what they are going to produce. This says quite clearly that each member of the eligible collective for a mill intends to supply the mill. That is unpredictable and that is the point that I am getting at. To put that into a piece of legislation makes it extremely difficult. I think the fairest situation was with the CPAs where there was the right to grow in an area and the grower did the best he could. Surely to goodness a grower would do everything he could to get the best crop, whether it was for sugar purposes or whether it was for tonnage purposes to go through the mill. The other matter that comes into it is these start up times of mills. Mills can start now any time they like, and they always could, as long as there is agreement between growers and millers. There has been some encouragement in our area by the mills—which are both CSR, and it is not as if we have the ability to swap from one mill to the other—for growers to go out there and say, 596 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

'Okay, if we start a bit early we will give you something as a result of what perceived benefits we can get from co-generation.' The other matter I would like to raise is when other growers may join dispute resolutions. If we have third party intervention in this whole process and it is only the mill owners who can agree to the actual dispute resolution process, it becomes a very mixed bag and very complex. I cannot understand what is intended by only the millers being able to be involved in a dispute resolution process. That is, of course, for the cane that may have been involved in the dispute resolution process under the subdivision. That is coming from cane crush in the season 2004. Mr PALASZCZUK: In relation to the dispute resolution process, could I reassure the honourable member that when we talk about a collective contract, within that contract there will be provisions for variations in supply according to weather and so on. That will be part of the contract. This form of words was discussed with the Canegrowers organisation and it was the Canegrowers organisation that basically agreed to or changed the form of words to what we have before us now. This is in agreement with the Canegrowers organisation. Mr ROWELL: Not Canegrowers; it is what is in the legislation. Mr PALASZCZUK: I understand that. We have to negotiate; we have to consult. This is the form of words that we ended up with in consultation with the Canegrowers organisation. I have explained to the honourable member that we do have variations in relation to the collective contracts. Mr MALONE: Proposed section 7(2)(c) says 'preventing a small group of growers using the compulsory mediation and arbitration system to affect the supply contracts to which a larger group of growers are a party'. I have been around the industry for a while and I am not aware—there may be one or two and the minister may be able to name them—of any problems with this issue. Unfortunately, it appears that this particular area is driving a whole range of initiatives by the government. The original act certainly was complex in that area and certainly needed refinement, but I am yet to get a handle on why the minister is using this as a basis for deregulating that section. In the Mackay area that was not a problem. I know there was some talk that this could be a problem and it is an adverse effect, but I can assure the minister that the legislation being brought into the House today will have adverse effects on other areas. I talked about the transfer of cane between mills. If we look at the Bundaberg-Isis boundary, for instance, already Bundaberg Sugar is buying farms in the Isis area. I know Isis was supportive of the legislation originally and its intention was that it would be able to take some of those farmers on board from the Bundaberg area. Unfortunately, the biggest dog gets all under this legislation. I can assure the minister that Bundaberg's pockets are far deeper than Isis right now. It could easily be that for a couple of years it would be able to pay a little bit more for the contract for those farmers, and then by ripping up the tram line or whatever those farmers who have gone from Isis back to Bundaberg can be pressured into signing a contract with Bundaberg Sugar. I am using this as an example but it can happen in other areas. The result could be that the critical mass of cane that is required for Isis to be viable will suddenly disappear. It is a small mill; it is struggling. The CHAIRMAN: Order! That point has been made a couple of times. Mr MALONE: It has not. This is a very important point. There are small mills on the boundaries of larger multinational organisations, like Bundaberg Sugar, which can use its deep pockets by selling millions of dollars worth of cane land to force smaller mills like Isis and others in the region out of business. Once they do that, they virtually take over. The biggest owners of cane farms in Australia, Bundaberg Sugar, will just move forward as a multinational. That is just one issue in terms of flexibility. I have some real reservations about the issue of third parties. Where does a third party sit in terms of negotiations? I am doing a deal with the mill. I go up to the mill office and say, 'I have 5,000 tonnes of cane I would like to supply to your mill this year.' Does the mill then negotiate with a third party that might want to make plastics out of my cane and the money returns to the mill? How is the contract set up? Is it a compulsory thing? If somebody wants to get involved in a contract for the supply of cane, do they approach the farmer to do that or do they approach the miller? It seems like the miller has an upper hand here. He can walk away from that deal if he does not want it, but the farmer is in a situation where he has a crop of cane—as Rosemary said in her 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 597 speech—that he has invested money in 12 or 18 months ago to try to get it to the mill to make some money out of it. He is in a no-win situation. We have people hauling cane who can have a third party involvement. We can have a harvesting operator as a third party in this situation. It is not just about ethanol or by-products. It opens a whole can of worms as far as I am concerned. Mr PALASZCZUK: In relation to transferability, and the member specifically mentioned Bundaberg and Isis, we have to remember that the ASMC signed up to this legislation. It is quite happy with it. Isis is a mill that signed up to it as well, so quite obviously it is satisfied with this legislation. The first point that the honourable member raised concerned proposed section 7(c), which states— Preventing a small group of growers using the compulsory mediation and arbitration system to affect the supply contracts to which a larger group of growers are a party ... The member is correct in what he has said. I cannot think of any incident that has occurred currently. I think we have had only one collective around the place. Mr Rowell: No, one individual. Mr PALASZCZUK: One individual; that is right. This form of words is there just in case. I know I sound like a broken record, but the form of words here has been agreed to by industry, and I have to abide by what is recommended to me and what industry agrees to. What was the other point that the member raised? Mr Malone interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: When we talk about these contracts—of course this is something brand new—we are talking about commercial contracts and commercial laws. We are talking about a party to the negotiation of those contracts. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: The contracts are signed on a commercial basis. What the concern is, and I think it is a genuine concern, is that the mills will have too much power. That is the concern. The concern is that there is a fundamental shift of power from growers to millers, but that is not right. As I said earlier, the mills need the cane. At the end of the day, the mills need the cane and the mills need the throughput just as much as the growers need the mills to crush their cane. We are going to get away from being tied down by legislation. I believe maturity will come into the industry, and I think people will operate in a very mature way because if the mills make money the growers make money. Mrs MENKENS: I have a question for the minister. I am still concerned about who these interested third parties are and who can allow a third party to be involved—be it the miller or be it the grower. It seems to be a rather open area. The words 'a direct or indirect monetary interest' seem to open up a very broad spectrum. Who can acknowledge and accept those people in the negotiation? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thought I explained this earlier. It is a commercial decision but, as I mentioned previously, if a person is there who wants to produce ethanol or if it is a third party who wants to import bagged sugar, that person enters into a commercial contract with the grower. Most of the time you need the mill and the mill then comes into it as well. It is in everyone's interests to be able to work together on a commercial footing. If it means increased investment in the industry at a regional level we believe that is good. This legislation is about regionalising our industry. I believe increased investment would be good for the region. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7— Mr HORAN (12.40 p.m.): What we are looking at here is the omission of cane supply and processing agreements which were contained in the previous act and inserting new chapter 2, part 2, relating to arrangements for supply contracts from January 2006. Firstly, can the minister explain to those of us in the chamber how these arrangements differ? When we get through 2005, the arrangements for which we just debated, how will the situation differ for 2006? Is that the last time arbitration can be used? Will arbitration no longer exist? Secondly, section 31(4) says that 'an interested third party may be a party to a supply contract between a mill owner and a grower'. It mirrors what was in the previous clause. We are looking at a different time. There is obviously no bar on anybody as long as they are an interested party. All that section says is that 'an interested third party may be a party to a supply contract 598 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 between a mill owner and a grower'. Does that mean that a bank owed money by a grower could be a part of this and that the bank could force the grower to have an individual contract and be part of the negotiation of the payment of proceeds and insert itself in because it is an interested third party? I think we have to canvass all issues. It may well be that that bank might be financing the ethanol plant and that that bank may have a vested interest in seeing that that grower signs up for an arrangement whereby its portion of his crop or crushed sugar is diverted to that ethanol plant when as an individual he may wish it to go to some other pool or some other system. I think this interested third party system—as the member for Burdekin, whose family is involved in the industry, rightly said—could open a real Pandora's box. Under section 31(4) I see no reason why a bank would not be able to insert itself into the negotiations and a contract. A bank may well be able to say to their customer, 'As part of the conditions of our ongoing funding or loan to you, you must undertake an individual contract. This money is dependent upon that. We want to be a party to the individual contract so we know what your proceeds are and we can make some decisions about the arrangements for your contract, even to the point where we can say that we want 90 per cent of the proceeds.' I think that is a very serious insertion. Supply contracts really should be between a grower and a mill. By opening the side door there could be all sorts of problems. I did give the example that a bank might impose those conditions. Those conditions may well be imposed by other people or organisations—for instance, a firm leasing machinery, harvesters or tractors. They may say, 'Yes, we will grant you the lease arrangements for the tractor, but we want to be a party to your contract agreement. We insist that you take out an agreement.' I ask the minister to describe the differences between this period of time and the previous period of time. Could the minister include a confirmation that that is the end of arbitration? Could he deal with the very serious matters relating to the third party? Mr PALASZCZUK: I will deal with the second part of the honourable member's contribution first. At the end of the day, bankers or whoever can be part of an agreement, but there has to be the agreement of parties. If one party does not want to enter into an agreement with a third party, then it will not happen. I think they are pretty protected. It has to be an agreement. If a bank comes along and says, 'I want to be part of your agreement,' you can say no and that is the end of it. I can see where the honourable member for Toowoomba South is coming from, but I do not envisage those sorts of contracts really ending up like that. In relation to the first issue relating to the period up to the end of 2005, I point out that I believe that that period is really like a transition period until we get people thinking about value adding and the time when our $30 million starts to kick in, our Future Cane program starts to kick in and the federal government's funding starts to kick in. From 2006 we will see quite a deal of change in the industry. It will mean for the first time, as I have said over and over again, that growers—including third parties—will be able to negotiate commercially to participate in value adding opportunities. I believe this is a major step forward. Growers now have the opportunity to negotiate to participate in value adding. The outcome of these negotiations will be commercial and will depend on a range of factors which include risk, investment and trade-offs. At the end of the day it is not beholden on governments to dictate the outcomes of such commercial negotiations. I believe that to do so could jeopardise the ability to attract investment into the industry to undertake value adding in the first place. Each case will be different. Flexibility will be needed. We are slowly going to see the emergence of a far more mature and far more innovative industry. If that puts money into the pockets of our growers and puts money into the pockets of our mills, that is a positive thing. Mr HORAN: The minister says that it just would not happen that a bank would come into a contract. The situation is that a bank could. I have described a situation where very easily they could. While doing an annual review of financial arrangements, which most borrowers have, a bank could say, 'The situation is like this. We have been told by head office that we must be a part of your contract. We insist that you have an individual contract. We insist that we are a part of it as an interested third party.' A further component of that may well be in the individual contract with the mill. It may require that the proceeds are sent directly to the bank and it will apportion a bit to the grower. That is quite feasible. There is nothing to stop it happening. It is quite simple that an interested third party may be a party to a supply contract. The minister said that it will not happen because the mills and so on will have to agree to it. Let us say that the banker is also the banker of the mill. Let us 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 599 say it is a major lender of major size to the mill and the grower says no and the other two say yes. Where does the grower go? The minister says that there is no contract. What does he do if there is nowhere else to send his sugar? He is caught, because that is one thing about the sugar industry—that is, 88 per cent of the people have nowhere else to send their sugar. Those who do have somewhere else to send their sugar mostly have to send it to a mill operated by the same company. I have only given the case of the mill. It could be the lease finance on equipment or the people supplying fertilisers. I can see the point the minister is making about value adding. I can see that, but I think that these contracts should be between the mill owner and the grower and other people should only be allowed in with the consent of both. If they do not get the consent of both, then it should be between the grower and the miller. Isn't the most important thing—the fundamental thing that we are talking about and that applies to 90 per cent, 95 per cent or more of this whole issue—the contract between the grower and the miller? We are hoping that there may be some things such as value adding and so on that could bring an interested third party in. I can see some value in that—some chance, some opportunity—but I can also see some serious complications, because we keep getting back to the adverse effects. On top of all of the issues of transport, c.c.s. and time of harvest, this adds another complication, because here is an individual contractor or a small collective contract that is going to do such and such or wants to do such and such and the others have to go another way. So it just makes it a little bit more complex. I am not saying that that should be a bar because it is always hard to try to progress and value add, but I just think that this has left the door open to something that could be very serious. There is nothing to stop those other parties coming in which may have a deleterious effect on how that canegrowing family manages its finances and indeed manages its operation—and my colleagues might have some other ideas—but a harvesting operator may wish to be a third party and may wish to say that it suits his large contract arrangements to do them at the end of the year or the start of the year or something like that because he is working in another part of the district. Mr PALASZCZUK: In the contract they would sign with a harvester there would be provisions for when the harvesting would occur. That would be in their contract. The example that the honourable member raised of a bank is an interesting one. I have listened to what the member for Mirani has said, but I have sat here and thought, 'I just can't think of any other primary industry where banks have actually done anything like this.' I just cannot think of any examples. Mr Horan interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes. I suppose members opposite have their concerns about the third parties in the contracts, but as minister I do not believe that those sorts of situations would arise. If they did arise, there is always the disputes resolution part of the legislation which would allow the person to go somewhere else to find some other advice. I know that the banks now have a code of conduct. They have their own voluntary code. As minister, I speak with them quite regularly. I was there I think last November when they launched the new code at the Governor's room at the Ekka. Whilst some people are sceptical, I believe that there is a new look in the banks and I believe that they are being a lot more— Mr Rowell: That's what growers are telling me: there's a new look there all right but— Mr PALASZCZUK: I think they are being a lot more conciliatory and a lot more understanding of primary producers' needs. That is what they are telling me. Mr ROWELL: I just wanted to raise a point to make it very clear. This is not a commercial arrangement as far as the third party is concerned. It has nothing to do with a commercial arrangement, because it is now entrenched in the legislation. There is the legislative ability for anybody who wants to make a decision to be involved in a contract. That is quite clear. Previously, the banks could certainly provide crop loans and all that sort of thing if people have requirements in terms of making payments. But what we have done here is entrench it in legislation, so quite clearly somebody could contest the situation. They could go to a court and say, 'Why weren't we allowed to be part of this contract? Why weren't we enabled to be part of this contract?' Do not tell me that that could not happen. If they believe that they have a justifiable reason in terms of being part of a collective contract, I do not think that the individual contracts are going to be affected. Until now there have been none, anyway. I do not know whether we are going to see any of them come on board, but quite clearly big growers have said to me that they would be the greatest fools under the sun to sign up an individual contract. 600 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

I want to go back to the fact that we are legislating it, so there is the ability for somebody to contest their role in terms of being involved in a collective contract. With regard to collective contracts, there could probably be 20 or 30 harvester groups involved in it and each group might have an axe to grind about conditions such as the distances they are going to haul the cane and the type of terrain they are going to haul it over. In fact, there could be a plethora of prices and conditions. How are we going to get all of those harvesters to come along and agree with each grower's requirement as far as the collective is concerned? Quite clearly, the situation is that the distances could be an issue that they have to deal with. If it is a long haul, there is usually a price set up to a certain number of kilometres. It could be, say, two or three kilometres where they will adhere to a rigid price. Generally, I have to say that harvesters have been pretty damn good over a long period of time. They have had problems in terms of maintaining what they need as a reasonable return for their $700,000, $800,000 and $1 million pieces of equipment. Basically, they may have the opportunity now—and I am not going to deny them—to be involved in this collective agreement which could involve 20 harvesters at least, and that is two handfuls of harvesters. So it is a large number of harvesters with each having individual requirements. I can see that the minister is getting the message. How do they then negotiate an agreement with the mill as far as supply is concerned if there is all this individuality of people plus the banks coming in as well as a range of others? We are talking about ethanol. We went through a whole list of them before. I know the chairman is frowning on me because I have raised this before. I am trying to steer away from that. All I am saying quite clearly— The CHAIRMAN: We are wanting to go to lunch, Mr Rowell. He is just thinking about lunch. Mr ROWELL: I am not worried about lunch. I am worried about the growers and what is happening with the industry. That is why I am putting forward these issues that are absolutely important and critical, because I can see problems with this legislation. I operate in the industry and so does the member for Mirani. We can see that there are pitfalls that could arise as a result of what we are doing. I turn now to the individual agreements, and I do not think that I am going to have enough time to really talk about them. There has previously been legislation in this place, and I am not talking about the legislation that was presented to parliament last year. I am talking about the 1999 legislation where we had the ability to resolve adverse effects with individual agreements. The whole intent was that in the event that somebody signed up something that was going to be contrary to the interests of those in the collective agreement, then it had to be looked at in the light of how it was going to affect the overall picture in terms of the removal of the crop. Really, at the end of the day, that is the big issue. We have a time span of so many weeks in a year to remove the crop in the optimum time. There may be agreement between growers and millers about lengthening that time period to give some additional ability— Time expired. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Mr PALASZCZUK: In relation to third parties—and I think that I have said this before—this legislation creates the climate for third parties to become part of the agreements, whether they be collective agreements or whether they be individual agreements. If a grower does not want to be part of an agreement, they do not have to sign up. It is a commercially based decision. Mr Rowell: It is more about a third party who wants to be involved. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, but as many third parties as would want to become involved cannot become involved unless there is agreement. There has to be agreement between the third party and the other parties involved. I just cannot see that happening. If it is detrimental to a grower, if it is detrimental to a mill, the third party will not be included. Mr HORAN: Previously when speaking to this clause I talked about that issue of the interested third party. I recognised how everything is going right—and this is the intent of the bill—with someone who wants to be a part of value adding in some shape or form. That is probably the intent of it. But I provided the warning that it could well be that a financier may insist, as part of the financial arrangements, on being in that supply agreement. I gave the example that it may be a bank wanting to be a part of the agreement with the grower. But it could also work the other way. It could be that with a mill that is close to the financial edge, the bank may say that it wants to be in the supply contract with every grower who wants to supply to that mill, because as part of that contract the bank may want to make the condition that the grower provide, say, X 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 601 amount per tonne towards the financial saving of that organisation. That is quite possible, is it not? It is probably very close to a scenario that we have already seen happen on a voluntary basis in Queensland. If a third party is allowed, it is quite feasible that that third party might be the financier of the mill. The mill might be in difficult financial circumstances. The mill and the bank together in that supply agreement may say that, when it comes to the system of the payment for proceeds, that five per cent, or whatever, is required to ensure the financial survival of the mill. I want to put that on the record, because they are the sorts of doors that have been opened. I think that the minister has admitted himself that that is quite possible. Anything could happen, because nothing is banned or stopped from happening. The only defence that the minister has is to say that the grower does not have to enter into the contract. But the grower has to have some sort of contract. If the grower does not have a contract, then he goes broke; he does not have a living. As we have said repeatedly, in almost every case the grower is dealing with one mill, or with a company that owns the mills in the district. As we scrutinise the detail of these clauses, I think that it is very important that we put on the record the potential downside of some of these agreements as well as any potential upside. Clause 7 deals with the arrangement for supply contracts from 1 January 2006. I think that the explanatory notes say that this is the final arbitration. How is that arbitration system actually terminated in this bill? It does not seem to say here that this will be the last arbitration. Is that stated further in the bill somewhere? Is there another clause that says that there shall be no more arbitration? How does it actually finish it? I should say that one of the concerns of a lot of the growers is that they will no longer have access to arbitration. We have all talked repeatedly about the difficulties, the complexities and the uniqueness of the deliveries and the harvesting system. It has been the ability to go to arbitration that has provided the growers with the final decision-making process. That will no longer be there. Potentially, with arbitration going—and the minister is going to tell us how the cut-off mechanism works here—the mill owners, for example, could be able to say, 'We cannot agree on that. That is that. This is what will happen. These are the conditions. This is the price. This is the arrangement. Take it or leave it'. That is what growers are worried about—that it will get to a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement without some form of final arbitration. Mr PALASZCZUK: Page 18 of the bill, new section 27 titled 'Expiry of part 1' states— This part expires on 31 December 2005. Then we go to clause 7, which refers to arrangements for supply contracts from 1 January 2006. Compulsory arbitration does not apply from then. So that gives the honourable member that information. Mr ROWELL: I discussed briefly the situation in relation to individual contracts. The previous legislation contained a mechanism to allow the adverse effects to kick in. This legislation takes that out completely. I can assure the minister that, on talking to big growers, there is no interest whatsoever as far as they were concerned—despite what CIE said—about having individual contracts. They did not believe that they could go to a mill and negotiate any better contract than what could be negotiated through a collective contract. The minister would have to take my word for that. I have spoken to a number of very big growers. The situation was that they had to go and show the collective group what the agreement was all about. They did not have to mention anything about money. I think that what we had in the previous legislation was quite good. I am pretty disappointed, because rather than them having to show the collective, they could have gone to the sugar commissioner as an independent body and said, 'You adjudicate on whether you think that is going to impinge, or it is unfair as far as the collective is concerned.' We have scrubbed all of that. It is all gone. Farmers can either sign an individual agreement or be involved in a collective. There are problems with having a number of collectives. They could be at odds with one another in the supply of cane to a mill. There may be a number of variations in time of start and time of finish. I would not mind entering into a collective agreement that said, 'I will crush cane for only 18 weeks a year.' I would be prepared to drop a dollar provided it was at a certain time of the year. Whether the mills would agree to that I do not know, but that would make it very awkward for the rest of the people who are in collective agreements or who have individual agreements to get an allocation of quota to remove the crop. I hope the minister can understand what I am getting at. The mills are now talking about 24- to 26-week contracts. It would mean that those that are left would have to supply before and after and would not be able to share in the optimum time for removing a crop. I am not sure the mills 602 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 would want to do that, but it is a definite prospect. There is no question about that. That is one of the things I would like the minister to respond to. There is no question about what the canegrowers—the people the minister negotiated with—thought about the outcome in relation to arbitration. Many industrial situations involve arbitration or compulsory arbitration. Where there is a whole range of growers and only one mill to contract to, it becomes extremely difficult if the mill, as the shadow minister said, makes the decision that it is going to stand fast on its position. The mills could say, 'We want you to cut over 26 weeks. We will start at a certain time, and if you do not like it, stiff.' I do not think that is a favourable situation for growers. We are also interested in providing a good size crop for the mills. It is in our interests. But the mills themselves may decide to take as much cane as they possibly can. If they cannot complete it within a reasonable time, the growers are going to be at risk. No doubt there will be some clauses in the supply agreements that will cater for wet weather and so on. But I know what happened in 1998, when there were one million tonnes of cane out of the five million tonnes left in the Herbert River district. If we started a little earlier and could not get a go-on and found with the wet weather that we had to go two or three weeks later before any substantial amount could be removed from the fields, we could have had an even bigger amount left because the mills will not be designed to cope with that additional requirement for removing the crop because they do not have enough capacity. They are catering for only X tonnes per hour. The fact that arbitration has been taken out of this bill is very detrimental to the future of the industry. Mr PALASZCZUK: I will respond to the initial issue raised by the honourable member in relation to individual contracts, collectives and so on. No-one is obliged to enter into individual contracts. If they want to they can. The decision is theirs. It is up to them. At the end of the day it is a commercial decision. The honourable member outlined the situation that occurred in 1998. I am well aware of that because I became Minister for Primary Industries in 1998. That was the first huge issue that I had to deal with. It was certainly a steep learning curve. At the end of the day, just as what happened back in 1998, I cannot see the mills not working in with the growers—the collectives—to make sure the cane is taken up. I cannot see why that will not happen. We have to get away from the millers versus the growers. It is easy for me to say; three members opposite are in the industry. But that is what we are trying to get to. We are trying to get away from this miller versus grower and grower versus miller situation. We really want to provide an environment in which all sectors of the industry can work together for the betterment of the industry. At the end of the day, if it means increased profits to the growers, the millers and the harvesters, then that is what we are after. Mrs MENKENS: In relation to arbitration, proposed new section 27 sets out an expiry date of 31 December 2005. The arrangements for supply contracts from 1 January 2006 are set out on pages 19 through to 22. What is the expiry date of these arrangements? Mr PALASZCZUK: There is no expiry date. Basically, that is the beginning of the new environment. Mr MALONE: I refer to the minister's response to the queries raised by the member for Hinchinbrook in relation to the contracts with the mills and the need for mills to crush over a longer period to get return on capital. So it is with farmers. The optimum period for harvesting cane is from mid-July through to mid-October. Once you step out of that time frame, your return diminishes fairly substantially. The member for Hinchinbrook tried to point out that the mill will obviously be trying to maximise the tonnes it puts through to gain a return. It does not make a lot of difference to the mills whether they are crushing through wet or dry weather, except that the presentation of the cane to the mill and the quality of cane can deteriorate fairly substantially with mud and dirt in wet weather, and in dry weather they do not get enough fibre. There does not seem to be protection for the farmers, as there was before, in terms of season length and the offsetting issues of how you deal with supply contracts that may insist on having cane supplied during the optimum period. As the member for Hinchinbrook said, a number of larger suppliers may opt to drop a dollar to ensure that. If a mill accepts that, a whole heap of other farmers are left in the position of having to harvest their cane at an inopportune time. The losses can be extraordinary in terms of wet weather, returnability and so on. That can affect the crop for a number of years. The whole issue of balancing that out and getting some reasonable understandings does not seem to be addressed in the bill. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 603

In terms of arbitration, the minister knows as well as I do that it is usually the guy who has the most money in his pocket who will come out of it on top. When arbitration gets into the civil court, even if the farmer is willing to take it there, you will probably have a farmer trying to represent himself up against a barrister. I know how that argument is going to go. I am understanding of the fact that the minister is trying to make the industry open and deregulated in terms of things like that, but he has to look at the market forces and the power base. Even though the mills are looking for quantities of cane and longer season lengths, there are going to be some winners and some losers from that. Unfortunately, it is not going to be the mills that lose. Mr Horan: I know I have run out of time, but are you saying that the arbitration will be staying? It is going. Mr Palaszczuk: Arbitration is going to 31 December 2005—compulsory arbitration. Mr Rowell: Because only the two parties agree. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Male): Order! One of you will have to stand and ask a question—one who has time left—or I will have to put the clauses. Mr HORAN: I have had my three goes, but I think it is important we clear this matter up. At the end of 2005 compulsory arbitration is gone. There is a system of arbitration there in 2006 under proposed new section 39, which states that the commissioner may refer the dispute to an arbiter. However, he can do it only if it is agreed to by both parties. In other words, that is potentially the beginning of the end of arbitration. So if one party does not want to go to arbitration, it is finished. That is how you get rid of it. That is what everyone is fearful of. Mr Palaszczuk: That is it. Question—That clauses 6 and 7, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 65—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McArdle, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C. Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 18—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 8 to 10— Mr HORAN (2.28 p.m.): I wish to speak on these three clauses together. Clause 8 simply omits a part relating to mills and clause 9 inserts the new part regarding the heading 'Marketing of sugar vested in QSL'. Clause 10 is an amendment of previous section 100, 'Vesting of sugar in QSL'. It inserts a statement— However, the sugar does not become the property of QSL if the authority grants, under part 2, an exemption for the sugar. That refers to something that we have agreed to in our speeches, that there should be an ability to have exemptions where sugar can be used for other products, that is, bagged sugar for export, ethanol, bioplastics and so on. The minister might confirm for us that under this clause all sugar will continue to be vested in QSL, as have been the arrangements to date. However, if the Sugar Authority has granted an exemption that sugar is not vested in QSL, could the minister explain the mechanism? Who does it vest in? Under the formal arrangements does the ownership of that sugar remain with the particular mill that has produced that sugar? Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member is correct in what he said. What was the second part of that question? Could the member please repeat that? Mr HORAN: Previously, all the sugar in totality was vested, or owned, by QSL. Now there are going to be some exemptions, and let us say it is a thousand tonnes, for example. It is no longer vested in QSL. Can the minister describe the formalities of the arrangements of ownership? As soon as sugar is produced, as I understand it, it is taken to be vested in QSL. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr HORAN: Virtually as soon as sugar is produced at the mill, the ownership of that is vested in QSL now. That will continue with the exception of these exemptions. What is the ownership 604 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 now of this new amount that is not vested? How do we ensure that the growers get a portion of that? Mr PALASZCZUK: Once again, we go back to the contractual arrangements—the contract that has been drawn up by the interested parties. Unlike the vesting of the sugar within the QSL, it is the supplier who is the owner of the sugar at that point. Mr Horan: The grower? Mr PALASZCZUK: Well, the people who are involved in the contract. Mr HORAN: The minister says 'the supplier'. If we go back to the contract, the contract is between two people: the grower and the mill. So the minister is saying that the ownership is vested in the supplier, which is the grower. Mr Palaszczuk: Well, it all depends on what the contract says. Mr HORAN: So the supplier could, in part, even be one of these third parties that we discussed before. It could well be a bank. So the idea of the exemptions is to provide other opportunities, and one of the things that canegrowers have always been concerned about is that they get their fair share of these other opportunities. If they produce not only sugar but also ethanol, they want to know how they get fair and reasonable payment for their product that is used to produce the ethanol. To be honest, if there was a contract, there is no way that the mill will ever say that the grower is the supplier of sugar. The mill would want to keep control of that. The mill would want to be the supplier because it would want to apportion a certain amount to themselves for the costs and the proceeds of performing the crushing. Mr PALASZCZUK: It is a contractual arrangement. Getting an exemption from vesting to allow for value adding is not just open to mills. We have made the holder of an exemption a matter that is open to negotiation, as I have said, and it can include growers and even third parties, as the honourable member has said. We cannot mandate through legislation that, where a mill undertakes value adding, it must share the proceeds. This is something that the parties have to resolve in a commercial way and will depend on levels of investment and risk. The Department of State Development and Innovation will be releasing a kit of information that will provide growers with a range of business models they can use to participate in value adding. We are providing the legislative opportunity, as I have said earlier, for growers to participate and the business models to do so. At the end of the day, it is now over to industry to negotiate this on a commercial basis. That should clear up the honourable member's concerns. Mr ROWELL: Just very briefly, the terminology 'supplier' is not in the back in the dictionary at all and it is not in the previous legislation. Could the minister give us a clear determination of the definition of a supplier? Mr PALASZCZUK: Have a look at page 61. At the bottom of page 61, it states— "supplier", for sugar, means a person who, immediately before the sugar is manufactured, owns the sugar cane from which the sugar is manufactured. Mr HORAN: That would indicate the rub. 'Supplier means a person who, immediately before the sugar is manufactured, owns the sugar cane from which the sugar is manufactured' unless there is some arrangement in the contract that the mill says once it comes through the front gate of the mill it is theirs. Mr Palaszczuk: It is a contractual arrangement. The whole thing is predicated on contracts. Mr HORAN: So the contract would have to indicate— Mr Palaszczuk: The supplier. Mr HORAN:—who the supplier would be. And the contract has to make a decision, in this case, that as it came through the front gate or as it went on to the train bins ownership transferred from the grower. Mr Palaszczuk: That is right. That contract would also have a negotiated price of the split-up of the returns on that investment. Mr HORAN: If you cannot agree to it, as we have said previously, there is no arbitration and that is it. I know that happens in lots of things in life: you give and take a bit. But that is the problem. We see not enough strength going back to those other arrangements that have been changed with the growing side of the contract. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 605

Mr PALASZCZUK: What we are trying to do, once again, is to bring some maturity into the industry. I cannot think of any primary industries that currently have that provision of compulsory arbitration. I cannot think of any primary industry sector anywhere in Australia that has that provision. The other industries are able to survive. There could be one—perhaps chicken meat in South Australia—but apart from that no-one else has those provisions. We talk about grain growers and the cattle industry. We are just trying to bring maturity into the industry, and we are trying to get the participants in the industry to work more closely together. We want to get rid of that confrontationist stance that has been taken for so many years that has held the industry back. Mr ROWELL: There is probably good reason for that. I cannot think of any other primary industry—and I am involved in a few of them—where producers do not have a range of options where they can actually sell their product. I grow some crops that I can sell around the world and there is no problem with that. I could take a truck load of wheat to Victoria or to some chicken house somewhere in Western Australia. I cannot think of any other product that faces a situation where producers cannot take the product anywhere else. During my speech in the second reading debate I certainly raised the issue that sugar is worth the lowest price of any agricultural commodity that I can think of. It is worth $20 a tonne. That is equal to a tonne of gravel or a tonne of sand or something like that. I would be pleased if the minister could enlighten me whether there is any agricultural product that has as low a value as sugar that cannot be transported any more than a few kilometres because it is too costly to do so. That is the reason I believe we need this compulsory arbitration. Under certain industrial rules compulsory arbitration has to occur. That is fine for those industries around Australia. To say that there is no other agricultural industry that requires some compulsory arbitration I think is a real misnomer. Could the minister comment on that? Mr PALASZCZUK: I think I have made my position pretty clear in relation to that issue. I do not think I have anything further to add. Mrs MENKENS: I refer the minister to page 61 and the word 'supplier'. I am rather concerned about this because it says '"supplier", for sugar'. We are talking about the biomass and downstreaming of the product. If this includes only the supplier of sugar, what do we do about the farmer and the actual biomass of the whole cane? 'Sugar' seems to be the word used, not the word 'biomass'. It is a very worrying area. Mr PALASZCZUK: We are talking about vesting, and when we talk about vesting we use the term 'vesting of sugar'. In this definition of 'sugar' it is what we vest that is included. Mrs MENKENS: I understand what the minister is saying for sugar. Does the cane farmer actually get a chance to access the biomass of the cane? It is the total product from which it is all going to happen from now on. Mr PALASZCZUK: At the end of the day, all that is determined by the contract that is agreed to by the collective or by the individual grower. It will all be found in the contract. That is the reason for getting away from what we had previously. Mr MALONE: I take the minister back to the definition of 'supplier'. That seems to be where we have some contention. It says a supplier for sugar means— ... a person who, immediately before the sugar is manufactured, owns the sugar cane .. In actual fact, that is the mill from which the sugar is manufactured. Mr Palaszczuk: I always come back to the contract. It depends on how the contract is signed. Mr MALONE: That has connotations in terms of vesting as well. The supplier is the person who applies for the exemption for vesting which, under this definition, means the miller. Mr Palaszczuk: It does not have to be a miller. We have gone through that before. Mr MALONE: The supplier actually applies for exemption from vesting. If we use the definition as strictly written in the bill, that means the miller. Mr Palaszczuk: No, in the contract we define who is going to be the supplier. It will either be the grower or the miller. That is when this is determined. Mr MALONE: That is pretty nebulous. It is written in legislation and then we are going to change that when we have a contract. Mr Palaszczuk: That is not right. 606 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

Mr MALONE: Perhaps the minister could explain it better than that. It is clearly defined in the bill that the supplier is the person who owns the cane before it is manufactured into sugar. Applying that to the way we do that currently, that is the miller. He buys the cane from the grower and he actually owns the biomass. Mr PALASZCZUK: Under this definition the supplier can be any person who has negotiated and secured the contractual ownership of the sugar at that point in time. The supplier could, therefore, be the miller, grower or growers or some other commercial entity such as an ethanol manufacturer. Mr Malone: That is contrary to what is in the bill. Mr PALASZCZUK: No it is not. Clauses 8 to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr HORAN (2.46 p.m.): Clause 11 amends the schemes for payment under section 102 of the old act. Section 8 says that QSL must give notice of this to relevant mill owners and relevant mill supplier committees. I think the effect of this clause is to give notice to the relevant mill owners and then the relevant mill owners must give notice to the relevant growers. In the past QSL had to notify the mill owner and the mill suppliers committee of the scheme for payment. Now they give notice to the mill owner and it is then left to mill owners to give notice of this to the relevant growers. The system is going to get a bit more complex than the straightforward system that applied before. It was supposed to make the system work more easily and be more flexible. Now there is basically a reliance on the mill owners to notify people. I am not saying that they would not do the right thing, but they must give notice of the scheme of payment to the relevant growers. This is a strange arrangement. There is a contract to supply. Notice of the scheme of payments must be made to the mill owners and the relevant growers get the information second hand. They used to get it first-hand before because it went straight to their committee. Their committee would be fully aware of the scheme of payment. I presume that, if they had any difficulties with that, there would be some negotiation. Now it is going to be fragmented. The mill owners are told and they let people know the relevant schemes. It seems to me to be another fragmentation or weakening of the position of the growers that they are told of the scheme of payment second-hand and they are not dealing directly with QSL. Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member has raised quite an important point. The reason there has been this change to the mill reporting to QSL is that, under the new arrangements, there could be more than one collective or individual contracts. The mill knows, because the mill has entered into a contractual arrangement with those collectives, what is going on. It is probably the only way we can do it now with the mill supply committees being abolished under the bill to give an accurate report of what is happening. So the onus is on the mills. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr HORAN (2.51 p.m.): This clause follows on from the one before it. Again, it is putting in place this new system. With regard to the production of brands of raw sugar, previously QSL had to inform the mill suppliers committee of an arrangement or a direction given as soon as practicable after it was made. Now the mill owner must inform the relevant growers. The minister might explain to me what is meant by the term 'production of brands of raw sugar'. Is it that if it comes from a certain mill QSL gives a particular brand to that sugar? Is it a commercial brand or is it just a type? What is the importance of letting the growers know about the brand? Can the minister explain the brands arrangement? Mr PALASZCZUK: It is the quality of the sugar. Mr HORAN: So it is the quality, not the brand. It is not a commercial name like Vegemite? Mr PALASZCZUK: No, it is quality. Mr HORAN: I think quality is the next clause. The sugar quality standards are contained in clause 13. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr HORAN: Yes. So, in other words, this is not quality; it is about a brand. So it would be a name. If it is called Maryborough Sugar or Bundaberg Sugar— 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 607

Opposition members interjected. Mr HORAN: So it is a standard of sugar. So it is not the quality; it is the standard. It might be an A1 or an A2. I have it clear now and I know what it is doing. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr HORAN: Now the mill owner rather than QSL will let the growers know. The mill owner does that because there may be many individual contracts or a number of collectives. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr ROWELL (2.53 p.m.): With regard to the standards, first of all it appears that QSL has to inform the mill owner about giving notice to the mill. I presume that this is to produce a certain brand, or standard, or whatever, but I think that is what it is about. This has happened in the past. There is nothing new about this, as I am aware of anyway. The clause then goes on to say that 'the mill owner must give notice of it to the relevant growers'. I am not aware that that has happened in the past. Why are we doing that? I do not think it happened in the past. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but as I am aware there has not been a requirement for the growers to be involved in terms of the standard. Yes, if there have been problems, QSL has had to do certain things about placing it for sale in various places. If it has an order or a contract for a certain quality or a certain standard of sugar, to my knowledge there has been only a requirement for the mills to get involved in that. I just cannot understand if this legislation has changed—and I really did not check on it—but I believe that the onus is now going to come back to the grower in some instances to provide certain types of cane for certain requirements. That can change quite dramatically because they have not had to do this as I am aware in the past. It may be that one variety of cane is suitable for a certain standard where the mills can juggle it around, but the onus is now going back pretty much on the grower. Mr PALASZCZUK: With regard to clause 13, section 105(4) in the old act states— For a standard to take effect, QSL must give notice of it to the mill owner and the relevant mill suppliers' committee. Mr Rowell: I see. Mr PALASZCZUK: So what this is doing is just keeping the growers informed as to what is going on. That is all it is; just information. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr HORAN (2.55 p.m.): Clause 14 deals with the exemption of sugar for local consumption. This clause is taking out the words 'exempt sugar' that were in the previous legislation and replacing them with the words 'local consumption exempt sugar'. Why has the minister expanded that definition? Previously the act said with regard to exemption of sugar for local consumption— A mill owner need not deliver to QSL a quantity of sugar manufactured at the mill ('exempt sugar') but may instead retain exempt sugar for local consumption or sell exempt sugar to another mill owner to be retained for local consumption. It seems only a minor point, but why does the legislation have to add those other couple of words—'local consumption exempt sugar'—and it is quite clear what it is? Mr PALASZCZUK: The right to exempt sugar will still remain. But as it says in the explanatory notes— This right will remain, however this sugar will be referred to as 'local consumption exempt sugar' to avoid confusion with the scheme exemptions from vesting in clause 18 of the Bill. So basically it is there only to prevent confusion. Mr ROWELL: There is just one issue I want to raise. With all of these transactions that will be going on between mills and getting away from the absolute dependence of QSL to sell sugar, the minister would be aware that growers are unsecured creditors of the mills. They are unsecured creditors of the mills. The whole issue in terms of payment is fine, but when we go outside the parameters involving QSL with the sale of sugar it concerns me that a very tenuous issue could be created from time to time. If a mill is in the position where it is going into receivership, those payments that are entitled to the mill are taken in by whoever is the mortgagee in possession of the asset. 608 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

Of course, the growers themselves may not necessarily get any part of it. We saw that situation develop in South Johnstone. Fortunately, the federal government got involved and to some degree they did not lose quite the amount that they could have lost. With all of this great ability for transactions within mills themselves and in the event that they do get to a position where liquidity becomes a problem, whoever the mortgagee in possession may be, if that occurs then the growers can pretty much whistle dixie in many instances as far as getting a return on the sugar or the payments that they are entitled to. Mr PALASZCZUK: I think the honourable member is referring to security of cane payments. The issue is about whether to give growers certainty about receiving access to cane payments in the event of a mill being placed in receivership where the relevant bank plans to exercise its legal right to those funds. However, that would have unintended consequences because it would effectively change the ranking of all creditors to such a mill. This would include the financial institution, transport companies and others servicing the mill who are secured creditors. Changing the order of security would affect the confidence of lenders in the sugar industry. Indeed, in the current depressed industry situation, it could jeopardise the borrowing positions of most mills, particularly where a bank is already heavily exposed to the industry. This is because by altering the creditor ranking, there would be considerably fewer assets available to cover the bank's loan. Consequently, it would at least cause the bank to provide loans on terms less favourable to mills. At worst, a bank may call in a receiver in order to recover its loans, that is, it could threaten the financial viability of a number of mills and, by association, the viability of growers and others dependent on the mills. This type of protection proposed for canegrowers does not exist for other primary industries in Queensland. In other industries, for example, grain, cotton, livestock, commercial fishing and horticulture, farmers rely on commercial negotiations and that is the path that we are heading down here. A commercial solution is in line with the regulatory reforms that the government has introduced. Also, I understand that there has never been a mill closure from which growers have lost cane pays. The bank does not legally need to pay growers when a mill is in receivership but has two good reasons to do so. Under receivership the receiver would aim to sell the mill as a going concern. To do this a mill needs as much cane supply for the next season as possible. The mill would not obtain that cane supply and its viability may be ruined if it did not allow the receiver to pay growers their future cane payments. Also, growers may not have the financial wherewithal to fertilise, water, and otherwise manage the crop adequately. A bank that has a high exposure to growers could lose some or most of this farmer business if it did not allow a receiver to pay growers their future cane payments. Obviously, we have had examples of this occurring in the past few years. Just on that point, too, in relation to a notification about mill closures, if we go back to the example of the Nambour mill closure, which was an issue that honourable members opposite, especially the member for Hinchinbrook, raised over and over again—and quite rightly—it is interesting to note that in relation to the closure of the Moreton mill in Nambour, growers were given 12 months notice by the owners of the mill even though they did not have any legal obligation to do so. So I cannot see that changing in the future. Mr Rowell: They are phasing that out. It is not there in this current legislation. Mr PALASZCZUK: It was not there before, either. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr HORAN (3.02 p.m.): Clause 15 is another one of these very, very big clauses in the bill. It is all about the exemptions from vesting, which is a principle that we agree with. I will be moving an amendment to insert a new clause after this clause, because I want something added to this clause. We have no argument with this clause. Our argument with the bill is those parts that relate to the cane production area, the statutory bargaining authorities and the loss of arbitration where we saw a weakening of the position of growers and at the same time the creation of a system that we think is going to be very complex. There will probably be more groups and parties and individuals involved than there were before. It will make what is already an extremely complex industry even more complex. It is going to remove the fairness that always existed under the system. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 609

We do not have any problems with the principles of having exemptions. In fact, it is something that we have argued for for some time for ethanol in particular. I have said in this chamber before that I have been privileged to have the opportunity to study the production of ethanol in the United States where it is produced from corn. But the principles are generally the same. I understand that it is cheaper to produce ethanol from grain than it is from sugar, depending upon at which stage of the sugar manufacturing process we insert the ethanol production process. In areas where ethanol can be produced and where there are also in that area feedlots, or major cities that need the gas or the carbonated by-product of the production of ethanol, that is where it can be particularly profitable. It puts a real floor in the market because it can provide the product, be it sugar or grain, with some alternative avenues of revenue stream that can offset a lower price in another area. Of course, at the end of the day, the idea of it is for growers to get more than what they are getting for their sugar. Why would they do it if they could just crush sugar and get a certain price, but if they went to the trouble of producing ethanol, they received less for that that than what they received for the extra squeezes or the final components of the manufacturing process—the tail end of the manufacturing process—of sugar? So it should value add, and it is being done at Sarina and has been for some time. Ethanol is being produced in a number of places in Australia. Certainly, in New South Wales it is being produced from grain, and that is proposed to be done at Dalby. We certainly agree with that. I think there are many other areas of bioplastics and all sorts of medical and therapeutic applications where high-cost value adding is being examined. So we do not have any problem whatsoever with that. In fact, we support this system of exempt use. The minister explained that the exempt use is a separate terminology to local consumption exempt use. That makes it quite clear that that exempt use is for using it with the production of local sugar. This is for value adding. There are a number of sections in this clause that relate to the Sugar Authority and information that the authority must give to Queensland Sugar. Within seven days after each periodic estimate day, they have to give them the name of the supplier and an estimate of the amount of supply of sugar that will, under section 109, become the property of QSL. There are details here about how people apply for an exemption. I think the important issue is that the application for exemption must be made within a year's crushing season and on or before 16 September in that year. But there are ways in which an exemption application may, after a year's crushing, be made after 16 September. In that application, the maximum amount of sugar to be exempted is 5,000 tonnes. I would like to hear from the minister as to whether he has any figures to indicate how much sugar may be exempted, or is that purely something that we cannot estimate because it depends on what industries develop? We are fully for it. I guess some mills may be a little bit concerned in that they need a certain amount of throughput and a certain amount of sugar. If that sugar gets exempted, they are going to have to share, in that exemption, in the proceeds. The real issue in all of this is: if you are going to do something extra to the product and value add, how can the growers feel confident that they will get their fair share and the millers will get their reasonable share of that value adding? Can the minister explain whether, in this very long clause of a number of pages, there is a system for the growers to get their fair share of the additional money? The minister talked earlier about initial contracts. In an initial contract it would probably be very difficult to know what you are going to get for the value added product. Let us say you are producing a bioplastic of a therapeutic product. You would not really know what the market price was going to be until that product was actually made and had been sold. There needs to be a scheme of payment in relation to exempt sugar, which is not subject to the scheme of payment of QSL. It is not vested in QSL, where QSL has a scheme of payment and has to advise that to the mill owner and the mill owner then has to advise the individual contractors. Is there a scheme of payment whereby advice is given as to what has been received and how much they are each going to get or what is going to be the division of profits for this particular value-added product? Mr PALASZCZUK: The first issue the honourable member raised related to the projections for sugar being exempt. I cannot give the honourable member any indication. Mr Horan: It is something that has not developed yet. 610 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

Mr PALASZCZUK: That is right. It has not developed. I think next year people will begin to talk about it. I believe that the uptake will take some time. It will take a couple of years before we can actually see the results of this legislation for value adding. I refer to the issue the member raised about a payment scheme for the value adding. If we can go back to the supplier concept we discussed previously, under the contractual arrangements, where millers and growers and maybe a third party enter into a commercial arrangement, the break-up of payments will be negotiated. I am not in a position to give the committee a projection of what some of the value adding would be worth, in particular bioplastics. I think I have outlined as best I can my response to the three issues the honourable member just raised. Mr HORAN: In a way we are entering a brave new world. The by-products produced could be co-generation, ethanol or bagasse. I think at the moment the bagasse is kept by the mills and they sell it back to the farmers for fertiliser. There is going to have to be some form of scheme in the contract that sets out that if these products are vested they share in the profits, for example. The minister says it might be 50-50, 60-40, 30-70 or something like that. The industry is pinning hopes on some of these value adding processes being, in part, a saviour and hoping that they will improve the ultimate price they get. There needs to be some system that gives them the surety that they have some strength in negotiating and being able to say, 'It is not just sugar we are producing. That sugar will go off, but at the tail end of the process it is going to go into ethanol and it is going to produce this bit more money. How do we get our fair share of that? How does the mill get its fair share?' That is all I am talking about. I agree fully with the exempting. It gets back to some of the principles of negotiation and the weaknesses of negotiation that the growers have ended up with this lessening that they have. We agree fully with the exemptions, but we have some concerns about there being some way of knowing that they will get some payment out of this. If it is exempted, it is then not vested in QSL. Therefore, is it owned by the supplier, as we were saying before? Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr HORAN: That has cleared it up, then. It is really owned by the supplier, which is probably going to be the mill that bought the cane as it came through the front gate under the contract. Mr Palaszczuk: The supplier is a matter for negotiation between the grower and the mill. It could be either the grower or the miller, or it could even be both. Mr HORAN: The mill would not agree for the supplier to be the grower. I suppose it is possible. As the minister says, it could be both. What we are really agreeing on is that at this stage it is probably unknown. It will have to be tested in a system of private, commercial type contracts. But at this stage the sort of security growers are looking for, to know that they really will be able to share in that, will all come down to their negotiating abilities at the time of negotiating the original contracts. Mr MALONE: I go back to the issue I raised earlier about suppliers. 'Definitions for part 2' on page 25 states in part— 'applicant', for an exemption or amendment of an exemption, means a supplier who applies for the exemption or amendment of the exemption. The word 'supplier' is in there again. As I raised with the minister earlier, the supplier for sugar means a person who, immediately before the sugar is manufactured, owns the sugar cane from which the sugar is manufactured. In all terms, and certainly not in this act, that would mean the miller. There are no ifs and buts. It is the miller. They can have all the supply contracts they like, but at the end of the day this is legislation. You cannot draw up a contract to circumvent the legislation. Mr PALASZCZUK: This is pretty self-explanatory. It states— 'applicant', for an exemption or amendment of an exemption, means a supplier who applies for the exemption or amendment of the exemption. Mr Malone: Instead of 'supplier', put 'miller'. Mr PALASZCZUK: No. Mr Malone: You can take 'supplier' out and put 'miller' in there. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is not right. The supplier is determined during the negotiation of the contract. It could be anyone. It could be both. Mr Malone: There is a definition for 'supplier', isn't there? Read that. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 611

Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, I have read that. Mrs MENKENS: I am interested in the section entitled 'Application of Freedom of Information Act', at proposed section 107T. What is exempt matter and what particular areas does this actually apply to? I would also like a little more explanation on the improper use of exempt sugar, which is referred to on page 36. What is meant by 'improper use' and the maximum penalty of 3,000 penalty units? Mr PALASZCZUK: Proposed new section 107T—Exempt matter, which talks about freedom of information, states— A document held, under this part, by the authority in connection with the following is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 ... The documents—the contracts—that are signed are commercial-in-confidence and it is just not fair on the parties involved to have that information divulged. Mrs Menkens interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is right, the contracts. Mrs Menkens: It has nothing to do with the bargaining? Mr PALASZCZUK: No, it is the contracts. In relation to proposed new section 107, let us just say that if a person or persons submit an exemption application for sugar to do something with it and they do not do what they said they would do, that would probably prejudice the single desk. That is why the penalty is so high—3,000 penalty units—to give a bit of a warning to encourage people to actually do what they intend to do rather than go outside the provisions of what they informed the authority they were going to do. Mr ROWELL: Proposed new section 107D(2) states— The authority must not give QSL any periodic estimate given to the authority under section 107C. It then goes on about periodic estimates. In the interests of the disposal of whatever it is going to be that we are producing—and in the case of crystal sugar, QSL is the body that disposes of it and it is the major organisation in terms of deciding where the markets are going to be and so on—I thought it would have been in the best interests of the industry that up-to-date information is provided to QSL about what sugar is likely to be exempted and that sort of thing. We do not necessarily have to tell them to whom the exemption has been given. I am talking about the periodic requirement in terms of them going through the process at certain times of the year and that sort of thing. It stipulates in the bill the dates 31 March, 31 May and 31 July, and proposed new section 107C(4) states— If the supplier does not give the authority each periodic estimate for the year, the supplier must not be granted an exemption for the year's crushing season. I think it is quite critical that QSL is kept right up to date with what is happening in terms of exemptions. Is there any particular reason why QSL is going to be denied this information? The other issue I would like to raise relates to clause 107P, which talks about the processes of amendment of exemptions. Subsection (5) states— If the applicant is granted an amendment of the applicant's exemption— (a) the exemption the applicant held before the granting of the amendment of the exemption lapses; and (b) the exemption that is amended under this section is taken to be the exemption for this part. I want to know if there is any appeal process against the Sugar Authority's decision to refuse an exemption. So my question relates to just two things about QSL and them not necessarily being provided with the information from the Sugar Authority about exemptions and the time in which the reporting has to occur. I think it is quite important that they are kept up to date in terms of what sugar is and is not available for sale. They have a fair idea of milling performances and that sort of thing. They do a particularly good job. I think that we should arm them with every prospect of continuing to do that work as far as the disposal of sugar is concerned. Mr PALASZCZUK: The two issues that the honourable member raised related to proposed new section 107D, did they not? Mr Rowell: Yes. Mr PALASZCZUK: QSL was consulted on this issue. They basically said, 'All we want to know is how much sugar we have to sell.' When it comes to exempting sugar, they do not want to have any of that information because, in their own words, it might create a conflict of interest for themselves. It will not, but the possibility exists. 612 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

Mr Rowell interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, they have. In relation to the other point on the appeal process, if the member looks at page 39, he will see clause 24, which inserts new section 234A—Appeal to District Court—exemption applications. So there is an appeal mechanism there. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr HORAN (3.25 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1— 1 After clause 15— At page 37, after line 22— insert— ' 15A Amendment of s 124 (Minister's directions to QSL) (1) Section 124— insert— '(1A) However, the Minister can not give QSL written directions about the pricing of sugar for sale to domestic customers.'. (2) Section 124(3) and (10)— omit. (3) Section 124(4), 'any other type of'— omit, insert— 'the'. (4) Section 124(1A) and (2)— renumber as section 124(2) and (3).'. This is a particularly important amendment as it removes the ministerial direction. The ministerial direction is a direction that has been given by the minister regarding the sale of domestic sugar. That direction is that domestic sugar must be sold at export parity. We have seen that 85 per cent of Australian sugar—and particularly Queensland sugar—goes overseas and is sold at export prices. We are having to compete with countries that are heavily subsidised, particularly in their domestic market, which allows them to be able to exist on the price they charge for their export sugar. However, we poor things in Australia have to compete on that corrupted, or unfair, world market. At the same time we are forced by the ministerial direction to sell our domestic sugar at that corrupted export price. I will go back through the history of the issue so we can look fairly at how it came about. In the mid-1990s, under Keating and Goss, a sugar industry review was conducted that looked at this particular aspect and made certain recommendations. Bob Gibbs was the minister in the Goss government at the time. The actions from those recommendations flowed through into 1997 when we were in government and the ministerial direction was put in place. So both sides of politics were involved in it to some extent. At the time the industry had also requested it because we were at the start of these competition arrangements and the industry was looking at keeping the single desk, which was so important. If you like, it was a trade-off to ensure they kept the single desk, which was an important marketing tool for the industry. If we back go to the mid-nineties we see that the price of sugar at that time was, on average, about $345 to $350 a tonne. Perhaps the issue of the ministerial direction did not appear as important, bearing in mind that 85 per cent of Queensland sugar is exported and at that price they were able to make a profit. However, in recent years the industry has had to deal with droughts, pestilence and so on. In the late nineties a reasonable price was paid for sugar, but for the last three or four years it has been a poor price. It has reached the stage where virtually every penny counts. The ministerial direction is actually denying our growers the ability to seek a commercial and competitive price for their product domestically. They are forced to sell their sugar domestically at the corrupted world prices. I have talked about it being commercial and competitive. Let us look at how it works. If it is an export price at which it is being sold domestically, that means the further margin that could be added to the sale of that sugar of import costs is not able to be added on. The bulk of it, for example, would be the cost of shipping and the cost across the wharf and so forth. There is a legitimate, commercial and competitive ability of the industry to get more for the sugar than it sells domestically. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 613

From the point of view of the consumer, anything that the consumer has to pay that is commercial and is fully competitive is fair. The minister has talked a lot today about commercial contracts, but in the world of commerciality if you charge too much for a product people will not buy it, people will look for an alternative, people will buy less of it or the importers will bring in something which they think they can bring in more cheaply. But in this case we could add to the domestic sugar that is sold in Australia part of the cost of transport that would normally apply to imported sugar and our domestic sugar would remain cheaper than the price at which importers could bring sugar from Brazil or somewhere else into Australia. The argument at the moment that the export parity keeps out overseas sugar is not right because overseas sugar that would come into Australia would be export parity plus the cost of shipping across the wharves and all the rest of it. At the moment, to add more to the potential to get a better return, the costs of shipping in the world have quadrupled and are enormous. Where just a couple of years ago it was $25,000 a day for a ship, it is now about $100,000 a day for a ship because of the massive usage of shipping by China and the importation of coal and minerals and so forth. So there is a margin there and it is just so unfair that growers are forced to sell their sugar—not only export it on a corrupted world market but also sell it locally—at that same corrupted price. It is a corrupted price because those overseas countries can sell it at that price and almost give it away at that price because back home they are subsidised. They have massive subsidised systems in their heavily populated countries. So they are able to offset the difficulties they face with their export price by subsidisation at home and by cheap labour in the country in which they operate. This amendment takes away the ministerial direction with regards to domestic sugar. Some people may argue this is a great advantage to New South Wales. I think they are more concerned that the guys down there in blue jerseys will get something out of it because they supply a large amount of the domestic sugar in Australia. For Queensland—and the minister might confirm this figure—there are about 700,000 tonnes of sugar that is used and sold domestically, and 75 per cent of that would come from Queensland. From the calculations of the Sugar Milling Council and the cane farmers, it will probably be a one per cent increase in price to canegrowers overall. If farmers are getting $20 a tonne for their cane and they pick up another 20c because of the increased premium on domestic sugar because there is no longer a ministerial directive, that would mean about $600 for someone with 3,000 tonnes of cane. That is quite a reasonable amount for those growers which they would welcome with open arms. The amount increases as you go along. Just think what $600 would mean to a person in very difficult or desperate circumstances. It might mean a certain amount of fertiliser. It might mean two new tyres on the tractor. It all plays a part. It is money that legitimately should be theirs. This amendment will not be unfair to consumers; it will give them a product at a cheaper price than they could import the product for. It would be at a commercial price and a highly competitive price because it would be more than competitive with overseas imported sugar, and that is the test. Again, those producing and selling domestic sugar have to make the judgment that they bring about an increase in the price of their sugar. People may look to other alternatives and they have to price it accordingly, but they do have that ability to be able to increase the margin on that domestic product for something that is commercial and something that is fair. The reason why the ministerial directive is not in here, I understand, is that it is another one of these issues that we spoke about with regard to the pressure put on organisations in the negotiations that occurred with regard to this bill. They were basically told they could keep the single desk but we will keep the ministerial direction. That is what has been said, and that is the only logical reason as to why that ministerial direction has not been removed. When talking about welfare payments, exit payments and all the other assistance that canegrowers and their families desperately need, why would you not remove the ministerial direction that gives them a fair, commercial and competitive price for their domestic sugar? Mr MALONE: The shadow minister has covered the issue fairly well in putting forward our position on the ministerial directive. It is important to realise that the average farmer realises there is not a lot of money in it. Fortunately, as the shadow minister pointed out, there is no doubt that that margin is increasing in terms of increased shipping costs and wharfage costs. So that amount is increasing. 614 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

What is important to understand is that there are currently three companies doing refining in Queensland. We have Mackay Sugar, which owns a quarter share of the refinery in Mackay currently, we have CSR, which has two-thirds of the refinery in Mackay, and we have Bundaberg Sugar. Mackay Sugar is a cooperative and, as I said, it owns a quarter of that commercial operation in Mackay. CSR is a multinational company and Bundaberg Sugar is a multinational company. What we are talking about with this ministerial direction is that we pay farmers less for their cane so we can sell sugar to the refiners at a lower price so they can compete on the domestic market. I have heard the argument that, if we take away the ministerial direction, the big winners will be the New South Wales industry. There is probably a bit of truth in that because they will probably be able to pick up some extra money for the sugar they sell closer to the consumers in Sydney. But the fact of the matter is that the New South Wales industry is confined. It really cannot expand to any great extent. So there is no real competition in terms of quantity. There is competition in terms of price, and they are at the doorstep of the biggest consumers in Australia in that Sydney-Melbourne region. At the end of the day, the ministerial direction, at a time when the industry is on its knees, is quite immoral. We understand the issue in terms of national competition. That was the reason it was put in in the first place: we were either going to lose single desk selling or we had to take on board ministerial direction, and that goes back to the sugar industry working party recommendations in 1996. It appears that the same argument has been run in terms of putting this bill together as well: we either lose single desk or domestic marketing and/or we take on board ministerial direction. It was a fairly easy agreement by the millers and the growers that they would retain the ministerial direction and retain single desk selling. I support the amendment. This issue is of concern, particularly to farmers in areas where their cane is being supplied to a proprietary mill. Mrs MENKENS: I support this amendment. I will not go into any great description of the background to this, because Mr Horan has given a very effective description of the background to the ministerial directive. There is very strong emotive feeling amongst growers about the ministerial directive being in place. I question whether such a directive applies to any other industry. The sugar industry has traditionally been subject to more regulation than many other industries. To my knowledge, this type of rather overpowering direction does not apply to any other industry. I am not really sure who it actually benefits in the long term. I am certainly against the ministerial directive and would encourage the minister to consider its removal. Mr PALASZCZUK: The government does not support the amendment for a number of reasons. Firstly, let us talk about the heads of agreement in relation to this legislation that has been signed by the industry and the government. I refute the assertion made by Mr Horan in relation to the government coercing industry to sign up. That is not the case. We tried to maintain the ministerial direction provision in this bill provided that the domestic single desk was deregulated. Of course, industry did not want that so we compromised. At the end of the day the industry said to us 'No, keep the ministerial direction but only deregulate the domestic single desk in the way that is prescribed in this current bill.' The industry preferred to maintain the single desk. As minister I am obliged to live up to the agreement that we currently have with the industry. I should not continue on this line any further. We all understand that there will be penalties under the National Competition Council. Secondly, De-Anne Kelly was not able to secure a letter for us from the Treasurer saying that if we did remove the ministerial direction we would not be penalised with our competition payments. Thirdly, I do not believe that removing the ministerial direction will have the effects that the National Party actually predicts. I believe that any sudden increase in the price of raw sugar on our domestic market will have consequences. Domestic consumers may begin to investigate other sweeteners. This will not happen overnight, but it will happen. They will look at sweeteners such as corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. This has occurred in the US where major confectionary producers have moved their operations to Mexico and Canada to escape high sugar prices. In addition, our domestic market is shared with New South Wales. If Queensland increases its price that may mean that New South Wales could gain greater access to the domestic market. It cannot be assumed that the ACCC would stand by and allow prices to be increased without an inquiry. I listened to the figures that Mr Horan raised in relation to the benefits to a 3,000 tonne grower of the removal of the ministerial direction. His figures are for the entire 3,000 tonnes. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 615

Mr Horan interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I do not think so. Only 15 per cent of the 3,000 tonnes is sold on the domestic market. I have worked out that 15 per cent of 3,000 tonnes is about 450 tonnes. That works out to about $90. Mr Horan: We have worked out what it will mean per tonne. It is 20c per tonne or one per cent. Mr PALASZCZUK: I cannot see that. The member will have to give me those figures. Mr Horan: You are the minister; you should have those figures. I got them from the industry. Mr PALASZCZUK: I do not have everything at my fingertips. I try to but I cannot all the time. I would still dispute the honourable member's figure of 20c a tonne. I cannot see how a 3,000 tonne grower will be able to pick up $600 when I work out that figure to be $90 for the 450 tonnes which is 15 per cent of the 3,000 tonnes. For Margaret Menzel and a few others in the Burdekin this seems to be one of the mantles that they are hanging their objection to this legislation on. In reality, what Margaret and her people are actually saying is that for the growers to really benefit from the removal of ministerial direction sugar prices in Queensland would have to rise astronomically. I believe that I have clearly put the government's position in relation to the ministerial direction. We oppose its removal for the reasons that I have stated. But, more importantly, we have a heads of agreement signed between the canegrowers, the Sugar Milling Council and the government which says that we should maintain the ministerial direction and maintain the domestic single desk with a few exemptions, which we have just discussed. Therefore, the government opposes the amendment. Mr HORAN: The minister has confirmed pretty well what I said—that is, that the industry wanted the domestic single desk and the industry wanted the ministerial direction removed. Basically, the government said that it was not going to give them both. It had to be one or the other. The minister has tried to put it in nice words. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr HORAN: You are like my grandma's labrador—it wags its tail and you pat it. The minister really has confirmed that it was a heavy-handed option given to them. The plain English guide to the Sugar Industry Reform Bill says that the government had proposed the abolition of the ministerial direction. The government thought it was a good thing, but today it does not. The government proposed the abolition of the ministerial direction in exchange for the inclusion of raw sugar for domestic manufacturing as a ground for exemption. In other words, they wanted to get rid of the single desk. They thought the ministerial direction was a good thing and that is what they proposed. They would not give them both. It is in black and white. This is what the minister's department put out. The minister should not stand here today and tell us that it is not a good thing. It was a good thing because they did want to do it. No wonder the Minister for Education wags her finger at the minister. The government has changed its tune today. It was literally a gun at the head of the producer organisations. Here was a chance for them to keep the domestic single desk, which is very important for their marketing system. Here was the chance for them to get some additional competitive funds for their growers. The minister agreed with getting rid of the ministerial direction but only if they gave up the domestic single desk. Why? Today they agree with the domestic single desk. Whenever they negotiated this they agreed with the ministerial direction. Why do they not want to have both if they think both are good for the industry? Because they want to put their hand out for competition payments. That is what it is about. That is why they are being denied a reasonable and fair price. They are prepared to not deregulate the taxi industry but they want to deregulate the sugar industry so that they can put their hand out for payments. That was one of the important principles that the government worked on. There was coercion. No matter what nice words they used, the sugar industry groups were coerced into accepting one or the other. That is where the saying 'We would sooner lose two or three fingers rather than our whole hand' came from. They hung on to the domestic single desk but had to give up the issue of ministerial direction. The Canegrowers organisation, for example, would not want to have a ministerial direction that did not provide something. As I have said, one per cent is not a lot. If we do the figures on 616 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 the amount of domestic sugar that is sold and Queensland's percentage with the $20 premium on sugar—I think that is the premium at the moment, or it is somewhere in that order—and extrapolate that back down to how many tonnes of cane are going to make a tonne of sugar, it comes back to that figure. In fact, I think it comes to something in the order of $1.40 divided by the seven tonnes of cane it takes to make a tonne of sugar and then there is the approximately 20c extra for each tonne of cane. It is very disappointing that the minister has a closed mind to this, particularly as he had revealed that he had thought it was a good thing and worth while. But it has been something that the government has not been prepared to give because it wants to put its hand out for national competition payments. The minister also commented that the ACCC would have to approve it. What absolute rubbish! How more commercial and competitive could it be when one puts their sugar out there and prices it sensibly so that it cost less than the imports so it was able to compete with corn syrup or anything else. They would have the option to be able to get a fairer price and a more commercial price because the ministerial direction has been removed. People take this ACCC thing to ridiculous lengths. If the sugar was out there competitively in the market, it has to compete with exports and with other products. If the refiners have to sell it at a price for which it would sell so as not to lose market share and not lose the advantages they had previously, then they will price it accordingly. But the potential is there to get something extra for the growers. It is quite a callous attitude for the minister to take not to do that and for any members of the government who represent sugar areas not to vote for this. If they do not, they are denying their constituents something extra which they desperately need at this stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Jarratt): Order! Are there any other speakers? If not, the question is that Mr Horan's amendment be agreed to. Those of that— Mr ROWELL: No. I want to speak. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Please jump a little faster. I call the honourable member for Hinchinbrook. Mr ROWELL: This is important. I will remind the chair that— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is, and I will be putting the question when the member resumes his seat. Mr ROWELL: This is an important issue for the sugar growers of this state. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, you will not argue with the chair or I will sit you down. Mr ROWELL: My apology, Madam Chair. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr ROWELL: I think the shadow minister has been through this pretty clearly with regard to what really happened in 1995 when both Bob Gibbs and Bob Collins were the ministers at the time in relation to what was required by the sugar industry working party. They ended up making a decision, because quite clearly it was the first cab off the rank as far as national competition was concerned. They believed very strongly that there was a need to preserve that single desk, because that really was the key in terms of export pricing. In order to make sure that they did keep it within the domestic sales, they accepted that export parity pricing of sugar may come into Australia. In other words, if the New York No. 11 spot price was, say, US11c a pound, that was the price that it was to be sold for in Australia. That price does not reflect the value of sugar that is being sold from shelves in supermarkets at the present time. When we are looking at something like $220 or $200 a tonne for sugar and then we add the refining costs of, say, another $80 a tonne, that brings it up to $300 a tonne. However, refined sugar is being sold in the supermarkets for something like $1.20 a kilo or thereabouts, which is $1,200 a tonne. There is quite a substantial difference between what the grower, the miller and the refiner are getting in terms of the sale of sugar domestically. Of course, not all of that sugar goes onto the shelves. A greater proportion goes into the manufacturing of sweets, confectionery and so on. There has been a levy on consumers in Australia of 3c in order to raise the $120 million or $116 million that the federal government has put in place for assistance to the sugar industry to the present time, and money has already come out of that. When we talk about national competition payments, it is quite interesting to see where the state of Queensland is at the present time in terms of failure to comply with national competition payments. In relation to electricity reforms, there has been a suspension pending the introduction of contestability for a 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 617 tranche of consumers and a suspension pending the outcome of a wider review of retail contestability generally. Those two figures come to $14.62 million and $21.293 million. Also, the 2003 deduction was $7.31 million. Those two previous payments were payment suspensions for 2003-04. Quite clearly, as far as the taxi industry is concerned, the Premier has said that he is not prepared to deregulate the taxi industry. The government is prepared to accept any impediment or any loss of payment or any suspension of payment or any deduction of payment as far as the taxi industry is concerned. But, when it comes to the sugar industry, there is no way in the world. Producers have the choice of either accepting a very low price overseas—something like US5c to US6c a pound—or losing the single desk, and that is a great detriment. Last year when the government introduced a bill into parliament producers could not accept the fact that they could not keep the domestic single desk, and certainly what we are looking at now would be keeping export parity pricing. Now we can keep the single desk but cannot get rid of the export parity price. That is of great concern to the industry. In many instances the government is prepared to pay national competition payments for failure to comply, but when it comes to the likes of the sugar industry it is not on. As I understand it, we are going to look at this until 2006 and during that period of time we will carry on. After that— Time expired. Question—That Mr Horan's amendment be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 18—Copeland, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Tellers: Hopper, Malone NOES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C. Sullivan, T. Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Reeves, Nolan Resolved in the negative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Jarratt): Order! Before moving on to the next clause I would like to welcome to the public gallery students, teachers and parents from James Nash High School in the electorate of Gympie. Clauses 16 and 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr HORAN (4.06 p.m.): Clause 18 deals with the fees and charges collected from matters associated with the granting of exemptions. This is to do with the authority's budget. Can the minister give us some description of how the Sugar Authority is fully funded? I understand from that clause that it is being funded totally by fees and charges. Who pays them? Does it go back to that definition that the minister had before of 'supplier'—the supplier pays them? The clause also inserts— The Minister may vary the budget as requested, either with or without amendment. Can the minister explain how the budget for the Sugar Authority is funded? Mr PALASZCZUK: Currently, the authority is funded by the industry. I cannot see any departure from that. If we are talking about a supplier and we are talking about fees and charges in relation to the work that could be done by the authority, then there would be a fee for service. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Mr HORAN (4.08 p.m.): This clause omits chapter 4, part 6, which relates to the cane production boards. This clause just simply says 'omit'. It is just taking cane production boards out altogether? Mr PALASZCZUK: That is right, yes. Mr HORAN: Cane production boards have had a pretty important task. I presume when we say 'cane production board' we are talking about the Cane Protection and Productivity Board? They are the same thing? Mr PALASZCZUK: No, the CPBs used to administer the CPOs. 618 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

Mr HORAN: They administered the CPOs. So really this is another part of the abolition of the cane production— Mr Palaszczuk: That is right. Mr HORAN: Once again, it is something that we do not agree with. I guess that it is a consequential part of what we discussed earlier in the debate. This clause omits them and the next clause omits the negotiating teams. We have talked about this. We disagree with it. The clauses show that we are losing those boards, we are losing those negotiating teams and there is a watering down of the foundations. Mr ROWELL: These boards do an enormous amount of work, particularly during times of expansion. Very often they looked at suitable lands and all of that type of thing. I think that they were very valuable. Sometimes we had to make sure that we were not going into areas that were too far away. Sometimes some of the land was not all that suitable. Under these supply agreements, distance is something the mills will have to come to terms with. The valuable contribution cane protection boards made to the industry certainly will not be there. It is not as if they were a rubber stamp or anything of that nature in relation to cane production areas. It is just that they made a contribution. In the event that the industry decides in the future that it wants to expand or do certain things, it wants to certainly make the industry aware of what is required as far as harvesting is concerned. We did have harvesting equity tribunals. These were an important component of deciding how the crop was removed. The cane production boards certainly made a contribution in that area. Simply removing them is taking away any future direction for the industry. Mr HORAN: I will add to what the member for Hinchinbrook has said. By wiping out these boards as a result of wiping out the CPAs, the government is taking away some very sound administration of the sugar industry. Cane production boards administered the granting, transfer, cancellation or variation of cane production areas. They implemented decisions of the negotiating team established for the mill about expansion in cane production areas relating to that particular mill. They administered the processes relating to moving cane supply between mills—things like the consent process, horizontal expansion process and productivity increase process. They made guidelines about land use, the environment and transport applying in relation to applications for grants of cane production areas or increases in the number of hectares included in cane production areas relating to the mill. They obviously made judgments on the suitability of land and what would happen to the environment with the transport systems or the farming of that land. It has been a sound and sensible process for all of those things I have spoken about. Now it might be open slather. Anyone will be able to grow cane anywhere, regardless of environmental or transport difficulties or any other thing, because that was all taken very carefully into account by the boards. That very sound oversight and administration of the industry, particularly with its expansion and areas used for growing the cane and access to those areas, have all gone out the window. It will just be open slather. Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member is correct in relation to the work that is being done by the mill supply committees and the CPBs. He is correct about environmental controls and so on. We believe that under the act CPBs had the power to make environmental guidelines which applied to new or varied CPAs but not to existing areas. They applied only to new or varied CPA areas, not to existing areas. The CPBs will be removed with the abolition of the CPA system. We believe that, given the guideline system's narrow coverage, the benefits gained by removing the CPA system far outweigh the loss of this system. However, our government has a number of other processes that are examining environmental issues, particularly in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, which can be expected to relate to the sugar industry's environmental management. The state government has a range of controls over land use, including the operations of the IPA. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20— Mr HORAN (4.16 p.m.): I will not say anything more on this, because it is just another consequential matter relating to the elimination of the CPAs. The negotiating teams are gone. We have gone through all that. We do not agree with it. Clause 20, as read, agreed to. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 619

Clause 21— Mr HORAN (4.17 p.m.): This is just an amendment to the functions of the commissioner. There is an insertion to accept each intention to contract lodged under section 20(5). This clause seeks to amend section 223 of the act, which relates to the functions of the commissioner. The role of the commissioner was to do things like keep a central register, to help a cane production board, to facilitate the existence of an effective cane analysis system and to approve cane analysis programs. They will be omitted. Instead, the role of the commissioner will be to accept each intention to contract lodged with the commissioner under the section we looked at earlier. I ask the minister to tell me what it means for the commissioner to simply accept each intention to contract. Is it just the fact that that is the formal lodgment, that that is the place where the intention to contract is lodged and is held on file so that it is there in a formal way and it means something? Does the commissioner also look after the contract itself or does he only look after the intention to contract? Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member needs to remember that this only applies up to 2005. The clause states, 'each intention to contract lodged with the commissioner under section 20(5)'. This is the lodgment of formal contracts in the lead-up to any types of mediation in the event that mediation or arbitration is going to be entered into during the next year. That basically puts in train the processes that each party have to go through if they want to go through the system of arbitration. This, of course, is only up to the end of 2005 and not from 2006. Mr ROWELL: Clause 25 defines 'region' as meaning a part of the state— The CHAIRMAN: We are on clause 21 at the moment. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 24, as read, agreed to. Clause 25— Mr ROWELL (4.20 p.m.): There is one issue I would like to raise with this clause, which deals with regions. In this bill there is talk about regions. 'Region' is defined in this clause to mean a part of the state that is prescribed under regulation. The difficulty is that, while legislation states it is going to be brought in under regulation, we do not really know what 'region' means. Can the minister give us some insight into what he is thinking about regions? Also, the clause states— 'settlement' means a contract, arrangement or understanding made or arrived at between any or all of the following— (a) a group of growers; (b) a mill owner; (c) an interested third party. We are getting back to that interested third party again. Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member is correct. The focus of this is more about looking towards the regions; that is correct. We are looking more towards regional bargaining, rather than statewide bargaining. I will give the honourable member an example. Let us just take Bundaberg Sugar. We have the area in the Bundaberg region and then we have the Atherton Tableland. Quite obviously, the issues relating to the Atherton Tableland are different from the issues relating to the Bundaberg area. Therefore, we are looking at regional bargaining rather than statewide bargaining. We do not believe that 'one size fits all' anymore within the sugar industry. At the end of the day we will consult with industry on the regions. An example of that would be that the region of Burdekin would lend itself to be a region. I think that will all fall into place. We will discuss it with industry and we will come to, I believe, quite an amicable solution at the end of the day. Mr ROWELL: It is not simply mill areas; the minister is not considering that? Very often there will be an overlapping of mills within these regions. I can quote Innisfail as a typical example of that, then probably going into Tully, onto the tablelands and so on. That area has a number of mills interested in it. I suppose the same can apply to the Bundaberg regions where there is Isis, Bundaberg Sugar and that sort of thing. We are not necessarily going to see mill areas, as we have always looked at sugar areas before. I think that is important when we are negotiating with a group of owners, a mill owner and an interested third party. The mill region does not explicitly deal with these groups that are going to be dealing with the mill itself, if the minister can understand what I am getting at. Because of the variations that can occur in a region, I think mill areas are more appropriate than regions. I am 620 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 alluding to the fact that when negotiation occurs it is usually going to be with a mill. Admittedly, there could be some overlapping, as we can see in the Bundaberg and Isis region where we could see some competition between Bundaberg Sugar and the Isis mill. We may see something similar to that in the northern area where the Tully mill borders Bundaberg Sugar and going up into the Mulgrave area. Mr Palaszczuk: It is the same with the Mackay area. There is Mackay, Plane Creek and possibly Proserpine that form a region. We will not decide that. That is up to the industry. Mr ROWELL: So the industry—not just millers but certainly the growers will be involved in this process? Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Clause 25, as read agreed to. Clauses 26 to 29, as read, agreed to. Clause 30— Mr HORAN (4.25 p.m.): Clause 30 abolishes cane production areas. That is one of the key principles that is concerning thousands of growers throughout Queensland. The Sugar Industry Act of 1999 states that a cane production area is property and may, for example, be sold, leased, subleased or otherwise transferred subject to requirements under this part. So with the stroke of a legislative pen we are getting rid of something that has been of very much substance and importance to people within the sugarcane industry. I understand from the briefings that I have had that there are some areas of the state where the cane production areas have not been fully utilised and there are other areas of the state where they have been. We have to look at this in totality. There are also parts of the state where there is absolutely no doubt that people paid large amounts of money to the state government because there was a cane production area associated with a property that they purchased. The best example of that would be the Burdekin. When the Burdekin blocks were first put up for auction sale they brought a micro price, or whatever— Mr Rowell: Moderate price. Mr HORAN: A moderate price. Then the Primary Industries Minister at the time—I think it was Mr Casey—under the Goss government provided for cane production areas to go with those blocks of ground and they were auctioned for extremely high prices because they had the added value. Without a cane production area they were a flat piece of land that had to be cleared, had to have channels brought in, had to have infrastructure put in place and so forth. Nothing could necessarily have been grown on it. Adding the cane production area provided the value. That is why the definition in the Sugar Industry Act says that a cane production area is property, because it had value. It had substance to it; it was worth something. In a way, it is like a hillside and a pineapple farm. A hillside has only so much value, but if going with that particular property was the right to have shares in the pineapple cannery, that added some real value to that piece of land. As a purchased entity it made it dearer to buy, but it also made it a more easily tradeable entity. That is what this particular clause is doing: it is getting rid of those cane production areas and, along with them, cane production boards and everything else. The old system contained the mill supply committee and so forth. So it was an orderly system. Importantly, there was the issue of the adverse effects. We talked about that earlier, and I do not think I need to go over that again other than to emphasise again how important, unique and different this industry is. In most other forms of primary production, bar dairying—they are constrained in dairying—they can send to different suppliers. In the case of dairying they have a product that is refrigerated. In some places they have only one place to which to send it. The other unique things are the ongoing harvesting and so on which varies from other industries. It was so important to have a system that was straightforward, fair and simple. I can only reiterate that this is what growers are fearful of. This is one of the cornerstones of their industry and it is being taken away. We are moving to a multiple system of collectives and individual contracts. We found out in the debate today that these contracts also allow the entry of a third party into them. We can see some good aspects of that and we can see some very dangerous aspects of that as well. We do not agree with the abolition of cane production areas. I have spoken to a number of people about this issue—serious people who have been in the industry for a long time. They have thought it through. They are not that silly that they would turn their back on legislative change that 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 621 meant there was opportunity to do better or to be more productive. They are not silly. If they saw good sense in this, there would be unanimous agreement. People would be saying, 'Here is something that is going to give us another $5 or $10 a tonne for our cane,' and they would agree with it, but they do not. They have thought it through and they see an erosion of their strengths, an erosion of the sound system that was put in place through the effluxion of time and the wisdom of those people who wanted to see people dealt with fairly so everybody shared fairly in the price. In private enterprise, people can compete one against the other, and it often happens in sections of the primary industry, but I think the sugar industry has been a very strong community minded type of industry. It grew out of an industry that was exceptionally hard, with the cutting of cane and the hard physical labour that was involved. I think there came to be a realisation that, if they were to justly and equitably share the processes of harvesting, the varying c.c.s. and the risky times to harvest, that was the only fair way for a district to operate—not to have a district operating in a dog-eat-dog manner with people having particular contracts where they got the best of it and the others got the crumbs off the table. We do not agree with the abolition of cane production areas. We think it is taking away a cornerstone of the industry and something that was the very foundation and basis to move on to negotiating committees that did things fairly and achieved the best possible result for the grower. At the same time it still allowed for the innovation that we are looking for not only in production but also harvesting, transport and at the mills themselves. It still would have allowed us to have exemptions from vesting so we could go on to value adding and higher production. We are forward-thinking people here and the people we have talked to are forward-thinking people, but you do not make change simply for the sake of change or because some consultants have come in and think that you could do this and that. You have to listen to the wisdom of those at the coalface, those who have borrowings, who have taken risks, who have been successful, who have seen change and who know what change will work, what change will not work and what change is unfair. For all of those reasons, we are opposed to this particular clause. Mrs MENKENS: As I said quite earnestly earlier, I feel very strongly about the abolition of the CPA. I am particularly concerned about no compensation being payable to the holder of a cane production area. I liken this to somebody who owns a beautiful home in Chelmer who finds that beautiful home suddenly transferred to a town such as Home Hill. Compare the relative value of that home when it is put in a small country town with where it was. I certainly take on board what the minister said to us earlier about the collective contract, but I cannot help feeling that is somewhat similar to goodwill in business. When a business is sold and the goodwill goes with it, that contract really depends on the person involved. Maybe the person buying that next farm may not be able to negotiate such a lucrative contract. Therefore, I cannot feel that the value in that land as it was prior to this will still remain. I really am concerned about this abolition of the cane production area. My question to the minister is: can he clarify proposed section 396—the existing instrument, agreement, understanding and undertaking? I am a little confused about the instrument such as the BSES and the PBR licence agreement. Could the minister enlighten us a little further on that? Mr PALASZCZUK: This is purely transitional. Previously, growers were identified more by their CPA. Now, with the CPAs being abolished, they will be recognised by themselves—by the grower—rather than the CPA. Mr ROWELL: The whole ethos of growing a crop in an orderly manner was pretty much essential as far as the sugar industry is concerned. It has been recognised over a long period of time. I know we can throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that we do not want any of that anymore, but, for the range of reasons that we have already been through, we do not want to cart cane any further and we do not want to put cane on roads rather than use rail transport. I can see that this will happen because, if you are going to move from one mill to another, if that is really what it is all about, there is probably no rail mechanism to go between the two mills. What will then be required is to put it on the road. I know the problems of road transport and using B-doubles, and that is probably the best way to move it because you are moving 35 to 40 tonnes in one movement. I can envisage growers who find they can get a better deal in the short term going to another mill. They will probably inevitably go to road transport, and that will put some more pressure on the road transport system and the roads that we have to build. B-double transport has to have a very specific type of road. There needs to be a dedicated road to be able to put B-doubles on it. 622 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004

We have talked about selling CPA assignments in the past, and they were worth quite a bit of money going back a few years. They are probably not worth very much at the present time. At one stage, about four years ago, I leased some of my CPA to do something else on the land which I considered to be a higher value crop. It gave me the opportunity to bring it back at some time if I wanted to buy additional land. Now I can do whatever I like. That is what the minister is saying: please yourself; let it all hang out, everything is fine. Mr Palaszczuk: Don't let it all hang out here. Mr ROWELL: Okay. I have probably gone too far. What I am saying is that you can go anywhere and plant it anywhere. There is no dedicated route as far as transport is concerned. In many instances, new roads will have to be built. If it is necessary to go between mills where no rail line exists, you have to use the road transport and cut up roads, and councils will be up for a lot of money. If that is the way that the industry is going to go, I can only hope that the government will provide funding for roads because it will be a very costly exercise in some instances—not in all. It will only be some mills that you will be able to do this with, too. The Mulgrave mill will be a typical example, with Bundaberg Sugar adjacent to it and the Tully mill. Then, when you go down to the area of the member for Mirani, similar things are starting to happen there but for some very good reasons. Under the previous legislation, if there was agreement between the mill suppliers on both sides and the mill owners on both sides it could be done anywhere. There is nothing new about transferability, it is just the mechanism by which we do it that is different. One of the big features of the CPA was that farmers knew what areas were under cane. They could go out and estimate the area within five per cent or 10 per cent—and that is taking into account all the things we are talking about such as growing conditions. They had a fairly clear understanding of the time the mill needed to crush the crop. If farmers estimated that there were two million tonnes or something of that nature, they knew it would take so long to crush the crop and they could allocate a weekly rate of crush and allocate the weeks that the mill would start and finish. We can forget about all that now. Now we will just have a guesstimate. Maybe there will be some mechanism put in place to deal with this. The industry did this already under the CPA. Basically, we are seeing the end of that system. Under the old system farmers had an entitlement to grow cane. That is not going to be the case any longer. They will now have to go to the mill and ask them whether they want the cane. That is the difference between the CPA and what is proposed in this bill. I can see some predatory arrangements going on between some mill areas because of the way they may conduct their business and compete against one another. Time expired. Mr MALONE: I wish to raise some issues in relation to the CPA. CPA is not worth a lot of money currently because the industry is in trouble. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have heard that 10 times in the last 10 minutes. It is a bit repetitive. Mr MALONE: I will carry on. When there is prosperity in the industry the right to grow cane is a valuable component of it. The right to grow cane is part of the CPA. Obviously, the values have dropped in CPA. As the member for Hinchinbrook said, he leased his out a number of years ago. That was a mechanism by which the industry could maintain productivity where land was being retired from growing cane. The whole basis for the loss of CPA seems to be predicated on the view that they do not have this in New South Wales. The member for Hinchinbrook raised the issue of infrastructure in terms of the haulage of cane. The CPA was able to ensure that cane was grown and retained to be grown in areas close to the infrastructure that was needed to haul that cane to the mill. The issue is the maintenance and deterioration of roads. Once they start hauling cane any distance on a council owned road the result is horrendous. In my area some expansion took place and the cane was actually hauled through to a siding and then taken to Mackay Sugar, which was about 70 kilometres away. They utterly destroyed a council road. They ripped up the bitumen road and took it back to gravel. Under the current system we can have a situation where people can virtually grow cane anywhere. Who is going to pay to estimate or map the new areas? The current system is regulated. There is a satellite mapping service that is put in place and launched every year. The mill has a reasonably spot-on idea of how much land is going to be harvested, how much is 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 623 fallow, how much is first ratoon, how much is second ratoon and how much is plant cane. They can do a reasonable estimate. We had an issue a couple of years ago where, with all of that technology, the estimates were about 20 per cent out. That had real impacts on our forward selling onto the world market. We had a demand for sugar on the world market that we were not able to supply simply because we were not able to estimate the amount of cane or sugar we had in the paddock. I have some trouble understanding how we are going to get a handle on the issue of people dropping out of the industry, coming into industry on a yearly basis and not knowing the area we have under cane. Who is going to pay for the satellite mapping? Who is going to do the estimates? It is a mess. If we had a small industry we could probably handle it like they do in New South Wales. It is a closed industry. It is a cooperative industry. The areas are well defined. Where I am in Plane Creek and Sarina—I will pick figures off the top of my head—probably 15,000 or 20,000 hectares is under cane. There is probably another 15,000 or 20,000 hectares that could grow cane. What happens if the industry picks up and we get a situation where, let us hope, the world price goes to 10c a pound and the cattle market falls and guys transfer from the beef industry to the sugar industry and suddenly we have another 10,000 hectares under cane? Those people would expect that somewhere down the track they will get their cane crushed. The mill owner would be in a beautiful position to say, 'We will take the cane closest to the mill and you other guys can go jump,' or, 'We will give you $5 a tonne for your cane.' I can see some horrendous situations arising. Farmers really need a supply contract before they go and plant some cane. When does that start? It takes 18 months or two years sometimes to get the land cleared and planted. Do we get a supply contract two years before we start sending cane to the mill? Has the minister thought all this through? The CHAIRMAN: Order! I make the point that the abolition of CPA has been discussed right through this debate. Members are not asking the minister a question; they are making statements that have been generally made before. I must admit that some statements made by the member for Mirani were different. Mr Horan interjected. The CHAIRMAN: It was an interesting comment that he made. I think sometimes we should just say that we have had enough. That is what I am suggesting. I am very relaxed. I do not want to cite repetition and standing order 141 again and say that you are going too far and sit you down. Mr ROWELL: Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Chairman. I want to raise the issue of harvesting because it is quite interesting. We talked about the estimation of the paddocks. At certain points during the season we have accurate information about what has been harvested and what has not been harvested because those areas have been measured. About every month or so the mill comes along and has a look at the maps and makes a decision about what is being taken and what is being left. We do some additional estimates. We do get an accurate indication of how we should go about reallocating a proportion of the available fleet of the mill. I am talking about bins. In some cases they are carting the cane for long distances already. They are going up and down the highways some 70 and 80 kilometres. They have to synchronise the cane that is left and the ability of the mill to finish the season at a prescribed time. It is not set down in concrete. They are agreements that were reached in the mill supply agreements that we had before. We get a fairly clear indication of what is left. So the relocation of effort with regard to harvesting is quite important, and it is something that we have dealt with over a period of time. For that to go away would simply mean that there would not be any true mechanism to indicate how much cane is left and what is required to take it off, and the orderly mechanism of removing the crop to a large extent would be gone. I can see some mechanisms that can be put in place, but, once again, if everybody plants whatever they want wherever they want, there is no absolute guarantee that we will have a clear handle on what is left out there in the field. While it may seem a minor issue to people who are not involved in the industry, I can assure them that equity in terms of harvesting is quite important. The CPAs provide a very important mechanism to measure the area in the first instance and also the amount of cane that is left. Without the CPAs, anything can prevail. I am very concerned and want to know from the minister what might be put in place. I suppose it is up to the industry. That is what the minister is going to 624 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 28 Apr 2004 say. He will say that it is up to the industry to do whatever it likes. It can please itself. If it wants to go about some process in regions and maybe other regions do not, it is all about the entitlement. There is also the fact that the mill will say, 'You plant whatever you like. If I can munch it up and eat it within a certain amount of time, I'll do it. If I can't, well, we'll just have to leave it there.' Maybe wet weather will prevail. Maybe it will go on for months longer than we anticipate, and that is critical when we get to the November-December period. Those people who have made a supply agreement with a mill could find themselves in a position where it is not possible for their cane to be harvested because the mill cannot stay open because of wet weather or whatever. So the whole ethos of an orderly system of removing the crop and knowing what is there in terms of the capacity of the mill—and it is all very much integrated—will be lost. Mr HORAN: This is my final say on this. As one goes through this bill and the debate, they really start to come to realise that what is happening here in some cases is that the government is trying to put the legislation through just for legislation's sake and for change's sake without really getting a better result. That is why experienced people in the industry are wary and that is why so many people signed the petition that they signed. When one looks at the previous speakers who know and understand the industry, one can see that this is all going to have to be done again. The government has got rid of cane production boards and CPAs, but it is going to have to put something back together again—all over again—to manage this system of rampant expansion that might damage council roads or where haul-out trucks are working in areas where it is not appropriate for haul-out trucks to work and where the unfairness of delivery or harvesting arrangements will be out of kilter again. We had an orderly system that was structured and formal which was put together and adjusted over the years, but the government has thrown it all out with this theoretical hope that if we have some change it will make things better for the industry. If one examines the way the whole structure was anyway, the ability to have collectives and the ability to have individual contracts were already there but all anchored to this solid foundation of cane production areas and mill supply committees and cane production boards. Now it is going to throw all the dice up in the air and see how they fall and how it works out. It is just a shame. The government could have done some sensible things in this legislation with the exemptions, which we have agreed to. It could have done the ministerial direction. There might have been some other changes, but one can see that regions will have to form other plans, groups and committees again. They will have to do this all over again, and as a previous speaker said the only difference might be that it is done on a regional basis. But the government is going to have to reinvent all of this and put it all back together again, even though these groups have been there on a district and regional basis. We will need to give it another name or another badge and pretty much do the same thing all over again, even though everyone will feel good that they have made some changes. The real things that are going to help the industry are the things being done under some of the plans being put together with the Commonwealth government for physical changes such as harvesting and so forth. All this legislative change— Mr Rowell interjected. Mr HORAN: There are some aspects of this that are good and that we agree with. I want to finish up by saying that. The strong foundations have been taken away for some theoretical hope that we will throw it all up in the air and it will fall a certain way. The government had the opportunity to do that, but it has taken away those assets of the cane production areas and those sound committees and boards that kept the system orderly and fair. Question—That clause 30, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 63—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C. Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 18—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Rickuss, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 31— Mr HORAN (5.02 p.m.): Clause 31 and some of the following clauses are consequential on the elimination of the cane production areas. This clause relates to the supply agreements. 28 Apr 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Bill 625

Basically, it contains the arrangements for the termination of the existing supply agreements. The clause states that no compensation is payable to a party to the agreement because of the fact that the agreement is terminated. In other words, I take it that any existing supply agreement is finished and growers have to enter into a new intention to contract and then a new supply contract. The clause also states— To remove any doubt, subsection (2) does not affect any liability incurred under the agreement before the commencement. There is also a new section in this clause that relates to undecided applications. I take it that, similarly, supply agreements that are under way are all finished—null and void—and no compensation is payable. So this clause basically wipes out any arrangements or agreements that have been made and we then have to revert to the new contracts that have to be put in place for 2005. That is where we started with this bill—the supply arrangements for 2005. So growers have to get started immediately there is assent to this bill so that they can make arrangements for harvesting that commences in June or July next year. Mr ROWELL: I thought that, at present, because the legislation has not been put in place, what has been negotiated will continue for this year. I think that is the case. That is quite important. In many cases growers are well advanced with negotiations with the mills and it is essential that that situation is recognised. One of the things that used to occur that I am not quite sure is going to occur with these new arrangements because of matters such as arbitration is that we used to have three-year rolling arrangements. Agreements would be signed up for a period—and they may not necessarily be three-year agreements—and they just keep on adding on to them and deleting the year so that there was some certainty about what was going to happen within the milling system and what was going to happen within the growing system. As the minister realises, we have a crop that lasts for four or five years. To make some ad hoc agreement year by year would be totally out of the question in terms of the best interests of the production of the crops. Mr Palaszczuk: You can sign contracts for longer than a year. Mr ROWELL: Yes, but with the phasing out of arbitration and that sort of thing, how will that impact on agreements that are being made over a period? Will we be able to extend it beyond a year-by-year situation? We have deadlines of 2005, 2006 and all those sorts of things. I would just like the minister to give us some indication. They are not mill supply committees. They are not even negotiating teams. Somebody out there somehow or other is going to draw together some collective agreements, individual agreements and all of those sorts of things. Not even the mill areas really matter. It is the whole conundrum about what will happen in the future. So maybe the minister could just explain his thinking about this legislation. Mr PALASZCZUK: All existing agreements were made under the current system. Of course, there was no choice and flexibility in those agreements. We really cannot require those agreements to continue simply because of how they were made. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Things are open to the parties. Parties can voluntarily adopt the existing contract and continue it to suit their needs. It is up to them to make that decision. As we all know, arbitrated agreements last only one year, anyway. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32— Mr HORAN (5.08 p.m.): This clause refers to the mill suppliers committee. Basically, we are looking at consequential matters. This bill gets rid of them all. There is only one query that I have here about the effect on corporate status. The clause says that there is no effect on corporate status. What was the corporate status of a mill suppliers committee? Mr PALASZCZUK: Under the act, they were basically statutory bodies. That was their status. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clauses 33 to 37, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Mr PALASZCZUK (5.10 p.m.): I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions. Quite obviously, this legislation has brought about quite a deal of emotion. 626 Government Accountability 28 Apr 2004

Listening to honourable members opposite, who discussed the clauses, especially the members who actually do own cane farms— Mr Rowell: Concerned more than most. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is what I meant, quite obviously. Mr Malone: Sugar electorates. Mr PALASZCZUK: Sugar electorates. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about uncertainty. However, in light of the way things were going with the sugar industry under the current legislation, I do not think the industry was heading for a bright future at all. At the end of the day, with an agreement with industry, Canegrowers and the Sugar Milling Council, this legislation was prepared and introduced into the House. Finally, we have gone through the committee stage so that we can proclaim this legislation. Unlike certain people, I am an optimist. I believe in the future of the sugar industry. I believe in the people who work within the sugar industry—those 6,500 growers. We in the government are there to try to keep as many of those people as possible in the industry. That is why we have our $33 million program to help not only the growers, the millers and the harvesters but also the workers to go through that change. With that in place and with support from the Commonwealth government—I understand that support will be announced some time tomorrow—I believe that, whilst it is down now, the industry, with this legislative change and with the additional funds from the Commonwealth government, has a bright future. We have to work together. The state government, the federal government and industry need to work together to bring about that important and necessary change for our industry. Finally, I thank honourable members opposite for their contributions. I also thank Mr Horan for the manner in which he brought up issues that he believed to be relevant to the bill. I also thank the other members who spoke. I believe this is probably one of the most constructive debates we have had in this House for a long time in relation to a great icon and a great industry in Australia that is undergoing great change. That change has to occur to make our industry competitive on the world scene, to make our industry more adaptable to be able to value add and use new technologies so that, at the end of the day, instead of people saying, 'I can't see a future for the industry,' or, 'I can see the demise of the sugar industry in 10 years,' we can say the opposite. We can say that there is a bright future for the industry and that we in this House were part of that decision to ensure the future viability of the industry. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (5.14 p.m.), by leave: I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McArdle, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C. Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 19—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.23 p.m.): I move— That this House expresses its serious concerns about the systematic abuse of accountability and transparency mechanisms by the Beattie Labor government as recently evidenced by hiding embarrassing documents in cabinet for 30 years, abuse of FOI laws and its handling of the Lockhart River cover-up and calls for the public release of all statements and other evidence relating to the Lockhart River cover-up and supports the call by the member for Cook, Jason O'Brien, for the CMC to release the details of his statements given to police. In the last term and during the early parts of this term we have seen an alarming and growing trend from this government—a trend of this government becoming increasingly unaccountable; is 28 Apr 2004 Government Accountability 627 less and less concerned about freedom of information laws; is less and less concerned about the abuse of the cabinet exemption process; and is less and less concerned about being open, honest and accountable in this parliament. It is more and more concerned about its own image; more and more concerned about spin; and more and more concerned about cover up. I think that is the hallmark of a government that has a huge majority. It is the hallmark of a government whose majority does not in any way reflect the two-party preferred vote which it received at the last state election. It is, nevertheless, a dynamic by which this parliament and the community at large are increasingly having to live and having to adapt. Let us look at some of the freedom of information issues which the opposition has tried to deal with under this government recently. The following freedom of information applications were refused for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the cabinet exemption clause. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet—expenditure claims, fuel card, et cetera for ministerial vehicles. We know about that and we know about the consequences of that. That is why the honourable member for Currumbin sits in this place, combined with her hard work. The Department of Justice, relating to the Director of Public Prosecutions' Christmas Party; the Department of Justice, the Hanson trial; the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, ministerial vehicle accidents—and has that not been a tale that we have seen develop and evolve with some degree of interest over the last little while—and I may come back to some of these examples. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet, transition to government documents; the Department of Families, CMC inquiry briefing notes; Main Roads, internal audit reports. Why would they need to be held through that process? The Office of the Premier, representations by ALP members/MPs regarding government policy; WorkCover, workers compensation claim involving ministers or parliamentary secretaries. The Office of the Premier, workers compensation involving ministers or parliamentary secretaries. FOI partial access only—documents were partially refused for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the cabinet exemption clause. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Cherbourg briefing notes—eight folios access refused. Was that not an embarrassment? We went up there during the election period. It was a most extraordinary situation in which a group of very brave women were telling the most heart wrenching stories about what was happening to their children and grandchildren with regards to abuse and the fact that the instruments of government, which were supposed to be dealing with them, were not dealing with them. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I say to the member for Southport that the reason they were crying out was that the government was ignoring them. That is a sad indictment on people such as him. It was only after that that the Premier decided to go up there and talk to those brave women and decided to at least give the impression that he was doing something to assist them. When the Premier was asked if he had been there, he said yes. When they asked him when, he said, 'Sometime in the last 20-odd years.' He sought to give the impression that he had actually been there and was aware of the issue. I return to the FOI documents on which partial access only was given. The Queensland Police Service, DNA report; CMC, DPP Christmas party—two folios refused. The Department of Families, Community Visitor Program; the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Children's Commissioner's powers, et cetera. The litany is quite extraordinary. Returning to the circumstances surrounding the fuel card cover-up for ministerial electorate vehicles, why does this government believe it is necessary to hide that for 30 years so that people cannot access it? I was more than happy to release mine. I released it. It would have been a cure for insomnia. I do not know what the government was hiding when it wanted to hide its record for 30 years. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will come to that. In October 2003 when the accidents that the Premier is talking about occurred his MSB was provided with that particular information. We have a copy of it. We provided that information. We cannot do anything in our office without the Premier. He is the one in his office who actually approves our expenditure. He has all of that stuff over there. If he and his officers are incapable of databasing and filing all the information— Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I did after the Premier was not even able to find it. 628 Government Accountability 28 Apr 2004

Mr Beattie: When did you release it? Mr SPRINGBORG: It was over there in the Premier's office. It just goes to show how hopeless the systems of government are. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is over there and the Premier is the one who is responsible for approving every single thing that the opposition does. In October last year the Premier received that report and he approved it. All of this information has been hidden by the government. What has happened with the Lockhart River cover-up? There were four public servants and one member of parliament who were referred to in that CMC report. In that report it said that they either concealed information, they misled the police or lied but they suffered no sanction whatsoever. Many people are concerned about that. I am concerned about that, as I was concerned about the Premier and his response to it in parliament the other day. Why did it take the Premier some two days in this place and some two weeks outside of this place to come clean and fess up to what Teresa Mullan was actually doing? I believe the only way we can get to the bottom of this, quite frankly, is for all of that information which is held by the CMC—that is, the statements from the witnesses and the evidence that was given during that period of time—to be publicly released. Only by doing that will we be assured and guaranteed that the process has been properly followed and there has been no wrongdoing. The member for Cook seems to be maintaining some innocence along the way. The only thing that we have to indicate the involvement of the member for Cook in this whole affair is what was in the CMC report the other day, and it was far from glowing. If the member for Cook believes he can be cleared or in some way exonerated by the release of the statements that he gave to the police, then why should that information not be released? Maybe there is something in there that the member for Cook knows that the CMC did not know or other people do not know. If that is his contention, then that information should be released. He should be given that chance to clear his name and re-establish his credibility. I believe the same applies to all other information held by the CMC and others in relation to this. We already know that the CMC has said to certain people in the media that this information is going to be withheld; it is not going to be made available. There are a lot of people who are very concerned about the way that that inquiry took place, about the types of questions asked and about the nature of the statements given. We always said from the outset that there was a very serious concern insofar as the CMC's capacity to get to the bottom of this when evidence was being given behind closed doors. There is no robustness in that process. There is not the robustness which was evidenced in the Carruthers inquiry or the Shepherdson inquiry, where a protagonist has the opportunity to be able to instruct their counsel to ask those questions. Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.33 p.m.): I rise to second the motion that has been moved by the member for Southern Downs and the Leader of the Opposition. It is a motion which should be supported by every member in this House because the issues that this motion outline and express concern about should be of concern to every Queenslander—every Queenslander who is represented by the members of this House. The members of this House should tonight in this chamber reflect that concern and support this motion. There is a big lie being practised in Queensland today. The big lie is that this government is somehow open, accountable and honest. The only credibility that that lie is given is by repetition. Every time the Premier stands up in front of the television cameras he starts off by repeating this big lie that somehow his government is honest and accountable. The truth, however, is accumulating day after day, week after week to demonstrate just how untrue that statement is. The Leader of the Opposition went through some examples—examples like the misuse of the FOI provisions, taking truckloads of documents to cabinet simply to protect them from the scrutiny that the people of Queensland should be able to expect. Those are the sorts of things which give a lie to the Premier's continual statements. How does the Premier have the gall to stand up in front of those television cameras day after day knowing what he knows? How does he have the hide to stand up there with a straight face and say that his government is open and 28 Apr 2004 Government Accountability 629 accountable? It is an act, and his falseness and deceit of the people of Queensland will be revealed in time because it is just an act. He knows that those statements are not true. Perhaps the greatest example of the lack of accountability of this government is seen in this parliament every day. This is the ultimate place of accountability, in my opinion. This is where a government—whoever that government is—comes to be accountable. The processes of this parliament are designed to ensure that the government is accountable to the people of Queensland and the members of the executive government are accountable to the parliament. That is the way that these parliamentary processes have evolved over time, and the Premier has made a mockery of them. He has turned this parliament into a joke because day after day after day he abuses those accountability measures that should be respected by every member of this parliament because they are so important to the parliamentary process and they are so important to the whole concept of democracy. Day after day we see ministers come in here and refuse to answer questions. We see the Premier stand up here and turn this parliament into a stage. It is all about the 10-second grab on television. It is all about getting the grab for the TV every night. We see the Premier act it up for the television cameras rather than give any real commitment to the type of accountability that the people of Queensland deserve in this place and that anyone who had any real respect for this parliament would be prepared to come in here and subject his government to. This government has no respect for accountability; it has no respect for honesty. Honesty is something that the government and the Premier simply do not understand. It is a word. It is part of that catechism that he leads into every press conference with. In reality, there is no honesty, there is no accountability and we see it here in the parliament every day. We saw it this morning and yesterday morning in relation to the two dud ministers who should, by anybody's judgment, be prepared to come into this parliament and be accountable for their actions. His government is not prepared to do that and those two dud ministers are not prepared to do that. They come in here and refuse to answer those questions, and that in itself is an abuse of accountability. Let me turn to the Lockhart River cover-up, which is the second part of this motion moved by the member for Southern Downs and the Leader of the Opposition. The Lockhart River cover-up is a great example of the way this government operates. It is a great example of what has happened a number of times in the past with a number of different issues, but this time the cover- up came unstuck. All vestiges of accountability and honesty went out the window. We saw people lying desperately to cover up to the extent that we do not know who was lying now. We will never find out who was telling the truth, more importantly. It is very difficult to work out whether anyone was telling the truth. Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.38 p.m.): I move the following amendment— That all words after 'House' are omitted and the following words inserted— 'applauds the accountability and transparency mechanisms of the Beattie Labor Government as recently evidenced by its proper administration of FOI laws and its handling of the Lockhart River matter, particularly in its dealings with the CMC which stated on page 16 of its report "On the contrary, the evidence is that the Premier and Chief of Staff acted entirely appropriately and were of assistance to the police in the matter.' I advise the House that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Liddy Clark, would have been participating in this debate but she had already been given leave by me to present a keynote address to the south Queensland region community justice group forum in Toowoomba. In her recently published memoirs, former National Party minister Di McCauley recalled that she had been accused in parliament of having been feted at lunch by a representative of a development company which later benefited from a rezoning decision. In parliament she denied the allegation as she had been unaware of the businessman's involvement in the development company. Later she learnt that the opposition—that is us, the Labor Party—had put in an FOI request in relation to all of the documents associated with the company or the rezoning decision. Amongst the documents found was a briefing note which stated that the person with whom she had had lunch did indeed hold a position with the company in question and it detailed the company's activity. In her book, Di McCauley said she had never seen the briefing note before the FOI search. However, she said— In the end, I was ordered by the Premier's legal man— that is Rob Borbidge's legal man— 630 Government Accountability 28 Apr 2004 to send all of the paperwork pertaining to the matter to Cabinet and, in this way, the papers were exempt from FOI. Exempt for 30 years! To have the National Party come in here and talk about accountability is like talking about Dracula being in charge of the blood bank. I table that extract from the book. The Leader of the Opposition, Lawrence Springborg, was a minister in the Borbidge government. That is how they treated FOI and cabinet. For those opposite to come in here and talk about FOI is nonsense. Di McCauley also said that she would never vote for her successor in Callide. Mr Seeney: I don't want her to. Mr BEATTIE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition never wanted her to vote for him. Her exact words were— ... it seemed to me that Seeney was indeed the ugly face of politics and I wanted nothing to do with him. I am sure she is not alone. I am also sure that many people would be concerned about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's commitment to accountability. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want to make the Premier aware that 74 per cent of my electorate did vote for me. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Mr BEATTIE: That does not include Di McCauley, the former member. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's commitment to accountability in the democratic process is certainly open to question. He publicly admitted—and I included that transcript in Hansard—making false claims in this parliament as a tactical ploy. In other words, he is a tactical liar and he admitted it. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is untrue and the Premier knows it is untrue. If the Premier would like to re-open that debate, I would be only too happy to debate it. I have a nice little file that I have not used yet. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat! Mr BEATTIE: Here is a man who attacks my government yet admits, in his own words—and I table the transcript that is on the record of this parliament—to using tactical ploys, to saying things in this House and elsewhere that he does not believe. Yet he talks about accountability. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find that reference offensive. I ask that it be withdrawn. It is not true. Mr BEATTIE: I withdraw it. The opposition this week deliberately set out to undermine the parliament and its institutions. They are not prepared to accept the umpire's decision. The opposition criticises the CMC when it does not give them the outcome they want. It is behaving like a spoilt brat. When they do not get what they want they attack the independent umpire. In contrast, the government fully supports the parliament and the institutions of the parliament even when those institutions take actions that could harm the government. So systematic are our accountability measures on this side that it was I who sent the material on the Lockhart River issue to the CMC, unsolicited. I would have accepted the outcome regardless of what it was. Let us have a look at the accountability measures. We go well beyond the statutory requirements for tabling information. For example, we routinely table in parliament six-monthly reports of ministerial office expenses. That is something the coalition never did. We have annual reports from departments that are far more comprehensive and transparent than annual reports of the coalition. I have also recently tabled in parliament the following: advertising expenses for major campaigns such as the Rugby Union World Cup, details of use of the government jet and a string of others. In addition to that, we have published hospital elective surgery waiting times every quarter. We are publishing on the community's information gateway web site. We are seeking Queensland's view on the proposal to publish information about year 12 achievements. No government has been as accountable as mine. Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (5.43 p.m.): I second the amendment moved by the Premier. I have no trouble in seconding the amendment because the motion before the House tonight is frankly an insult to the House. This is the first motion that the opposition has put in this term of the government. It is nothing more than a grab bag of their favourite and pathetic whinges. It is not even grammatically coherent. How dare the Queensland National Party come in here and impugn the integrity of this government in relation to accountability and transparency. The Queensland National Party is the 28 Apr 2004 Government Accountability 631 architect of the special branch. Remember when the schools were being underfunded, when hospitals were being underfunded, they used taxpayers' money to pursue ordinary citizens going about a democrat process. It was under the leadership of the Queensland National Party that the Dean brothers became the face of Queensland. Remember the late night demolitions. There was nothing transparent about them. Who can forget the colour coded maps in the Department of Public Works where the whole state was divided into green, blue and red. Everyone knew that schools in Labor electorates were to get nothing. I remember when they were tabled in this parliament in the first term of the Goss government. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: What has that got to do with accountability, they say. What about the secret plans they had to privatise school cleaning after having promised to keep the jobs of school cleaners? The Queensland National Party comes in here to lecture us on public administration. When the Goss government was elected in 1989 the public administration of Queensland was a basket case. It was a national disgrace. Under the National Party years things that had been part of normal public administration in the rest of Australia and the world for more than two decades were unknown. There was no appointment on merit in the Public Service. There was no freedom of information legislation. There was no judicial review. There were no estimates committees or public account committees. There were not any annual reports. There was no EEO or antidiscrimination legislation. The Goss government had to spend its first term bringing Queensland's public administration into the 20th century. They dare to come in here and question us and expect us to have respect for their record. As the Premier has said, we are an accountable government. In my portfolio in the last week we have issued a discussion paper that proposes to make more information available about Queensland schools than has ever been in the public arena before. We propose to provide more information to parents about their own child's performance. We propose to make results about schools available on web sites so that school communities can see what is happening in their own schools and to make the performance of high schools more accountable to the public by reporting both state and non-state school reports. The same is true in the Department of Health. I do not remember health waiting lists being published. I do not remember the member for Toowoomba South publishing health waiting lists. It is not comfortable, but we do it, and do it on a regular basis. We put that information out there for the public. I echo the Premier's comments that taking lessons from the Liberals and Nationals on transparency and accountability is like taking financial advice from Christopher Skase. I am sure there are some Seinfeld fans in the House tonight. Those who are avid Seinfeld fans will remember the episode about 'Bizarro World', where everything did not make sense. Having listened to the Queensland National Party stand up and tell us, with a straight face, about accountability I feel like I have gone through the looking glass and I am in 'Bizarro World'. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition, 'It is a very sad little motion we have before us tonight. You have a massive credibility gap to leap and you have got a long way to go.' Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (5.48 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this evening. The first line of the motion states— That this House expresses its concern at the systematic abuse of accountability and transparency mechanisms by the Beattie Labor government. There are many issues confronting this government that have not been answered. Why did the Premier take all the discretionary details from the Department of Main Roads Christmas party to cabinet? Merri Rose's field documents went to cabinet. This happened because they did not want to be accountable to the people of Queensland. That is it precisely. Let me touch on the estimates hearings for a moment. The performance indicators are almost meaningless as they are hidden by the government agenda, and that agenda is that details do not relate to individual programs. Let us look at the former Minister for Families last year during questioning during estimates. When we got leaked information, we were able to get an inquiry in this place and even then it was restricted to foster care. As a result, we knew exactly and precisely what was happening in the department. We had a CMC inquiry, not a royal commission. The reason we did not have a royal commission is that the government knew how serious the 632 Government Accountability 28 Apr 2004 situation was in that department. There was a lot of fact there that was not uncovered. The people of Queensland knew the answers, but it was hidden until after the election. The real issue is that a royal commission would have unearthed all that, would have brought it out in the open, would have allowed the Queensland Police Service to do a full and thorough investigation and bring to justice those people who were violating the act and make them accountable for their crime. But, no, the CMC inquiry has covered up that and made the government look good while at the same time these people are still hiding behind the act. The fact is that we now have a minister in charge of this section of the department and something has been unearthed. The Premier knows that something is going on there, but the people of Queensland have been hoodwinked again. The Premier has refused to answer specific questions from the media. Whether the Premier likes it or not, the media is an integral part of our free democratic process. With its right to probity and the ethics of its profession, it must substantiate the true facts, unlike the government, which hides behind CMC inquiries to protect itself from thorough public scrutiny which defies the government's logic on transparency and accountability. That is something that this Premier has prophesied ever since day one when he came to government in 1998. Tonight I remind this House that this government always rode into this place on transparency and accountability. Where is it? With regard to the Tugun bypass, this government is now in control of the third parliament under its banner. Six years ago the then member for Currumbin said that she would build the Tugun bypass. Six years later she lost her seat through deceiving the people of Currumbin and the southern Gold Coast. This is the responsibility of the Queensland government, not the third- party federal government. It put the chaff up for the project. The New South Wales Department of Road Transport, the New South Wales Department of the Premier and the New South Wales Department of the Environment are the responsible bodies in conjunction with this Queensland government to see that project through. But, no, what has happened? The former minister in this House for the last six years tipped bucket after bucket after bucket on John Anderson, the federal Transport Minister, and now it wants the money. I hope that the new Minister for Transport does not adopt the same practice. Mr Springborg: What does Martin Ferguson say? Mr JOHNSON: Martin Ferguson agrees with us and he agrees with the federal government: it is a state responsibility. In the moment I have left, I want to come to the situation of accountability in relation to the Lockhart River situation. I know that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy is not in the House tonight. The Premier gave the reason why she is not here, but Thomas Hudson told the truth. He was convicted and fined $150 for a can of VB that he was not even responsible for; it was in his car. He owned up to the fact. There was no criminal conviction lobbied at him, but the other side of the equation is that this minister has not told the truth— Time expired. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (5.53 p.m.): The motion put by the opposition proposes a number of allegations in relation to the government and, to borrow a phrase from the CMC, I regret to inform the House and the opposition in particular that the allegations are unsubstantiated. The allegations are not made out by any of the argument put by the opposition here tonight. Indeed, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have played fast and loose with the truth in this debate tonight which reinforces the Premier's point of the hypocrisy of members opposite when they make these allegations about the government. The allegations in the motion put by the opposition tonight centre on two issues: one is the disclosure of information under the freedom of information laws of the state and the second is the Lockhart River issue. Let me deal with those in turn. Firstly in relation to the disclosure of information, it is true that the law provides for a cabinet exemption. It is true that the law also happens to provide for a range of other statutory exemptions to the disclosure of information under FOI—exemptions that relate to commercial confidentiality, exemptions that relate to police investigations, exemptions that relate to personal information. These are all legitimate exemptions. If the Leader of the Opposition had any objection to any of those exemptions in the law, then when he was in government he could have changed those exemptions to remove them all. 28 Apr 2004 Government Accountability 633

The list of matters that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned here tonight include a range of matters which did not rely on the cabinet exemption whatsoever but relied on other exemptions in the freedom of information laws—exemptions which are entirely legitimate, exemptions on which the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government relied upon himself. If the Leader of the Opposition is arguing that we should remove all of the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, then let him argue that case, because if he does then we will happily disclose matters that he would not have disclosed when he was in government in reliance upon those objections. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition has played fast and loose with the truth. He ignores the law when it is convenient to him, but he also ignores the disclosing of matters that are relevant to him when it is convenient to him. As the Premier pointed out tonight, he sat for a number of days on information about his own use of government vehicles—publicly funded vehicles. Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. That is simply untrue. On 13 October 2003 my office sent to MSB—the Premier's own department—an accident report claim in relation to what the member is saying. If that is not— Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we will not debate the issue. I call the Attorney-General. Mr WELFORD: It makes— Mr Springborg: You are lying to this parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. Mr WELFORD: Mr Speaker, it just makes my case. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, that is unparliamentary and I would ask the member to withdraw. Mr SPRINGBORG: I withdraw. Mr WELFORD: But the point that the Leader of the Opposition has just made has made my case, because his disclosure to MSB is not public disclosure, and he sat on that information knowing the government had to publicly disclose the list that did not include his information, and he did not disclose it for days. So much for the honesty of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me turn to the Lockhart River matter. The opposition has squealed and squealed about the disclosure of matters to the CMC. The CMC has found that, in relation to the Premier, there is no evidence of political interference in the police investigation or in the investigation of the CMC. On the contrary, the evidence is that the Premier and his chief of staff acted entirely appropriately and were of assistance to the police in the matter. The CMC has disclosed the fact that certain staff members gave misleading information. That information is out in the open. Where is the cover-up? Where is the cover-up where an independent authority has investigated the matter and made public findings? The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition are perfectly entitled to make criticisms on the basis of those findings, but they are not entitled to impugn the independent process to which this government has subjected itself. This government has been accountable, because it has been prepared to be accountable to the CMC. It has been prepared to be accountable to the police investigation. It has been prepared to be accountable to all other accountability mechanisms relevant and accountable to the parliament. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr WELFORD: And accountable to the parliament, which is more than we can say for the expert practitioner in the fine art of tactical lies. The expert practitioner in the fine art of tactical lies over there is a hypocrite. Time expired. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. I find that offensive and ask that it be withdrawn. That is the best those opposite can do. I find that offensive. Mr SPEAKER: What did the member find offensive? Mr SEENEY: I find that remark offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. It is quite clearly unparliamentary. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked for a withdrawal. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. 634 Government Accountability 28 Apr 2004

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.00 p.m.): What a remarkable evening we are having with the hypocrisy that is tumbling out of the mouths of the members opposite! I remember coming into this place in the early 1990s and debating the freedom of information legislation. I heard all the platitudes about how we were going to have this brave new world of FOI and all the nasty things that happened during the Bjelke-Petersen era. I heard all of that when I came into this place in 1991. Over the past decade I have sat here and seen FOI systematically abused by the government that actually brought it in. Not only have bucket loads and port loads of papers been taken into cabinet; literally truck loads have been taken to cabinet in a deliberate and blatant breaking of the true spirit and process of the FOI legislation. This particular motion comes from the whole Lockhart River episode. What a farce it was! Members should ask anyone in the community and they will tell them that they thought that it was the greatest farce in the world. The Premier turned an incident where a bottle of wine was taken on a plane 2,000 metres above the ground between Cairns and Brisbane to be drunk on the return journey into a major, major issue that cost the public probably millions. He had to fly the plane back to Lockhart River, there were police investigations, CMC investigations—the lot. But the Premier did that. That was typical. He wanted to turn it into a big issue about himself and in the same process find a scapegoat. That is always the modus operandi: find some little person he can blame—'Not me, Peter Perfect. It was not me; it was some media adviser' or 'It was someone working for the Police Union' or 'It was someone else, but it wasn't me'. That is how the Premier works. Because of all of that, we had this process put in place. In a case where they should have got up and said, 'It was an honest and innocent mistake, a single bottle of wine, we did not mean to do it, we did not understand the rules, we are sorry'—again, that word 'sorry'—it was turned into a big episode. But that exposed how this government operates. It exposed the Premier trying to find someone to blame. It exposed the whole system of the Premier pulling together the troops, all of the legal advisers and everybody else. So they blamed this person. Unfortunately, that person came out and told the truth. Then the Premier was caught in the spotlight with the embarrassment of knowing that it was really not that person who was to blame; it was someone closer to him. So he then sends the matter off to the CMC. Then the reports came out. The report showed that the member for Cook did not tell the police all facts and hid facts, probably under the instructions that he received when they had their team meeting on how to manage this whole affair, how to cover it up— Mr O'BRIEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr HORAN: The member will have his go in a minute. Mr O'BRIEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr HORAN: The member will get five minutes in a minute. Mr O'BRIEN: I find those comments offensive and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr HORAN: Yes, I take it back. The member can try to tell the truth tonight. He has the chance. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South will withdraw. Mr HORAN: I did withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: No, you did not. That was not the word you used. Mr HORAN: I withdrew and I went on to say that you had the chance in your five minutes— Mr SPEAKER: No, you will address the chair also. Mr HORAN: I am trying to. Mr SPEAKER: You are not by facing that way. Mr HORAN: The member has his chance tonight to do that. If this government has any courage, it will release those documents. The member says that he wants the documents released. Let us have them out there in the open and maybe then we might find out the real truth of this whole matter. The Premier found someone lower down the chain that he could blame—a decent person with a decent family. He blamed her and then when she came out and told the truth, he put all of this into action. This is how the Premier operates. He blames someone else. Look at what happened to Ross Musgrove. He got blamed for things. Merri Rose got blamed for this, that and the other. That was another cover-up. All the documents were taken to cabinet. 28 Apr 2004 Government Accountability 635

We are seeing a system by a Premier and a cabinet who are drunk on the margin that they have in this parliament. They no longer really care. They have got 66 or 63 seats. They can do what they like and treat this parliament, the media and the community like a dirty doormat. The Premier thinks that he can manage all of these things, blame someone further down the chain and walk away from it. I think the public are sick and tired of hearing him say 'I have an open and accountable government' when the public know that he has not, that he has a track record of blaming other people, a track record of covering up, whether it is child abuse in the Department of Families, the failure to ensure the proper investigation of child abuse, or whether it is the use of ministerial cars or accidents that occur in those cars— Time expired. Mr O'BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (6.04 p.m.): I rise to support the Premier's amendment. I want to start by rejecting any claim that there has been a cover-up on this issue. In fact, it is doubtful if there is anything left to say about this bottle of wine. If there is any further information, any great analysis, some cutting comment, some remark that is yet unheard, then I would like to hear it. If I hear a comment that I have not heard about this bottle of wine, I will go and jump in the lake. I think there is so much information out there about this bottle of wine and the government's handling of this affair that we are going to have to review the Vegetation Management Act so that we can cut down some more trees to get some more paper to write something down about this bottle of wine. The fact of the matter is that the Premier referred this matter to the Crime and Misconduct Commission so that it could investigate it and it has done so. The Leader of the Opposition called for a public inquiry, but the CMC decided not to do that. It was not the Premier's decision, nor was it this parliament's; it was the independent body's decision. That was its decision. I spent an hour and a half with the Crime and Misconduct Commission. It certainly was not a whitewash; in fact, it was a grilling. The CMC has now reported and no-one—not the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier, not Thomas Hudson; no-one—has more right to be critical of its findings than I have. It would be easy for me to go out there like the Leader of the Opposition and call the CMC every name under the sun because it has made an adverse finding against me. But I will not do that. The CMC has given me a smack on the jaw and I will cop it sweet. I will not argue with its right to investigate in the manner in which it sees fit. I will not argue with its right to make any recommendation that it deems appropriate. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand he describes the CMC report as a joke, and on the other he wants to belt me and the government around the head with it. Is the report a joke or does he rely on its findings? Which is it? Last Thursday I tabled in this House a transcript of the statement that I made to the police at the airstrip at Lockhart River. It is now on the public record. Any reasonable person reading that statement would conclude that I cooperated fully with the police during that interview. This matter has dragged on for too long. It is now time for us to focus our attention on the serious matters of disadvantage that are affecting indigenous people, particularly in the Cook electorate. Indigenous Queenslanders remain the most economically disadvantaged people in this state. This government is doing what it can to address this disadvantage. Alcohol management plans are the first part of a range of policies that are turning around Aboriginal communities. As the Police Minister said today, there is some opposition to the policy but there is also a great deal of support and a genuine desire on the part of all groups to make the plans work. Most people are able to understand the premise on which the alcohol management plans have been introduced. Once we can control alcohol abuse in these communities—and other substance abuse—we can start helping communities address other issues such as education and economic development. It is time to refocus on policies that will actually improve people's lives and forget about political games, which serve no-one, particularly the most disadvantaged people in this state. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.08 p.m.): Last week the member for Cook was saying that the CMC did the wrong thing and that it should have actually released the documents. Now he is saying that he loves the CMC. Whose side is he on? What does he really want? Does he want the CMC to put out the documents or does he not want it to put them out? It appears that the member is not really sure of what he wants. Obviously, the toecutters have been to the member and he has become a bit frightened about it. This government has been running on lies for a long, long time. It is about time that people became well aware of what is happening. The Premier ridiculed everybody opposing him but he 636 Government Accountability 28 Apr 2004 did not put up anything of any substance to refute the arguments that were put. All he could do was try to bag people. He was not debating the issue. This government is more about marketing than substance; everybody knows that. It is about time that those members opposite woke up to it as well. That is what is driving the government—marketing, not substance. Last term I became aware of a secret DPI report. In fact, I applied for that report under FOI. The report was still in the department. Can members guess what happened? That report was whisked off to cabinet. That report was significant. I agree with the Attorney-General that it is important that cabinet is able to take documents occasionally if the government requires it. It is a part of government. However, in this case the top scientist in Queensland came out with a report that contradicted what the Premier was saying and that document went to cabinet. It was only released after the Prime Minister demanded it. The evidence of that is there for all to see. It was taken there. I turn to the issue of the salinity maps. I have no problem with catchment groups or departments putting together data for good science. However, the reality is that the salinity map which was used by the Premier for purely political purposes was based on lies. It was not based on any scientific substance. Do honourable members remember the issues involving Cubbie Station? The Premier went down there and said that he was going to change the waters. He said he was going to take the water from one river and fill up New South Wales dams. Mr Johnson: He had the wrong channel. Mr HOBBS: He had the wrong channel, he had the wrong river. He talked about a railway line running to St George, yet there is no railway line at St George. We had all those things going on. The reality was that it was simply based on lies. There was nothing of scientific substance to the whole thing. He went out there to try to market it and push it through, but it did not go through. Luckily, the people out there saw what was going on. They were hanging off the rafters in the hall at Dirranbandi. They gave him a grilling. Let us look at the Murray-Darling Basin. The Premier also talks about the salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin. There is no scientific evidence to say that the water quality is decreasing. In fact, it is improving. In January and May 2003, the Premier said that according to the Great Barrier Reef water quality protection plan, water quality was deteriorating. There is no scientific evidence to say that that is happening. There are plenty of documents to show that, if it were the case. It is simply based on lies. Why do we not have some real truth in this? Let us look at the land clearing debate. Just last week the government talked about regrowth and we went through that debate. Many members would remember that very vividly. The reality was that it was based on lies. The minister and the Premier went out there and told people that there would be a change and that they had seen the light. Agforce and other groups were saying, 'That is good. That part has improved. At least that part is okay.' Can members guess what? We came in here and it was changed again. It was turned back. They just told lies. There are also the cases of Merri Rose and the Queensland Racing Board, and the Lockhart River cover-up that has been talked about today. Certainly there has been a clear breach of trust in relation to many of the issues there. The Beattie government has been using the CMC as a clearing house. I am very sad to say that. It is unfortunate. For a long time the CMC has been doing its utmost to improve its profile. It has been doing a lot to improve the quality of its work and make sure that at least the people are getting justice in Queensland. However, that work has been totally eroded by this government's blatant political misuse of that body. The credibility of that organisation is just going down. I think it is really sad. We have a mechanism in place. We have not got an upper house in Queensland and the CMC is there to look after misconduct, but the CMC has no credibility at the present time. That has been brought about simply by the fact that the government is using it to get an outcome. In particular, the recent case of the Lockhart River has been a total cover-up. Time expired. Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (6.13 p.m.): I rise to support the Premier's amendment and I oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. What we need to take stock of what is occurring tonight is that this is the National Party of old that has not learnt a thing during its long years in opposition. It did not learn a thing from the experience it had when it won government by accident for several years in early 1996. Can members imagine the National Party talking about 28 Apr 2004 Government Accountability 637 accountability? The National Party of old did not have a clue what accountability was about. It has no respect for the parliament. It has no respect for the outcomes of the Fitzgerald inquiry and all the processes that were put in place since then. The National Party is simply repeating that it cannot respect the outcomes of independent bodies that have examined what has occurred. The opposition's motion tonight is all about its failure to accept a decision of the CMC, an independent body, just as it cannot accept decisions of the CMC or the past CJC, and it could not accept the outcome of the Fitzgerald inquiry. When something does not suit them, National Party members put their heads in the sand and act like the old National Party by refusing to be interested in the facts. They are only interested in playing political hard ball when it suits them. Here we have the National Party being critical of FOI outcomes. Can members imagine the National Party complaining about FOI? Let me remind the parliament that it was the Labor Party in the Goss years that put FOI in place. There was no such thing as accountability prior to that. There was no capacity for anybody to review the decisions of government, even decisions that directly affected themselves. When the Labor Party did put that in place —not the National Party—of course, like any new major reform, there needed to be some fine tuning. After that fine tuning was done by the Labor Party in the later years of the Goss government, the Borbidge Nationals said that they would overturn it when they got back into government. We should all remind ourselves about what precisely did happen when the Borbidge government came to office. Many of the people sitting on the front bench of the opposition now were ministers in that government. They turned hiding things in cabinet from FOI into an absolute art form. Here we have them back in opposition saying, 'We will amend the FOI laws when we come back into government.' They had their opportunity while they were in government. What we heard was the rhetoric of an opposition not being put back into place. Again I remind members about the National Party of old. There was no accountability, no FOI, no parliamentary accounts committee, no other parliamentary committees, no CJC or CMC, no integrity, no respect for the parliament, bills were rushed into the parliament in the middle of the night, standing orders were suspended and controversial legislation was gagged through. These are the Nationals of the Mundingburra MOU fame. These are the Nationals that jammed the Carruthers inquiry by setting up Connolly Ryan. Theirs was the only government that has ever been found by the Supreme Court of Queensland to have set up a corrupt inquiry. It was the only government in the history of the Westminster system anywhere in the world to do that, and they dare to walk in here and talk about accountability. The National Party of today needs to understand a couple of simple facts. The CMC review into Lockhart is over. It has been concluded. The CMC found no misconduct and it found that no criminal charges should be laid. The police found that there should be no criminal charges laid. In fact, as was said by the member for Toowoomba South tonight, we have covered up an honest and innocent mistake. That is why the independent bodies—both the CMC and the Queensland Police Service—came to that finding. If we do not accept the findings of those independent organisations, which this parliament should respect, then where do we end up and where do we stop? Tonight this parliament should reject the opposition leader's motion. It should support the Premier's amendment, because to do that we take a clear step in protecting the integrity of those great organisations—the CMC and the Queensland Police Service. Question—That Mr Beattie's amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 25—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Any further divisions will be two minutes duration. 638 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004

Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O'Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 25—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 18 March (see p. 74). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (7.30 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. The bill, as I understand it, is basically an extension of the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Act 2001, which this House considered three years ago and passed into law to recognise and clarify the ownership rights of landowners to the natural resource products on their properties. While that legislation dealt essentially with freehold land, this legislation extends those same provisions to leasehold land. The bill will allow land-holders on leasehold land to potentially gain any value from trees they plant by extending to leaseholders the ability to enter into contracts about the ownership, use and economic benefits of natural resource products such as timber and potentially carbon commodities. I think it is important to make the point at the beginning, as we did when we considered the other bill relating to freehold land, the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Act 2001, that this legislation and that previous legislation do not in themselves provide any more value for trees or vegetation or somehow provide a windfall for land-holders. What this legislation does, as the minister acknowledged in his second reading speech, is put in place a framework to allow any carbon trading regime that might develop in the future to be catered for in respect to the titles and the ownership rights of the vegetation that would be part of that carbon sequestration that would be the basis of the trading regime. This in itself does not give any value to carbon sequestered, it does not in itself give any value to vegetation on land, and it certainly does not provide any windfall gains to land-holders. The whole issue of carbon trading has been talked about for quite some time, and it obviously derived from the Kyoto agreement. One of the sections of the Kyoto agreement allows for carbon to be stored as a trade-off for carbon emitted. There has been conjecture that there would in the future be a carbon trading regime that would allow emitters of carbon to purchase the corresponding carbon credit—the corresponding amount of carbon sequestered in things like vegetation. Whether or not that carbon trading regime ever eventuates is something that only time will tell. It certainly has not developed with the speed or to the extent that some of the early predictions would have us believe. Whether or not it ever develops, it is incumbent on us as legislators to recognise that Queensland land-holders need to be in a position to take advantage of any opportunities that such a carbon trading regime may present in the future—and I say 'may present in the future' because there is no guarantee that there will be opportunities for Queensland land-holders to trade the carbon credits that may or may not be part of the vegetation on their land. But this legislation puts in place the framework to at least allow that to happen if that Kyoto agreement provision does develop in the way that some predicted it will. The Kyoto provision recognises that some areas are carbon sinks in that they absorb more carbon than they emit. When we look at the vast land holdings of Queensland, of central western Queensland in particular, there is enormous potential for large areas to be considered as carbon sinks. One of the great regrets that I have is that the Queensland government was not prepared to be part of an Australian Greenhouse Office initiative to look at those vast areas of Queensland and determine to what extent they represented carbon sinks. That offer was made to the 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 639

Queensland government as part of the vegetation management debate when there was some debate about the relative greenhouse benefits of those areas. I note that the minister and the government—the Premier in particular—continue to throw around these figures about so many megatons of carbon dioxide that have been saved by the land clearing laws, but there is no real basis for those claimed figures. The opportunity we had as part of that debate was to determine to what extent that vegetation in central-western Queensland especially, but right throughout the vegetated areas of Queensland, sequestered carbon and to what extent it was a carbon sink or a carbon emitter. As we discussed during that debate on the vegetation management legislation, there are times when particular areas of vegetation are net absorbers of carbon and other times when they are net emitters of carbon. It would be an interesting exercise because there is something of a fallacy that gets promoted by those people who seem to have an inflated opinion of trees that somehow the bigger and more spectacular the tree the better it is in terms of the Kyoto agreement objectives and the better it is in terms of carbon sequestration. There has been some work done that I have seen that would seem to indicate that that may not necessarily be the case; that carbon exists in the environment not just in huge, spectacular tree trunks but in a number of forms—in all of the vegetative forms and as carbon in the ground. On the basis of some of the work that I have seen reported, the amount of carbon in the soil can be every bit as great as the carbon that is being stored in those spectacular tree trunks. So there is a whole lot of work there that needs to be done. I think we missed an opportunity because the Queensland government was not prepared to cooperate with the Australian Greenhouse Office and look at the extent to which those vegetation areas of Queensland were either compliant with the Kyoto objectives or to what extent they absorbed carbon and how much carbon is locked up in those areas in comparison to other particular uses for those areas. There is a fallacy about big trees that they are what we need to reach the Kyoto objectives, but that is not necessarily true. It is about sequestering carbon from the air, and carbon can be stored in a whole range of other areas. Ms Nelson-Carr: You have to say 'Kyoto' because I did not even know what you are talking about. It is 'Kyoto'. Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for the help. I am sure that makes a huge difference. It is a bit like 'Newcastle' and 'Newcastle'. I think we both know what it is. Thanks for the assistance. I thought for a moment that we may have had a sensible interjection but that was not to be the case. Ms Nelson-Carr: A meeting of the minds? Mr SEENEY: No, a sensible interjection that may have added something to the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Address your comments through the chair. Mr SEENEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that this is certainly in good spirit. It is regrettable that we missed that opportunity. It is important that, for the sake of Queensland land-holders, we do not miss opportunities in the future. I think there will be other opportunities especially if a trading regime is put in place where people, individuals or entities are prepared to pay for carbon credits. The ability or otherwise of particular areas to sequester and store carbon is going to have to be clearly identified and quantified. That will be an important part of developing any trading regime. As we have recognised—and as I think the minister indicated in his second reading speech and in the previous debate—this legislation puts the framework in place. This legislation will put in place—I am sorry the member for Mundingburra has gone because I have a problem with this pronunciation—a profit a prendre. My school day French is a little rusty. Profit a prendre has been defined as— ... A right to take something from another's land. The thing taken must be part of the land, or the wild fauna on it, and that thing must be capable of ownership. A profit includes the right to go on to the other person's land for the purpose of taking that profit. There has been some confusion about the difference between a profit a prendre and the rights that are due to a contractor who contracts with the owner of land for a particular purpose. A profit a prendre differs from a mere contractual right to enter the land as part of the contract for the sale of items which are produced off the land but sold as personal property. The distinction is sometimes difficult but the court precedents that have been set have held that it lies in the intention of the parties. 640 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004

The case that is often quoted is the Corporate Affairs Commission v. ASC Timber Pty Ltd. In that case Judge Powell said— ... Is it the intention of the parties that the trees may be, or are to be, felled and removed within a reasonably short time—in which case, the arrangement is one of sale—or is it intended that the trees shall be retained for a considerable period of time while they grow to maturity—in which case the arrangement is one involving a grant of a profit a prendre. Quite clearly, to put in place the framework that we are talking about to allow the storage of carbon and the accumulation of the value that would be part of that under this futuristic trading regime that I talked about, there needs to be a profit a prendre option available or a facility available to the land-holder and the potential carbon trader. Under that definition, the distinction in a contractual situation is quite clear. We have before us tonight a bill that will allow that situation to be available to the owners of leasehold land in Queensland. It is important that we have that. Leasehold land is a very large part of rural land-holdings in Queensland. Leasehold land in Queensland is created under the Land Act 1994 and it encompasses nearly 73 per cent of the total Queensland land area. We are talking about a very large area indeed which is held under one of a number of land leases. There are a quite of number of different leases involved. They take a number of forms. There are the large pastoral leases which are predominantly in northern and western Queensland. There are the more intensively farmed grazing leases extending from the coastal regions to central Queensland. There are leases for commercial or industrial purposes. There are leases for large tourism complexes over Queensland islands or prime sites. There are leases that allow particular types of developments such as large housing estates that can be later sold off as freehold. There are leases of land below the high water mark. Obviously, we are talking about smaller areas. There are leases of reserves that are held by community groups for a number of different purposes such as sporting and recreational purposes. The state rural leasehold land as of 2002 consisted of approximately 1,500 parcel holdings covering 86 million hectares and 2,800 perpetual leases covering some 21 million hectares and 2,700 special leases and term leases covering 1.9 million hectares. This legislation will allow the owner of the land to benefit from the vegetation or the potential value in the vegetation or the carbon sequestered in the vegetation growing on that land. There is an issue which I am pretty sure I know the answer to but I ask the minister to confirm for me as part of the debate. An issue has been raised with me about the ownership of the vegetation on those leases. What this legislation does is provide the owner of the vegetation with the right to benefit from the carbon sequestered in the vegetation. Are there any particular situations where the holder of the lease would not be seen to be the owner of the vegetation? It is an issue that requires some clarification. I know that the forestry department certainly has or has had in the past an interest in the timber on particular leased areas. I think it needs to be clarified that the holder of the lease is, in all cases, the owner of the timber. If that were not the case it would be the state that would be the owner of the vegetation. I do not think that would be a particularly satisfactory situation. I will seek clarification of that issue in the committee stage of the debate. Perhaps the minister could refer to it when he sums up the second reading debate. The legislation itself is pretty straightforward. The opposition certainly does not have any particular difficulties with it. We certainly support any moves to ensure that leasehold land-holders can benefit from any future trading regime and can be in a position to ensure that they are able to take advantage of any such regime that may develop. The legislation also makes a number of other amendments which we will refer to in the committee stage of debate. We may need to explore some of those in some detail as we go through that process. The amendments relate to the Irvinebank Treatment Works which is an issue that we have debated in this House on a number of occasions. I indicate to the minister that I basically support the actions that the government has taken in this rather difficult situation. It has not been easy to get a resolution to that rather difficult situation, but, broadly, I support the government's actions in an attempt to resolve that for the community of Irvinebank. We will talk about that amendment in the committee stage. There are a number of minor amendments to the Mineral Resources Act and the Petroleum Act which, once again, seem to be rather pedestrian and do not present any great problems. We will explore the details of those in the committee stage. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 641

There is an amendment relating to the Valuation of Land Act which does cause me some concern. Given the particular situation that exists at the current time with the difficulty in the department providing valuations to local authorities in a proper manner, I think the amendment relating to those valuations will warrant further consideration in the committee stage. We will be certainly do that. There is also another minor amendment related to Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act. This amendment relates to the preparation by local authorities of pest and stock route management plans and extends the time available to those local authorities to do that. Once again, I probably do not have any great problem with that extension of time. The last few years have been a time of quite monumental change for local governments. A number of my friends in local government tell me that they feel as though they have been planned to death, and I can understand how they come to feel that. But I can also understand that this sort of process is very necessary to ensure that local governments throughout the state are looking at the issues that are involved in a whole range of areas. In this particular case, it is in managing the pest and stock routes within their shires. I do not have any major philosophical difference with the government's direction in that instance. I will explore those particular issues during the committee stage of the debate. Apart from that one area that I did indicate some concern about, I indicate to the House and to the minister that the opposition broadly supports this legislation. We will examine those details in the committee stage. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (7.50 p.m.): I am pleased to hear that the opposition is broadly supporting this bill. Likewise, I rise to support the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. In particular, I want to congratulate the minister for his foresight in making sure that Queensland's land-holders will be ready to enter any future carbon trading market. This bill seems simple in its intent—to make it possible for rural leaseholders to have a tradeable interest in the natural resource products of the trees they have planted, products like sequestered carbon and timber—but its effects may be much more powerful and important for Queensland's rural leaseholders and for the environment. The Kyoto protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has long envisioned an international scheme for trading in credits for carbon sequestration as part of a wider emissions trading scheme. Under Kyoto, forestry plantations are likely to be a major source of carbon credits because of the large amount of carbon sequestered and stored during tree growth. It is important to note that only 'Kyoto forests'—those forests planted since 1990 on previously cleared land—will be eligible for carbon credits under Kyoto. It has led to a significant global industry in forestry plantations as a mechanism to offset greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is much more cost effective for many businesses than simply cutting emissions. We all know that there are significant barriers to Australia entering a carbon trading market, whether domestic or international. The Howard government steadfastly refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol despite the fact that many of Australia's emissions-intensive industries are now telling us that they are no longer opposed to Kyoto and despite the fact that it knows that it is cutting Australians out of the emerging global industry in carbon trading. The Commonwealth Environment Minister, the Hon. David Kemp, says that Australia does not need emissions trading to meet its greenhouse targets. That statement shows his complete lack of insight and vision and a lack of consideration for the people of Australia who could benefit from a carbon trading scheme. As long as Australia reaches its targets—and it is worth noting that Queensland is punching well above its weight in contributing to those targets—it does not matter that our land-holders are being denied a source of income and a means of diversification that could well mean the difference between viability and insolvency. The federal minister does not appear to be interested in going beyond those targets: as long as Australia scrapes through on its final exam, as long as we achieve that Kyoto target, well, that is all that needs to be done. There has been no word about being good global citizens and no word about the benefits that could accrue to Australian land-holders. It is a particularly clear indictment of the Howard government that it shut down the Australian Greenhouse Office's work on an international emissions trading scheme in the very same week as the European Commission adopted criteria to implement national allocation plans for the EU emissions trading scheme. Still, Canberra ignores carbon trading. We can only hope that later this year the voters of Australia recognise the gross negligence that is taking place in Canberra over greenhouse issues and give us a government willing to take these issues seriously. The current regime in Canberra has shown its disregard not only for Australian farmers and foresters who were hoping to improve their businesses through carbon trading but its arrogance in going against the 642 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 business community, which broadly supported carbon trading and which now fears Australia will miss opportunities in the international sphere because we are locked out of the carbon trading market. International investors are asking more and more about carbon sequestration rights in Queensland. Our own greenhouse gas emitters are acutely aware of the potential for investment in new plantations to generate carbon credits. Queensland is missing out on an important industry. Louise Drolz, an expert from the international brokerage house Tullet and Tokyo Liberty, has described the current situation as 'flying in the face of all good economic sense'. As far as carbon trading is concerned, Australia could well pay for lost investment opportunities and job creation. The Howard government claims that its greenhouse gas program is working and is on track to meet its targets. Carbon trading seems a long way away, as Queenslanders will be locked out of the majority of the world's carbon markets. But the least this government can do is ensure that Queensland is ready for any scheme when it does arrive by providing a secure, transparent framework for recognising the legal rights to carbon. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (7.56 p.m.): I am pleased to speak tonight to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. After looking through the amendments that have just been plonked on the table, I see that there is a $10 million amendment. Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. These amendments were circulated during the last sitting week. Mr HOBBS: They may have been, but this is the first time I have seen them. What I see tonight is that there is a $10 million clause in the bill. There is a problem in that valuations are not being done because this government has mishandled the industrial relations situation of the valuers in the department. However, now the minister is putting in place legislation that will in fact make local government pay that money. Local government did not have to pay that money before and now it will under this legislation. This is a $10 million fraud by this government. That is what it is doing, and I think we need to discuss that in much more detail in debate on the clauses. Once again, we are seeing the same thing that happened in the tree clearing debate and the land clearing debate where this minister misled the people of Queensland. He went out there and deliberately told them mistruths, and here we are again. Once again, we have the same thing happening again. What an absolute disgrace. What a disappointment to the people out there who believe that the government should be doing something for all people rather than trying to do the wrong thing. It is very important that this legislation be discussed. There are a number of issues that we need to talk about. Certainly, the member for Callide and Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about many issues in relation to carbon credits, and that is particularly important. Those issues need to be finalised. Yes, it appears that what is being proposed is reasonable. It is reasonable. This has gone through in relation to freehold land, but leasehold land has not been covered. However, we have to ensure that all the Ts are crossed and the Is are dotted in relation to the sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon credits. One issue that needs to be clarified is which type of trees are going to be officially credited as a carbon sink. That has not been done in Queensland. In fact, it has not been done in Australia. There are many trees that are just not suitable for that particular purpose and are not worth a bent razoo in relation to a greenhouse credit. So that work needs to be done. In fact, we also had this debate during the recent land clearing debate. There are a number of issues that I want to cover today. I was very interested to see that this bill will also support the implementation of the draft reef water quality protection plan which seeks to create mechanisms for trading natural resources and products like timber and carbon. As a follow-on to our notice of motion tonight in the House, it is particularly very important that I report to the members on a scientific report from a scientist who had a fair bit to do with this report into the water quality of the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, I would like to read this report from Jennifer Marohasy. Mr Robertson: Good choice. Mr HOBBS: Yes, it is a good choice. Mr Robertson: Absolutely a good choice. Mr HOBBS: Absolutely a good choice. I am going to read the minister a report from a scientist who has the qualifications. She is someone whom the minister should take some notice of. She talks about what people are saying. She states— 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 643

... the Great Barrier Reef is under threat from land based agriculture. That seems to be the common thread out there. She states further— If the Great Barrier Reef, this natural wonder and Australia's icon, is under threat from farmers, then perhaps farmers should be more heavily regulated. They should pay more for their water, they should be forced to revegetate riparian areas, and herbicides (in particular diuron) should be banned. However, I will put it to you tonight that the Great Barrier Reef is not under threat from agriculture. Rather the restrictions being proposed by government under the Reef Plan are, at least in part, a consequence of a clever environmental campaign that was launched on World Environment Day in June 2001. This very successful campaign, orchestrated by the WWF, resulted in a Labor party election commitment to save the Great Barrier Reef. It is now Queensland government policy that the GBR is in trouble and that we need a Reef Plan to protect it from agriculture. ... Can harm to the Great Barrier Reef be proven beyond reasonable doubt? What is the evidence? That is a reasonable question to ask. Jennifer Marohasy states further— What evidence was provided in June 2001 by WWF? WWF is really a multinational, public relations firm that specialises in scaring the hell and money out of people. So it is perhaps not surprising that their report that launched their campaign contained no actual evidence of damage to the reef from agriculture. ... The introduction to the WWF report had a list of key findings, including that the Fitzroy River, 'dumps more sediment into the Reef than any other River'. The key finding omitted to mention that the Fitzroy, by coincidence also drains the largest GBR catchment. ... The report appealed to science for authority. It continually referred to, 'There is scientific consensus that ...' and the 'scientific experts say ... 28 million tonnes of sediment flow into the Reef in an average year ... that's equivalent to 3.5 million dump trucks emptying their load of soil into the Reef. ' I have done a quick calculation, and given that there are approximately 37,525,000 hectares in the GBR catchments, this is equivalent to 1.3 tonnes of sediment per hectare per year. This is a very low figure; by comparison natural losses of 2-3 tonnes per hectare per year occur in undisturbed North Queensland rainforests. But doesn't 3.5 million dump trucks sound impressive! So quite frankly, a scientist is saying that the members opposite are basically wrong. Mrs Reilly: Who is this scientist? Who is she? Mr HOBBS: Jennifer Marohasy. I told members that before. Is the member not listening? Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. With due respect to the member for Warrego, whilst there are plenty of opportunities to debate issues of importance such as he is raising with the Great Barrier Reef, I just question the relevance in terms of the current debate, given that the central point of this bill is greenhouse gas emissions and the opportunities for land-holders to sequester carbon. Mr HOBBS: That is exactly my point. The second reading speech refers to the draft reef water catchment plan. This is what I am talking about. I am telling the minister that that plan is flawed. Therefore, the basis on which you are using it for this legislation is not necessarily correct so, therefore, there is a basis to use it. It is in the minister's second reading speech. The government established a reef protection task force. In relation to this issue, Jennifer Marohasy states— I consider myself a real environmentalist. If there is a problem, let us not lament the number of dump trucks equivalent; let us fix it. Let us define the size and magnitude of problem, the location, and then let us get on with fixing the problem. So, I made the mistake as a Taskforce member of insisting that the problems be defined ... I wanted the detail. All Jennifer Marohasy was asking for was the detail. She went off and asked the minister for the detail. He hasn't got the detail. She states further— So I suggested that the government put the water quality data on the table for scrutiny. That was a simple thing. She states further— The CSIRO representative did eventually list the published papers that were purported to support the other central allegation (in addition to declining water quality) ... that there is actual damage to inshore reef from agricultural runoff. He listed 6 papers including the Norm Duke study of mangrove dieback in Mackay ... as examples of damage to the GBR. Mangroves, as an inshore reef? A rather long bow to draw. 644 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004

But I am a scientist by training, and inquisitive at heart. I enjoy ferreting around for information. So I re-read Dr Norm Duke's report, all the time trying to reconcile it as an example of damage to inshore GBR reefs. I also read the other five listed reports. Dr Marohasy states further— Perhaps the most outrageous claim is that of the CSIRO representative on the Reef Taskforce, claiming the Wachenfeld 1995 study as proving an impact from agriculture on the reef, when the paper actually concludes the exact opposite. Tonight, the members opposite are talking about legislation that is based on flawed information. Mrs Reilly: What paper? Mr HOBBS: What are you saying? Mrs Reilly: What paper? Mr HOBBS: Dr Jennifer Marohasy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! The member will address the chair. Mr HOBBS: That is the scientist. She states further— In part due to my recalcitrance on the taskforce, it was eventually shut down. The Beattie government subsequently formed a science panel. The science panel was to be chaired by none other than the QDPI chief scientist, Dr Joe Baker. You might remember there was a huge amount of publicity in late January this year associated with the release of the Baker report titled, 'Report on the study of land-sourced pollutants and their impacts on water quality in and adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef' and associated draft reef protection plan. In the media release associated with the release of the report and draft plan, the Premier said— so we have the boss in charge of it now— 'Now the report is in, work on the Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will continue without arguments about whether land activities harm the Reef. The report is the adjudicator's decision, and is based on the best available science.' Have we not heard that somewhere before? Where was the best available science? Was that the science in relation to Cubbie? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will address the matter before the chair. I hope that you are getting to the point. Mr HOBBS: Jennifer Marohasy states further— Obviously the Premier has a lot of confidence in the report compiled by his Chief Scientist, Dr Joe Baker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will get to the point. Mr HOBBS: It is actually the draft reef water quality protection plan, which is the basis of this bill, that is used for collecting the carbon credits. I am saying that the very foundation of this legislation can be flawed. So it is very important that we talk about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will ensure that he addresses the bill. Mr HOBBS: I am getting to the point. This is a very important point. Jennifer Marohasy states further— The report actually provided no new information, but there was an additional allegation ... that elevated concentrations of fat-soluble pesticide residue that had been found in dugongs. Jennifer Marohasy states further that they— ... concluded that the dioxin of concern to the GBRMPA was common in soils along the entire Queensland coastline, including in regions beyond sugarcane cultivation. Jennifer Marohasy states further that it had been present prior to European settlement. So basically, in many instances the information that the government is using is based on lies. I would like to expand much more on this issue, but I have to cover some other areas that are important. In this bill the stock route management plans by local governments have been extended because they did not have time to complete them. That is reasonable. Obviously, that was due to the local government elections and because the bill was a bit late getting into the House. We accept that. I would like to make a few comments in relation to those stock route management plans that councils have to undertake. This issue is more than just about travelling stock. Presently, a lot of councils have pest management plans in place and there is a need for them to conform with the new requirements. In relation to travelling stock, there are a lot of issues. Most of the major routes are covered by the state government which provides some capital funding, and the councils have to provide the resources and the finance for all the maintenance and any upgrades on those minor type routes. That is the issue there. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 645

One issue that it is important that the minister takes on board is that the legislation will allow the local authorities that manage these stock routes to approve stock to be agisted on the stock routes and reserves for only two months. The person then has to go away and maybe come back. I think that should be up to the discretion of the council, which works to a plan. I would love to see the minister try to change that. Recently out my way we had reasonable rain and we were all pretty happy, but a chap down the road was in real bother. He brought his stock up and spent two months, but then had to go even though he had nothing to go home to. The stock were in poor condition when they arrived and they were picking up when they left. That was quite a serious situation. If there is some way that the minister can change that, by regulation or whatever, we would love to see it. It would be a very positive improvement. Perhaps he can expand on that in his reply. Mr Robertson: It is a difficult one. Mr HOBBS: It is not really, provided that councils are responsible. Maybe limitations are needed, but two months is too short. An extension—possibly even to three months—would give a reasonable window of opportunity. Most councils, in fact, only give approval for month-by-month agistment. It depends how many applications come in for a stock route or a reserve. If they find that they have a lot of applications, the applicant is on for a month and goes. If there is nobody coming on, the person can probably stay on. In many instances they use it as a fire control as the cattle reduce the fuel that is there. It is a management tool. In addition, we should take into consideration the fact that the council and the government share half-and-half in the funding that they get back. There is a problem with move-on powers in relation to drovers. That has been ongoing for quite a while and the minister has had some deputations in relation to that issue. It is a difficult issue. In most reasonable cases, provided the councils are fair and the drovers are fair, they can work it out. However, some very difficult situations have arisen in relation to that. In recent times we have found that the bigger companies use the stock routes more than those who are genuinely caught by drought, although I guess the big companies can be caught by drought as well. Therefore it can be a management tool that some may use. That is to be worked through. I do not think people should be discriminated against because of that. It is important to recognise that and understand what it is all about. The other point I would like to raise is the pest management plans that local government undertake. They have to prioritise their plans for pest management for both plants and animals. It is really about elimination and containment, which is certainly important. Under the new act some improvements will be made as the departmental people will have to attend the local government meeting when the plan is discussed. They will be able to work their way through the best arrangements. In the past, there could be a bit of a gap between what the local government wanted and what the council really required. There are some improvements there. It is important that the councils get the plans right, because we cannot afford to have pests. Obviously we have a serious problem with dingoes. The current situation with dingoes in my area is probably at its worst, certainly in my lifetime. There is a lot more work to be done in relation to how we manage dingoes. In many ways councils are actively involved in trying to manage the problem, whether through baiting programs or by supporting groups that are working to reduce the numbers of dingoes. That is a very serious problem, particularly inside the barrier fence. Pest plants such as noxious weeds are a problem. We have seen an escalation of parthenium which is ongoing. We have to do more work in relation to biological controls, particularly in relation to burrs like the Bathurst burr and the Noogoora burr. Rusts are available that are used in many areas. They get into the waterways and keep on going. Certainly when the plants get so prolific and grow so fast and high, they can be three or four or five feet high and quite thick. We need some sort of biological control to manage them. We cannot just go in and spray them, although a lot try. They do their best. A lot of these four-wheel drive vehicles now have spray packs on the back that do not last very long because they cannot carry the amount of water or chemical that is needed. Certainly that is one way of trying to control the weeds. A lot more needs to be done in relation to noxious weeds and pest animals. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (8.15 p.m.): Unlike the member for Warrego, I would like the bulk of my remarks to refer to the bill before the House. Mr Robertson: Hear, hear! That will be a nice change. 646 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004

Mr SHINE: I take that interjection from the minister. According to the explanatory notes, the bill provides a mechanism consistent with that available on freehold land to recognise statutory rights and to facilitate commercial dealings in natural resource products, including carbon commodities, trees and vegetation on leasehold land in Queensland. In other words, the bill is designed to bring in a system dealing with carbon commodities which is simpler and which leads to consistency, that is, leasehold with freehold. Before I move on, I would like to refer the minister to the comments in the Alert Digest. There are some reservations in the Alert Digest in relation to the cancellation of deeds of grants of land. The committee has asked the minister to make some comment in relation to that. No doubt he will at the appropriate time. Reference has been made to the Kyoto protocol which, for those who may not be aware of it, was a pact agreed on by governments at a United Nations conference in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. Ms Nelson-Carr interjected. Mr SHINE: I thank the honourable member. It was an international treaty designed to limit global greenhouse gas emissions and reduce greenhouse emissions from developed countries by 5.2 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Eighty-four countries signed the pact and 40 had ratified it by 2001. It is legally binding once it has been ratified by 55 per cent of the signatories representing 55 per cent of developed countries' carbon dioxide emissions. Australia made an international commitment in December 1997 at Kyoto to limit its greenhouse gas emissions growth to 108 per cent of its 1990 baseline, which equates to nearly a 30 per cent reduction from its business as usual projections. The Australian government, however, decided not to ratify the Kyoto protocol because 'it is not in Australia's interest to do so', according to the Australian government web site. In contrast, a media statement from the federal shadow minister for environment and heritage, Kelvin Thomson, dated 17 February 2003, stated that a report from the Kyoto ratification advisory group found that Australia could lose important investment in new clean green technologies if it remained outside the treaty framework. Mr Thomson said that the report showed Australia's GDP would be around 0.15 per cent or over $1 billion better off each year if Australia ratified the protocol. Mr Thomson said that Australia's failure to ratify the protocol has nothing to do with Australia's own interests and everything to do with the backing of George W. Bush. Members will recall that the US withdrew from the protocol in 2001. The ratification of the Kyoto protocol by Annex I countries is considered to be the first step towards a reduction in worldwide emissions growth. Even with the ratification, however, greenhouse gas emissions are projected to keep gradually increasing until at least 2010. What are greenhouse gases, then? Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. While Australia is only a relatively small greenhouse gas emitter, comprising 1.4 per cent of total world emissions, it registers as a relatively high emitter on a per capita basis—third in the world after the US and Luxembourg. Environmental reports suggest that much of the damage to the environment is already irreversible and the earth's temperatures will increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius, pushing sea levels up between 0.09 to 0.88 metres over the next 100 years. Climatic extremes such as severe storms, floods and droughts are also expected to become more frequent in the 21st century. Flooding could displace tens of thousands of people living in countries such as India, China and Bangladesh. For those global reasons, legislation that we are dealing with tonight is important and will become increasingly more important. Finally, I would like to confine my remarks to the aspects of the bill dealing with carbon and diversification with respect to the profit a prendre provisions of the bill. The natural resource products referred to in the bill include all parts of a tree or other vegetation, whether alive or dead, including parts below the ground and the carbon stored and sequestered. The profit agreements that this bill enables are as diverse as contracts for carbon, timber, firewood, biomass for energy production and liquid fuels, activated carbon, charcoal, eucalyptus oil, tannin, seeds, flowers, bush tucker and fodder. The issues for leasehold land are much more complex than for freehold land, which are covered by profit a prendre laws passed by the Beattie government in 2001. Because of the shared interest in leasehold land, profit a prendre will only be available where the lessee owns the trees as an improvement to the land and where the purpose and conditions of the lease allow it to be used for agriculture and timber plantation purposes. That means that native vegetation will remain protected by the state unless it was planted by the leaseholder as a plantation. It is also 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 647 important to note that any trees that are planted to remediate illegal clearing activities will be excluded from the provisions of this bill. This will not be a back door to profiteering from illegal clearing. This government has long demonstrated its tough line on illegal clearing, and I congratulate the minister on including in this bill a provision that reinforces his commitment to ensure that no- one who clears illegally will gain from it. I am pleased to see that the opposition is supporting the bill, particularly in relation to that point. However, by and large, these laws are about creating opportunities for leaseholders. For example, a leaseholder may want to sell off complete ownership of the trees or simply a right to harvest the timber while allowing another party to buy the rights to the carbon. Generally, most of Queensland's leasehold estate falls in the dry areas of Queensland where plantation forestry is not financially viable as a stand-alone enterprise for the sole purpose of timber production. However, with an emerging market for carbon credits coupled with the rights of leaseholders to the tradeable interest in timber and other natural resource products, we may be seeing the necessary catalyst for this diversification. These amendments are part of the Beattie government's commitment to enable Queensland leaseholders to diversify into new activities to help their grazing and agricultural businesses become more viable and sustainable. This government is acutely aware of the economic difficulties faced by rural land-holders in a changing economy. Farmers have genuine and valid concerns about the long-term viability of their businesses and their ability to respond to the changing local and international markets. This new approach will allow Queensland's leaseholders to spread their economic risk into complementary activities, meaning that they will be less reliant on traditional commodities and less vulnerable to commodity price pressures. Leaseholders may be able to achieve some long-term certainty for activities like low-key tourism enterprises such as farm home stays, some types of agriculture, nature conservation, small-scale feed lots and nature conservation and timber plantations including the associated carbon products. We heard my colleague the member for Mackay speak about the Howard government's egregious failure— Mr Mulherin: I used that in the bad sense, not in the good sense. Mr SHINE: I am using it in the sense of it as being a shocking failure. Mr Robertson: It has been a long time since I have heard that term. Mr SHINE: I understand that the term has been around for about 400 or 500 years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Members will address their comments through the chair. Mr SHINE: That is somewhat like the carbon products we are talking about here. The member for Mackay spoke about the Howard government's shocking failure to properly fund emissions trading programs which would give Australia access to a wider variety of international carbon trading markets. It leaves us with a much, much smaller market where individual players are forced to fish for themselves. But even in this limited market there are opportunities. We can see this in a recent multimillion-dollar carbon credit oil agreement between the Oil Mallee Company in Western Australia and one of Japan's biggest electricity enterprises the Kansai Electric Power Company which every year generates close to the total amount of power generated in the whole of Australia. Western Australia has recently established a carbon rights regime, not unlike this one, which has enabled the agreement to go ahead. That agreement involves the planting of 2.5 million mallee trees over and around 1,000 hectares of cleared agricultural land in the northern wheat belt of Western Australia. Mallee eucalypts are an ideal tree to create a carbon sink because of their ability to grow well in dry areas and their capacity to form a large underground sink—the mallee root. Over 20 years the 1,000 hectares of the Kansai plantings will absorb around 860,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. But on top of that Kansai will benefit from the plantation's integrated planning potential in the form of activated carbon, energy generation and eucalyptus oil. There are benefits for the environment beyond the greenhouse results, including salinity control, erosion control and the conservation of biodiversity including native fauna. It is a project that is expected to result in a major boost to the regional economy including tree nurseries, tree planting contractors and the annual rent paid to farmers. There are strong indications that companies like Kansai are poised to dramatically increase their plantings subject to a robust carbon trading market. This government cannot do anything 648 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 about that. Ratifying Kyoto is up to the Howard government in Canberra. So far it has shown little but myopia over the issue. What we can do is to provide a secure regime for investment to enable profit a prendre agreements, and this bill achieves that result. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.27 p.m.): I rise to speak to this Natural Resource and Other Legislation Amendment Bill this evening. Whilst the opposition was in the position where we thought we were supporting the organisation, we are not so sure with this 11th hour amendment. Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. These amendments were circulated to the House last week. Mr JOHNSON: We did not see it. I have not seen it. I am not misleading. I think the minister knows me well enough. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I certainly have not seen it. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr JOHNSON: It might be the minister's problem, but I am just saying where I stand on the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister has advised that he circulated the amendments. Mr JOHNSON: He can please himself what he says. I am just saying where I stand. Mr Robertson: Hopefully you will pay more attention in here. Mr JOHNSON: If the minister wants to have a bit of a go, I will give him a bit of a go. Mr Robertson: The amendments were circulated last Tuesday, 20 April. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! The member for Gregory has the call. Mr JOHNSON: There are many aspects of this piece of legislation. I notice that in the minister's second reading speech he referred to carbon credits as well as the ability of leaseholders and other interested parties to enter into contracts about the ownership. The issue I wish to bring to the minister's attention is the level of interference from government in relation to this ownership on leasehold land. The minister might give his version of that in his summary. We always thought that freehold land was fairly sacred, but there are many leasehold properties around the country. Many of those people would be asking that question. After all, when we look at the carbon credits and where we are going with governments signing and not signing the Kyoto agreement, we find ourselves in the situation in which a lot of people are paying lip-service to the environment. The environment is an integral part of our everyday living now, and I think it governs many factors of our life. This legislation certainly addresses some issues. As the minister says in his second reading speech— There is one major exception to this. If trees have been planted to remediate illegal clearing, those trees cannot—and should not—be a commercial commodity. The point I make here is that, if those trees do grow through to maturity on leasehold land—I am talking about land that was cleared or illegally cleared—when they reach commercial value again, do they fall into the category of commercial value? That is a point I make in relation to leasehold land. Mr Robertson: On land that has been illegally cleared? Mr JOHNSON: Yes, when they reach commercial value again. Mr Robertson: No. Mr JOHNSON: The answer is no, apparently. The other point I want to touch on—and it is something that is very close to my heart—is the second part of this legislation concerning the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act. This act, which was passed in 2002, deals with the way we manage the exotic invasion of weeds and pest animals, and also Queensland stock routes, as the minister referred to in his second reading speech. I believe this is a very, very important part of this legislation and one which many people would be very keen to see how it is managed in the future. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 649

The point I make here this evening is that whilst stock routes are the responsibility of local governments in question they are also overseen by the Department of Natural Resources. I remember years ago as a councillor in the Quilpie Shire Council we always had a common ranger who drove the stock routes in the Quilpie shire and looked at the watering reserves, the stock reserves in question and also the stock routes looking for foreign weeds—whether it was Mexican poppy, algarroba, the Noogoora burr, Bathurst burr or any of those plants that were going to be detrimental to the livestock industry or detrimental to the native flora and fauna. I think over that period of time we had a really good regime in place. We had common rangers and the minister's department had what they called land commissioners who went around on an annual basis. They would come to our place at Quilpie and they would stay overnight. It would take them all day to inspect the property because those properties out there are big properties. They would inspect for Noogoora burr, Bathurst Burr or algarroba or whatever the plant may be that is of noxious origin. Over the years those people have gone by the wayside, and I think that is where the problems set in—when those people were removed. It is not in the minister's time; it is in the time before his government. Since we have not had—I am not saying big brother—those inspectors or common rangers or land commissioners travelling around looking at country, we have seen a lot of these weeds and plants get out of control. Governments of state and local persuasion need to work with land- holders to rectify that problem and get it back into a working environment that will be advantageous not only to land-holders but also to people who travel through that country and see that it is in a clean state. The other day when travelling from Blackall to Barcaldine I noticed Noogoora burr growing in the creek, and I thought to myself if I were downstream on that creek I would not be too happy because it is no good cleaning it up in your place if you know the place above you has plenty of Noogoora burr. These are the things that will be detrimental to the wool industry. In time to come they get into the brush of the tail of a bullock or a beast, and that beast is sold and goes to another place for fattening or breeding and those plants can drop off—no different to parthenium weed or whatever. Parthenium weed is another one that is a real curse to this country. Some of these weeds—mother of millions is another one that comes to mind—are destroying this country. The minister knows well that some of the good downs country around Winton and up in the north-west country and further back in around Hughenden and Richmond have been taken over by mimosa. If we do not have controls put in place before too long, we will find that some of that good open downs country will be rendered worthless and useless. I think the time has come where we need to see industry working together with governments to try to work out how we can address this problem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Shine): I ask the member to make his remarks relevant to the bill. I think there is only a passing reference to stock routes. Mr JOHNSON: There is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Only passing reference; changing it from one to two years. What you are talking about is much wider. Mr JOHNSON: I am talking about the part where the minister makes reference to noxious weeds, et cetera, which is a part of stock routes. I will read it to you. The second part of this legislation concerns the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act passed in 2002, which deals with the way we manage exotic invasive weeds and pest animals ... Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The principal act does but the amendment does not. Mr JOHNSON: I know that. I am just talking about that aspect of it. The other point I want to touch on—and I know the minister has made mention of it—is how we manage these stock routes in the way that livestock are moved. The minister has held meetings at which I have been a party in the past concerning how some of those local authorities are able to administer and manage their stock routes in not only good seasons but also times of drought. In the last four years we have seen an absolute blatant abuse of some of these stock routes by a minority who took advantage of the situation. That situation was they could put their cattle on the road to try to keep their breeders alive; fair comment. But, where people buy stock to put them on the stock route to eat that feed out for their own financial, commercial gain, I have to say that I will not wear it and I am sure the minister will not wear it either. I think it is totally unfair. Those stock routes were not put in place for that reason. It is not the drovers in question here; it is the landowners or the owners of that stock in question who 650 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 authorise those drovers to do exactly that. The point is that the rules and regulations stipulate that loitering is an offence unless they are able to pull up on a reserve for 24 hours and spell stock, but to loiter on a stock route to try to get tucker into cattle or sheep is an offence. If the situation is really grave, there is special compensation referred to in that particular mob, that is a different situation. I know the Blackall shire is one that had terrific problems with this in the last few years. I salute the minister for this because he has made reference to the local government elections. Some of these councils may not be able to have this in place now and he has given them time to do that. I think that is a very sensible and responsible way to deal with this aspect of the legislation. I thank the minister for this provision because I think it will address that problem. It is not just a problem in my part of the state. It is probably a problem in the area of my colleague the member for Charters Towers and the member for Warrego and probably in the electorate of the Minister for State Development in Mount Isa—all those western areas that we are talking about here. At the end of the day people have to realise that the rules and regulations that are set down are put in place for everybody to uphold, and it is usually the people in those council offices, whether it be in Blackall, Charleville, Tambo or Winton or whatever, who are the ones who have issued the instruction. Whilst we make those laws and regulations here, they are not to be abused. I will certainly be working closely with my councils to make sure we get outcomes on that. I thank the minister again for recognising that we need to put a policy in place. I know his departmental people have been very instrumental and very cooperative in trying to bring that about. Without anything further to say, I will be anxious to hear the minister's summary in relation to certain aspects of this legislation and also in relation to the amendments moved by the minister that he said he circulated here last week. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (8.39 p.m.): In rising to participate in the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I acknowledge the point made by the member for Gregory about the amendments which, he now knows, were circulated last week. In the time available to me, I would like to address some of the amendments the minister will move in the committee stage of debate. It is important to do that given the comments made by the member for Gregory. He said that, although it will support the bill, because he was unaware of the amendments the opposition may oppose parts of the bill. I am hoping to convince him that there is no problem and he should support the bill. The first amendment relates to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the validation of applications for and the grant of mineral development licences and mining leases. There is some significant history behind these amendments which deal with—I think the best term is—shell or Swiss cheese exploration permits. Those two terms are good descriptions of what those permits are actually like. They were granted subject to various conditions. Those conditions included a native title exclusion clause which provided that the land subject to native title was excluded from the grant. That clause was inserted to ensure that any permit granted related only to land that was not subject to native title—with the effect that native title was protected, while exploration was allowed to commence immediately where native title was extinguished. At the time the permits were granted, industry and Commonwealth and state governments alike operated on the assumption that pastoral lease land was not subject to native title and as a result exploration permits were granted over pastoral leases. However, the Wik decision in 1996 held that native title could co-exist with pastoral leases and would only be extinguished or impaired if there was any inconsistency between the two. The Wik decision meant that the native title exclusion clause came into effect on pastoral lease land and unallocated state land. This created two different problems. The first problem was where the exploration permit became nothing but an external boundary, where all the land within the boundary was excluded because it was pastoral lease land and unallocated state land. This became known as a shell permit. The second problem was holes of excluded land were created within that external boundary giving rise to the term a Swiss cheese permit. The exclusion clause means that, until the permit holder satisfies the provisions of the Commonwealth's Native Title Act to include that land excluded from the original grant, then no exploration can take place. There are about 21 mining lease applications and 10 mineral development licence applications which have emanated from shell or Swiss cheese permits. Another 66 mining leases 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 651 and eight mineral development leases are affected. It is important to realise when talking about these permits that, until a native title determination is made, it is not certain whether the land in question is excluded which means that the potential for exclusion remains. These amendments I think strike a balance between maximising the land available for exploration and mining in Queensland and ensuring that native title rights are not affected. If our government does not act definitively now many licence and lease applications may have to be rejected because they will not comply technically with two sections of the Mineral Resources Act. Some of these applications have been around for many years. Any decision to reject them could have serious consequences. Many of those applications are well advanced and the applicants have spent significant amounts of money on getting their applications this far. Under the legislation, the minister has no option but to reject them. Leases and licences that have been granted are slightly more secure under administrative law. But the fact remains that these tenures are open to challenge through the legal system, a risk this amendment will remove. These amendments provide a balanced solution to a difficult and complicated problem while protecting the rights of all concerned. As far as the applications are concerned, the amendment will correct any technical non-compliance at the time of application and create certainty for the applicants. I commend the bill to the House. I also commend the amendments. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.45 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. I support this bill and its attempt at providing an incentive for land-holders to plant trees and manage the existing vegetation on their leasehold land. This is a very real example of how, with the stroke of a pen and the making of minor but very significant and technical changes to the current law in Queensland, the government can in a real and constructive way support and provide realistic incentives for land- holders to not just plant trees but manage those trees for today, tomorrow and many years to come. That is what we are about—managing trees, culling saplings and caring for timber today and tomorrow. In supporting the bill I place on the record my concern that the state government bureaucrats will adopt a commonsense approach to the very important issue of hazard reduction burns and controlled burning in this important state of Queensland. The planting of seeds or seedlings is the easiest step—the first step. The maintenance of these important plants and trees as they grow and mature is what requires real care and commitment in Queensland. In speaking to this bill I reflect on the significant fires a few years ago that swept through the Beerburrum pine plantation on the Sunshine Coast and destroyed a valuable timber resource in a short time. The significance of providing incentives and not using the policeman tactic to enforce compliance is a very real and important and valuable example of trying to work with the community in Queensland. I would like to see other ministers follow the lead of this minister in providing incentives to land-holders to do the right thing and not simply relying on departmental officers to enforce the requirements of the legislation to do it. Let us try to encourage land-holders to want to do the right thing with support assistance from this government. The other issue I wish to touch on in this bill is the management of exotic, invasive weeds and pests and Queensland's stock route networks. This will allow local councils an extension of time to finalise their pest and stock route management plans. Here the government is compromising on the current legislative deadlines. The minister knows that many local councils would be in breach of non-compliance of the law if the current law was not amended. I urge this minister and other ministers to follow the lead of compromising and showing some compassion to primary producers if there is an issue of non-compliance with the law. I believe that this is a precedent that needs to be followed by this minister and other ministers. When there is significant non-compliance with the current law, we need to change the law or find out why the parties in question are not prepared or not able to comply with that law. I commend the bill to the House. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (8.48 p.m.): In rising to participate in the debate on the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I would particularly like to address my comments to one of the amendments the minister has flagged for the committee stage—namely, the amendment to the Irvinebank Repeal Act passed last year. Honourable members who were here then will remember that legislation which terminated agreements between the state and Mr Frank Hilla in relation to his proposed purchase of the Irvinebank Treatment Works and repealed Bjelke-Petersen era legislation dealing with that proposed never- completed sale. 652 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004

Section 4 of that act demands that Mr Hilla be issued with a permit to occupy over land that contains the old National Bank building where the Hilla family had lived. The intention of that section was to provide the Hillas with ongoing occupation and access rights to the building that had been their home for 20 years. In October last year, Mr Hilla was offered that permit to occupy but he did not accept it, despite strong encouragement. The offer has lapsed under section 442 of the Land Act. Mr Hilla has made it clear by refusing to accept the permit and moving his family to their own house that he and his family no longer need or want to live in this building. However, this puts the government in a difficult position. The chief executive of the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy is required by law to issue a permit to occupy to a person who clearly does not want it. Section 4, drafted at a time when this circumstance was seen as very remote indeed, has tied the government's hands. The clear solution then is to repeal the relevant section of the act, and I am pleased to support the minister in achieving that purpose. The treatment works and the bank building have a long and proud history. In 1884 John Moffat, a mining entrepreneur and developer, established his headquarters in the place he named 'Irvinebank' after his birthplace in Scotland. His home he named 'Louden House' after the Louden family who hailed from the Irvine Valley. So the treatment works became the Louden Mill and the timber weir on McDonald Creek become the Louden Dam. The Irvinebank tin lodes were not turning the hoped-for profit, so John Moffat developed the idea of a central treatment works and set about acquiring the surrounding tin leases. He also commissioned a tin smelter and in 1907 opened the Stannary Hills-Irvinebank tramway. He was truly the father of Irvinebank, one of the most important records of north Queensland's once- vibrant tin industry. When I spoke on the Irvinebank repeal bill last year, I indicated my strong support for the protection of this area. It needs protection both for its own heritage values and to protect an important asset for the people of Irvinebank, which draws visitors from all over Australia every year and which can create employment for the local people as this component of our tourism industry develops. It is therefore very disappointing that Mr Hilla, before he left Irvinebank, allegedly took with him a number of important historical items from both the National Bank itself and the treatment works. I believe that all possible steps should be taken to investigate these allegations and, if true, seek the return of those items to Irvinebank. I understand that the government is currently moving to change the tenure of the treatment works and the other associated land from unallocated state land to a more appropriate form of tenure in recognition of its historical value. Surveying will start in the near future and it will soon be possible for the people of Irvinebank to look to their future with certainty, a future of a living museum of Queensland's tin mining history. As when I last spoke on this issue, I commend the many people of the Irvinebank community who have worked tirelessly over many years to develop and manage the Louden House museum which portrays the fascinating history of mining in this region and the life and times of John Moffat. It was with great pleasure that I joined the minister last year in the opening of road access to the museum which had actually been obstructed by Mr Hilla when he held the title to the treatment works. The protection then of the adjacent National Bank and treatment works will enable a cultural heritage precinct to be created, thereby achieving their vision for the preservation of the cultural heritage of Irvinebank for all Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (8.52 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This is not the first time commercial dealings with carbon credits, trees and vegetation have been discussed. In 2001 we spoke on the Forestry and Land Title Amendment Bill and raised issues of forest farming and carbon credit trading on the stock exchange. I expressed my scepticism about their prospects. At that time the US was rethinking its position on the Kyoto protocol and, as I mentioned in the debate last week on the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, Australia still has not ratified those protocols. So this bill is itself fairly speculative. However, I support any moves that give our farming sector greater flexibility and which create an opportunity for diversification. In this case we are discussing the extension to leasehold land of something that is already available on freehold—that is, recognition of statutory rights to natural resource products. I note a reference in the explanatory notes to an exclusion—that is, trees planted by way of a compliance notice which are not considered an improvement and therefore cannot become 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 653 subject to a profit a prendre. This seems clear enough. However, as we saw in the vegetation management bill last week, in some instances regrowth can become remnant. Some of the conditions under which that can take place could potentially apply to areas planted with trees for commercial use if those trees are left standing for a long enough period. I believe it is possible for an area of land to be planted with native timbers and so on with the intention that it eventually be harvested only to find that when the time comes the trees have become home to wildlife and that they have encouraged undergrowth and so on and created a complete ecosystem that could fall under a clearing ban. Whether this is likely might be another matter, but I would like to see provisions protecting the long-term investment which such a project entails. As I have said, I support more options for farmers, but I am not convinced a bill based in part on an unratified treaty and which is unclear about how many ways the same block of trees may be sold is going to be much practical help. I move now to the amendment of the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. The intent here is to give local authorities more time to put in place both pest and stock route management plans. It will double the available time from one year to two and is explained as being necessary as many councils will not be able to meet the original 1 July deadline. It is no surprise that councils around the state are finding it difficult. Time and time again this government has passed on its burdens and duties to local government, and time and time again it has done so without providing a cent of additional resources. I believe that a solid injection of funding to local government would be more help in meeting that load than stretching out a time frame without providing any extra assistance. While I have concerns and I believe sections of this bill are speculative at best, I do support farmers having more choices in how they use their land. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (8.55 p.m.): I rise in support of the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. Since 1959 under the Forestry Act in Queensland, owners of freehold land and other interested parties can enter into contracts about the ownership, use and economic benefits of natural resources on freehold land in Queensland. This common law mechanism in Queensland allowed the owners of land to enter into an agreement with another person about the natural resources products on their land, and natural resources products under the Queensland Land Title Act 1994 include all parts of a tree, vegetation and, equally important, carbon stored in trees or in vegetation. However, this mechanism is not available for leasehold land, which is what this bill sets out to rectify. This bill seeks to amend the Land Act 1994, the Forestry Act 1959 and the Land Title Act 1994. It also makes minor amendments to a few other pieces of legislation. I wish to take this opportunity to speak on a few issues, including global warming, carbon commodities and the Kyoto protocol, which is one of the fundamental reasons behind this bill. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the global climate. According to Professor Ian Lowe of the Griffith University, the average temperature is now about 0.7 degrees higher than it was 100 years ago and there have been significant changes in rainfall patterns. The scientific analysis of the changes and the role of human emissions in greenhouse gases have steadily become more clear. The further assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activity. The modelling in the further assessment report shows that the smallest increase in temperature predicted on the most optimistic scenario of fossil fuel use reduction and the most cautious interpretation of the science is a further 1.5 degrees by the end of this century. We have associated changes in rainfall and sea levels, as well as the frequency and severity of extreme events. Other more likely scenarios of fuel use and other interpretation of the scientific uncertainty predict much larger increases in temperature and more severe changes in other areas. The Global Change Science Conference in Amsterdam warned that many of the parameters of the earth's natural system are now outside the range of previous human experience, making it quite possible that we could see serious disruption. The report in Queensland by the rainfall cooperative research centre also indicated that climate change will bring more natural disasters and diseases to Queensland in the next 50 years and that those events will be increasingly deadly. It also says that the future will bring feral pest plagues and will destroy vegetation and predicts a forecast climate change of up to 3.5 degrees in the next 50 to 100 years and could render extinct most of Queensland's rainforest and tropical birds, reptiles, frogs and mammals. The consequences of climate change for Australia are very serious and potentially damaging. The assessment draws attention to the impact of climate change on the Wet Tropics, mountain areas, rivers and wetlands in other parts of the state. It also 654 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 found that cyclones, droughts, heatwaves, bushfires and high winds could occur more often and for longer periods. Action has been forced through recognition of the economic and social consequences of the climate change being projected. The Kyoto agreement sought recognition by leaders of the world community that climate change demanded considered political action. Australia should sign the Kyoto agreement so that we play our part as responsible members of the world community to avert the sort of disastrous outcomes that have been predicted. Under the Kyoto agreement, the developed world as a whole, which has been responsible for about 80 per cent of the human production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels, is obliged to reduce emissions to 95 per cent of the 1990 figure by the 2008-2012 period. Australia is required to limit its emission abatement to 108 per cent of the 1990 figure. The Australian government obtained this uniquely generous target at Kyoto by essentially threatening to withdraw from the convention unless we were given special treatment. As a further concession, the Kyoto conference agreed to a last-minute request by the Australian government delegation at 4 a.m. on the last morning of the meeting that I know of to include land use, changing the 1990 baseline and the 2008-2012 target. This provision is known as the Australia clause, because we were the only OECD country engaging in large-scale land clearing in 1990. So we are the only country that will get a free ride, so to speak, towards this Kyoto target simply by reducing the rate of clearing native vegetation—something we need to do to address other problems such as salinity and the state of our inland rivers. As the world's largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, we have a particular responsibility to play our part. As a long-term solution to the problem, we need to involve developing nations in a future international agreement to reduce emissions to the level required to stabilise the atmosphere. It is about 40 per cent of the present level. There is absolutely no chance of achieving this goal if a nation, including Australia, is prepared to risk the entire planetary climate system for the sake of a few short-term profits. Even Prime Minister John Howard admitted this during an interview in 2002 when he said— We all agree that climate change is a huge challenge, and we all agree that there is, or I certainly accept that there is evidence of global warming. I think everybody sensibly who addresses this subject does. And it's something that's got to be dealt with over a period of time. We are unwilling for national interest reasons to sign up to Kyoto at present because of the absence of the developing countries and the United States, but we are committed to meeting our obligation. That is absolute nonsense. Basically, the Prime Minister is saying that we agree that there are dangers to our atmosphere, but we will not commit ourselves. The stance of the Australian government at the Kyoto conference and since that meeting constitutes a major obstacle to the development of a genuine global agreement. It also gives aid and comfort to the others obstructing progression towards the goal, such as the current United States administration and some oil exporting nations such as Saudi Arabia. One of the hallmarks of a leader is commitment. Prime Minister Howard's leadership on the issue of reducing greenhouse effects is less than desirable. Basically, he is saying, 'Let us wait until Mr Bush says yes, then I will follow. Wait until another country takes the leap, then we will follow'. Owing to the Prime Minister's inaction, it seems that the United Nations treaty on the Kyoto protocol is resting on countries like Russia, which has been unreliable on its stance. On 16 April this year, Russia indicated that it would not sign the Kyoto protocol. Then again a few days later—only seven days before today—on 21 April I read that the Russian government is now prepared to sign the Kyoto agreement. On greenhouse issues, the federal government's record has been very disappointing. We have no national greenhouse strategy, no real commitment to renewable energy, no commitment to significant reductions in greenhouse pollution, no commitment to a carbon tax and the contempt for the Kyoto protocol continues. Whether it is slashing funding to renewable energy research, dumping green housing emission trading proposals, or continuing to undermine Kyoto, Labor's view is very clear. On 29 January at the Labor Party conference, Mark Latham said that, as a nation, we are big enough to protect the environment and ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is the mark of a leader. This bill seeks to enable leasehold land to trade on carbon commodities, which will help reduce the greenhouse effect. I fully commend this bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.05 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I know that in my electorate there has been— Ms Molloy interjected. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 655

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fraser): Order! There is no clapping in the chamber. Ms Molloy: Sorry. If people can scream, I will clap. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that there is no clapping in the chamber. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Although there are no formal mechanisms for carbon credits and carbon trading, the mix and nature of industries in my electorate has not necessitated but has at least activated industries. Several industries have already undertaken quite dense plantation work in order for sequestration credits to be able to be accessed. So, with or without the Kyoto agreement, carbon credits are important to Queensland. I would like to thank the Queensland Parliamentary Library for its excellent research briefing on this issue. That briefing says that many scientific and practical matters regarding carbon sequestration remain the subject of debate. In light of those uncertainties, it is important to note that the amount of carbon that is sequestered depends on the type and age of the vegetation. Indeed, in some of the material that is available, it indicates that the older trees are not necessarily the most efficient in terms of carbon fixing. That briefing states further that carbon that is stored can also be released back into the atmosphere in varying degrees through events such as fire, disease or harvesting. During the debate on the Vegetation Management Bill, now the Vegetation Management Act, I made the comment that, although it is fine to lock up significant areas of forest for all the right reasons, a lot of the good work that is being done in terms of biodiversity protection can be undone if proper husbandry does not occur to ensure that fire fuel does not build up over a short period and in a subsequent season, particularly a dry, hot season, all of the benefit that has been accrued with protecting biodiversity is not lost because of a fire. The same thing will occur in these circumstances where people undertake significant planting of plantations. A lot of work has to go into ensuring that proper care is taken to protect those plantation areas from fire or all of the good work done in terms of carbon sinks can be undone in a couple of days of bad fires. Under the Kyoto protocol, only certain types of forests, that is those established after 1990 on land that has been cleared prior to 1990, qualify as sinks. No national carbon trading scheme has been established in Australia. However, some individual companies are using carbon sinks to reach emission targets under state government regimes. Domestic and international investors see the potential for carbon credit trading in the future and have already invested in carbon sinks. As I said, several companies in my electorate have already undertaken significant planting on the basis of their recognised emissions and their need to establish some environmental balance in terms of locking up this carbon. However, one of the concerns that I wish to put to the minister—and it is not his purview, actually, but it is affected by this legislation—is that companies that take the opportunity to do mass plantings, in terms of recognising carbon credits, cannot on the basis of that work, though, be less than careful, less than attentive to their obligations in terms of environmental controls on their plants. A company in my electorate is particularly susceptible on this point. It is a massive carbon dioxide emitter and has had some plantation work done. Irrespective of how many acres of trees that company puts in place, that should never absolve it from its responsibilities to operate in a sound manner with environmental controls in place, including controls that have to be retrofitted. This is not a bandaid. It is an addition and an asset. It is not an either/or, as far as I am concerned. It is a good initiative, but it should not remove the responsibilities from companies to act responsibly in terms of their environmental controls on site. The legislation also deals with a number of other matters, and I wish to mention just a couple of them. This legislation intends to amend the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 to extend the period within which a local government must have a pest management plan for declared pests in its area and a stock route network management plan for managing stock routes in its area. The initial legislation allowed them one year. Quite a number of local authorities will not be able to comply with that time frame for very valid reasons. The minister has extended compliance for a two-year period. That is welcome. Local government is one area of government that, more than most, is a responder to legislation rather than an initiator of new regulations and rules. Over the last few years, local authorities have been required to comply with a lot of legislation. Many local authorities have small staff. The authorities that I have dealt with have excellent staff but, particularly the smaller rural and regional councils, which would have quite extensive stock route networks and significant problems with pests, do not have the expertise and the resources to be able to buy that 656 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 expertise. Therefore, the extra time is welcome. I am sure that local authorities will do their very best to comply with those obligations and, indeed, want to manage their land responsibly. In the amendments that have been circulated, there are two areas of concern that I wish to place on the record. One is the issue relating to the Irvinebank land area. I acknowledge, and I was very interested in, the comments made by the member for Barron River and the history that the member gave. I remember when the original legislation was introduced repealing the Irvinebank agreements. Mr Hiller made contact with quite a lot of members of government to put forward his and his family's point of view. I would be interested if the minister can clarify whether Mr Hiller has been advised of the intention to place this amendment into the legislation. While I recognise the comments made by the member for Barron River about the history of the case and the fact that the family has moved out of the National Bank building, I would ask whether the Hiller family has had an opportunity to respond to the proposal that is outlined in this legislation. I would be interested in the minister's response to that point. The other issue of concern that I wanted to place on record relates to the amendment in relation to annual valuations. Valuations for communities are lose-lose situations. I do not think there is too much that the department can do to answer the concerns of the community in terms of valuations. They used to be done on a seven yearly cycle. Annual valuations were introduced and they were purported to address the problem of significant valuation increases in any one given period. That worked for about a year. A couple of years after the annual valuations were introduced, we still saw significant increases in valuations for certain areas in a local authority area. For example, seaside areas may have significant annual valuation increases, or biannual or triennial valuation increases. Therefore, in the longer term it did not really address the spike that the seven yearly valuation cycle had created. It just meant that the spike occurred every two or three years. As time has transpired there have been years when, rather than doing on-site valuations, the department has made valuations on a desk-top basis. They sat at the computer and looked at statistic sales and so on, and made adjustments to the valuations on the basis of little if any on-site valuations in terms of being able to recognise land types, et cetera. The primary purpose of the annual valuations has, over a reasonably short period, been depleted and undermined. I think this amendment is going to further undermine that for this reason only, and I would seek the minister's clarification on this because I hope that I am wrong: the amendment appears to say that the chief executive officer may decide—and it lists some circumstances—not to have an annual valuation, but there does not appear to be an accompanying statement that says where an annual valuation does not occur a local authority will not incur the costs of an annual valuation. That is as it ought to be. If a council is not revalued, the council ought not to be paying for a valuation. If we as local members had a constituent come to us who said that they went to a store or a service provider and the service that they required was not provided but they were charged $1,000 anyway, we would contact Fair Trading and Fair Trading would rightfully react to that situation, deem it to be inappropriate and rule that the person making the charge was making that charge invalidly. This legislation, whilst giving the chief executive officer power to avoid annual valuations, must also have an accompanying rider that states where no valuation is done a valuation charge cannot be levied by the state government to the local authority. I seek the minister's clarification as to whether that is inherent in the amendment or whether statements that have been made that the charge will apply, whether or not a valuation is made, are correct. If that is the case, that amendment needs to be opposed. The examples of unusual circumstances are novel. Civil disturbance is an unusual circumstance. Extreme climatic conditions are usually short lived. It might be cyclonic weather which, at most, lasts a week or so. Industrial action is usually short term. Changes in the way that valuations are made: I do not understand why that should absolve a chief executive from doing a valuation if, indeed, it is necessary. As to computer failure, I do not know too many businesses that would allow computer failures to extend past the absolute minimum amount of time, that is, a day at the most. Departments as well as businesses are reliant on computers. I find it novel that computer failure is listed as one of the examples of unusual circumstances that would remove the obligation on the chief executive to value land. I do note that there is a rider that, under subsection 3, the chief executive officer must not decide not to make an annual valuation of land in an area if the most recent valuation of land was made more than four years ago. There is a ceiling placed on the amount of time between valuations of about four years, it appears. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 657

What is occurring in reality is addressed by that amendment. Already valuations are not done on a yearly basis. Already there have been years when local authority areas are not revalued but are given a desk-top valuation or receive a two yearly valuation. That validates what I understand has been happening. However, I do seek the minister's clarification as to whether councils that are not valued will be required by government to pay a valuation fee. I believe that, if that is true, it is not an appropriate exercise of power. It is paying for a service that the council clearly is not getting and in any other area of business would be ruled as invalid. I look forward to the minister's response. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.19 p.m.): I am pleased to support the passage of this bill. In particular, the provisions amending the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 are commonsense changes that demonstrate this government's sympathy and understanding of the many demands of our local government authorities. Speaking of local government authorities, I may just take a moment to congratulate the recently elected mayors and councillors of the three local government authorities that are contained within the boundaries of the Whitsunday shire: in particular, Mayor Brunker, Mayor Julie Boyd in Mackay and Mayor Mario Demartini. I give my hearty congratulations and I look forward to working very closely and positively with them over the next three years. I will return to the bill. The Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and the amendments contained in it extend the deadline for local government pest and stock route management plans by 12 months until 1 July next year. Weeds and pest animals affect all Queenslanders. Certainly weeds affect most of us in our own little suburban blocks. They are a much bigger problem than that. They cost Queensland over $600 million every year in lost production and control costs. They are a disaster for our natural environment. They choke native vegetation, threaten native animals and threaten human health. The economic costs are not limited to agriculture and grazing. They affect ecotourism and a wide variety of other industries. In my own electorate of Whitsunday the Beattie government has been fighting Queensland's only infestation of mimosa pigra, a potentially devastating weed imported from South America in the late 19th century as an ornamental plant. The potential for weeds like this to rage out of control is huge. In the Northern Territory more than 80,000 hectares of wetlands have been infested with mimosa pigra. The situation at Peter Faust Dam near Proserpine, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, as that is your very own home town, is very different. This government has contributed almost $350,000 to fighting this weed. That is in partnership with the local Whitsunday Shire Council, SunWater and the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group. That control program has so far killed over five million plants. Without it, mimosa pigra would have already taken over the major areas around the dam. I have to say this is really important. If this weed does escape by way of feral animal or over the spillway of the dam and into the cane areas, it is not only going to ruin the production of these valuable agricultural lands but will also affect our tourism and ecotourism in the Whitsunday area. I am so pleased that the minister listened to my desperate calls to act, and act quickly, to stop the spread of this weed. Anything else would have been an absolute disaster. It takes a planned strategic approach to fight weeds like mimosa pigra, and local governments play a vital role in that fight. The partnership approach extends to Queensland's stock route network as well. Our 72,000 kilometres of stock routes and the associated reserves are vital not only for traditional users but also for natural resource management and cultural values. Before the major reforms in pest and stock route management instituted by the Beattie government, local councils contributed to the state's rural lands protection fund and then claimed a reimbursement to match their own expenditure on pest management. There was no encouragement for sensible pest management planning. It is a system that was criticised by councils because it did not recognise their financial independence and accountability. Opposition members interjected. Ms JARRATT: I am sorry that the members opposite do not care about these amendments or want to hear the details. This really is very important legislation that would be important for places in their own electorates. Perhaps if they listen they will understand the changes that are being brought about. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O'Brien): Order! Members to my left will cease interjecting. Ms JARRATT: It would be nice if they did that. 658 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004

As I said, it was a system that was criticised by councils because it did not recognise their financial independence and accountability. It did not provide a robust partnership with the state government. With no performance measures, it was not always an effective means of controlling pests and it added more layers of bureaucracy to the entire process. All that has changed, and Queensland's local governments are now responsible for ensuring that pests, animals and plants are controlled on private lands and land under council control. Under the act, every one of Queensland's 125 city, town and shire councils are required to have a plan to manage declared pests by 1 July this year. Forty of those councils are also required to have stock route network management plans in place by the same date. These plans are a vital component of the pest and stock route management reform in Queensland. They will identify and prioritise local strategies that tie into Queensland weed, pest animal and stock route management strategies. This pest management planning brings together the entire community to manage pests effectively. Local councils will sponsor the development of pest management plans, which will be developed with input from landowners, industry, regional strategy groups involved in natural resource management planning, relevant government agencies and the wider community. These plans will also be valuable to regional strategy groups as they develop their regional natural resource management plans—vital for security funding. Pest management plans will ensure that time and money are directed to where they can do the most good. Stock route planning will help develop a clear picture for the local managers of the physical, environmental, cultural and economic elements of their part of the stock route network. They will consider the best way to maintain travelling stock facilities and pasture to manage the multiple uses of the network and the interests of the local community in developing their plans. In short—this is particularly for those opposite—these plans are far too important to rush and risk getting wrong. Getting it right is a lengthy and complicated process. Local councils must establish working groups to help develop their plans, ensure that there is adequate time for public submissions and many other factors. There are many demands on the finite resources of local councils and the weight of other planning obligations, including the planning schemes required by the Integrated Planning Act, along with many other issues mean that many local governments will not be able to meet the 1 July deadline required by the legislation. Extending that deadline is the best, fairest and most practical way to ensure that these plans get it right. The amendments contained within the bill will do just that. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.26 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. I recognise the intent of the bill and I support that bill. The bill allows leaseholders the same ability to enter into and register agreements regarding the ownership, use and economic benefits of natural resource products including carbon commodities, trees and vegetation as currently exists for freehold land. This bill allows for the registration on the lease and land title, tenure of land and natural resources separately to allow for trading. I note that the Parliamentary Library research paper states that the bill provides lessees with an opportunity to diversify, particularly where all or part of their holding is no longer suitable for traditional rural production. Perhaps it would have been a little more accurate to state where traditional rural production has been stifled or stopped because of previous government legislation. This legislation is primarily due to the Kyoto protocol, particularly article 6, which sees the establishment of an international trade in carbon credits. One part of the protocol which is undergoing extensive negotiations is the role carbon sinks might be used as credits to meet countries' emission targets to counteract the emissions generated. Although the federal government is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, to date it has refused to ratify the protocol, stating, 'It is not in the best interests of the country to do so.' That in itself poses a lot of questions. Many scientists and researchers are divided in their views towards matters regarding sequestration and we have at times raised some of these arguments in this place, especially during the debate surrounding tree clearing and vegetation management, both of which have had scientific data in support of and opposed to the bills and their impact. As yet, I am not convinced that the basis on which the assumptions regarding carbon credits are founded are necessarily proven. We are still dealing in an arena which is in its infancy. As with many arguments in fields newly recognised, there are opinions from scientists and researchers all over the world which conflict in their assessment of the science, the reports and the conclusions. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 659

We are passing legislation based on what in time might prove to be unfounded science and assumptions. Have we got it right? I am not the only person to have doubts, especially when it comes to the best method of combating carbon emissions. Doubts are beginning to emerge as cracks in the theories pushed forward begin to appear. Trees were thought to be the best for carbon sinks, but that remains contestable. In my research on this bill I found quite a few papers. I would like to quote from a couple of them. This particular one is from Environmental News Service of 8 August 2002. It states— Previous estimates of the amount of carbon stored by trees and shrubs may have been too high ... The research could force climate experts to recalculate the benefits of growing trees as a way to offset human caused emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming. The study by researchers from four universities explored whether the trees and shrubs now encroaching on former U.S. grasslands are helping to mop up some of the carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles, power plants and other sources. The team concluded that in many locations, the trees may be absorbing less carbon than what is emitted by soil once covered with grasses. ... Policy makers have hoped that growing more trees would help slow or stop the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a process most scientists blame for ongoing global warming. Another one states— New research about the ability of forests to act as carbon sponges could deal a blow to Kyoto targets, as, far from soaking up carbon dioxide, trees may already have all that they need. ... The study flies in the face of popular scientific thinking that woodland will compensate for rising carbon dioxide levels to some extent. It also deals a blow to companies who want to fund forest planting as a means of meeting Kyoto targets and mitigate their contribution to warming. Another recent study concluded that estimates of carbon sequestration by forests were "unduly optimistic". The study by Ram Oren, of Duke University, North Carolina, found that as forests are usually relegated to sites with poor nitrogen content in the soil, tree growth, and therefore carbon sequestration ability, was severely hampered. Another study states— The process, called carbon sequestration, occurs when grassy crops and fast-growing trees— Members will note that it says 'grassy crops'. I would like the minister to be aware of that. A lot of the research I have looked into does not mention just fast growing trees but also grassy crops extensively. As it says here— The process ... occurs when grassy crops and fast-growing trees remove carbon from the air and store it in soil or use it to grow roots, stems and leaves. All the research that I have undertaken shows that grasslands, along with trees, have to play a part in this carbon management. So it has to be a balance between the two. Another article states— Assessments relying on carbon stored from woody plant invasions to balance emissions may therefore be incorrect ... It goes on— However, another sink for carbon is the soil. The organic carbon in soils can remain in the soil for centuries. Furthermore, the global soil carbon pool is about twice as large as the plant pool. So while grassy vegetation in itself is no long-term carbon repository, the rich black soils underneath many grasslands can be. It further states— That data search found that as you move to increasingly wet environments, grasslands have a lot more soil than shrublands and woodlands do. The analysis suggested that sites with the potential to store the most plant carbon also had the potential to lose the most soil organic carbon. They found that there was a clear negative relationship when grasslands were invaded by woody vegetation. So again it is raising a lot more questions than are being answered. Why the precipitation-tied carbon loss is occurring is still unclear, though researchers have suggested that grasslands send a lot of their carbon below ground, so that carbon goes immediately into the soil. It would appear that there is a long way to go before the whole story is uncovered when it comes to carbon credit and the whole issue. In all things there must be some sort of balance between the two. The theories about which is the best way to store the carbon sinks is not really what this bill is about. It is purely about a perceived tradeable commodity and future trading of same. There is in all things legal issues which need addressing with regards to ownership or interest in the carbon storage capability of trees, vegetation and land. With regards to the carbon credit storage in the 660 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 soil, I would like to ask the minister whether he has gone into that. I also have a question regarding the legal provisions. With regards to ownership of the land, and ownership of the forest which gives rise to carbon sequestration and ownership of the rights to that sequestration of carbon in the trees, I am assuming that the ownership at the time of passing this bill belongs to the person who is the land-holder at this time. Is that right? Mr Robertson interjected. Mrs PRATT: I thank the minister for clarifying that. There are so many questions regarding the scientific and practical merits surrounding this subject and there is an awful lot of uncertainty. I believe this is pre-empting the future, and as a once girl guide I was always prepared so I see a lot of benefits in this bill being prepared for what might be in the future. There are a lot of questions. As I said, the stock route has caused a lot of concerns, and I have listened to a lot of them in the House this afternoon. Arguments relating to the amendment to the evaluation have been expressed quite well by members of the House, so I will not go into those again, but it does cause me a little bit of doubt. So my final support of this bill—and I did have the intention of supporting it—will be based on the minister's answers. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (9.35 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I would like to direct my contribution to one of the amendments the minister has indicated he will be moving when the bill reaches the committee stage. The amendment to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 will increase the operational efficiency of this particular piece of legislation—in this case, dealing with the scope of the annual revaluation taking into account not only market patterns, the length of time since the last valuation, the overall annual valuation program and the desires of stakeholders but also operational practicality. The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy has about 1.4 million properties on its valuation roll, and while the entire roll is regularly updated the normal valuation process does not in fact cover all Queensland properties. It is limited to around one million, directing the resources to areas that are most in need of revaluation based on the factors I have just mentioned. A larger council area like Brisbane might see new valuations every year, but smaller rural councils might only have their valuation provided every three or four years. But in every case an initial market survey of statewide market trends assists in the decision-making process. The decision about which local government areas to include has in the past taken into account many factors but has never explicitly considered the practical possibility of conducting the revaluation, whether it be for a single council area or for Queensland as a whole. We live in the real world, where we are regularly faced with exceptional and unusual circumstances, including the current situation with Queensland valuers. It is worth noting that revaluation is not quick work, nor is it simple. It is long and intensive of both time and money, covering market assessment, individual property considerations, comparative adjustments and even mundane computer processing to upgrade the systems, and communicate with land- holders, local councils and other stakeholders. As honourable members are no doubt aware, the department itself has become involved in industrial action with its valuers over issues arising from the current market boom. It is understandable that during a massive property boom there would be a vastly increased demand for valuers in the private sector, where valuers are being given the opportunity to move into a much more lucrative sphere but also into a work environment of incredibly high pressure. The current dispute has focused on pay levels, work conditions and longer term work opportunities. I understand that the negotiations are moving towards resolution and that an end to the dispute may be in sight, but in the meantime the work bans on revaluation activities have meant that the annual revaluation has not been able to be finalised within the required time frames. I am told that it will be at least another three months before the revaluation could possibly be completed. That extra time is not allowed by the current legislation. The minister assures me that other solutions to this problem—a late revaluation, a quicker finish or even a more limited valuation than planned—have been closely examined. The truth is that they will not work. This amendment also includes an important provision for the chief executive of the department to reverse his or her decision if circumstances changed and the revaluation became possible. I know that many of the 46 local councils due to be revalued this year have expressed their preference that a revaluation go ahead, if possible. They have also made it clear that if the information was not available by early April they would prefer to base their rates on the data in the 2003 valuations—just as the 78 other local governments did. 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 661

It is important at this point to make it very clear that in legislation there is no direct linkage between council rates and valuations. A common myth—often perpetuated by local councils trying to pass the buck for rate rises—is that if the value of a person's property increases so will their rates. This is not true. I have had a lot to do with significant rate rises in my electorate. People have made those connections to valuation increases. This is an important matter to consider. We have done a lot of work on the valuation processes in the past to make sure we get reasonable and accurate valuations in the marketplace, that there is consistency between valuation areas and that there is feathering between valuation areas. We have achieved a lot of those refinements over the years and I am grateful to this minister and the previous minister for the work they have done on that. At the end of the day, it is up to councils and the enormous discretion that they have under their act to set valuations at levels that are appropriate to the level of services delivered. Valuations are just one factor taken into account by councils when deciding what rates they will set. Councils can decide not to increase rates. There is an extraordinary variation across Queensland between councils in terms of the use they have made of those valuations, how they apply them, whether they apply flat increases and what component of their overall rates and charges the general rate components is. Councils also have many options available to them to average rates over a two- or three-year period, to cap or limit rate increases by a set percentage or introduce a differentiation rate system. The current situation has been exacerbated by the local government elections. When previous council elections have been held in February or March the government has agreed to postpone the release of valuations until after the election to allow the debate to remain focused on local government issues. For those who have expressed cynicism over this, including members opposite, I would like to point out that this happened at the request of many councils, many of them controlled by the National Party and Liberal Party. That procedure has followed again this year. The council elections took place without the distraction of a public debate over valuation and their mythical, direct link to rates. To prevent any disruption to council budgets, this amendment provides transitional provisions to ensure that the last valuation will stay current—that is, 2004 council budgets will rely on 2003 valuations. This is truly a clause dealing with an unusual circumstance. We talk about exceptional circumstances in terms of naturally occurring events like climate change. We talk about a one-in- 30-year storm or a one-in-50-year flood. It is instructive to reflect that, in the 60 years since the original act was passed, this is the first time an issue like this has arisen. This is truly an exceptional circumstance. This amendment will allow the government to be flexible in dealing with unusual and unforeseen circumstances when it comes to annual valuations. I urge local governments to engage the debate, to go forward in examining better rating systems—rating systems that are far more relevant to their local communities and to the delivery of their services—to go forward in a way that acknowledges that the valuation level set in their local government district is not fundamental to the level of rates that are set and certainly not to service delivery. They need to engage this debate and get on with it and set new standards for rates right across Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy) (9.45 p.m.), in reply: Firstly, I thank all members for their participation in this debate. I thank the opposition for their support for the principal bill. I understand we may have some issues with respect to the amendments that we will probably be thrashing out tomorrow. In terms of the principal bill, I appreciate their support. I thought I would take this opportunity to make a couple of comments about the issues raised by the opposition spokesman with respect to carbon sequestration. We will look at carbon sequestration and the properties of woody vegetation. During their growth phase trees are carbon sequesters. They are sucking in carbon and it is transformed into growth of the trees. It is true to say that trees at some stage start to level off in terms of the amount of carbon they sequest. As the trees mature their growth rates obviously slow. Instead of becoming carbon sequesters, they then become carbon stores. We talked a little about this during last week's tree clearing debate. Once a tree is cleared, once it is knocked down it becomes a carbon emitter. We use the sequesting properties of trees 662 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 28 Apr 2004 during the growth phase and leave them there as carbon stores. Once they die and they start to deteriorate they emit carbon back into the atmosphere. This bill is about providing opportunities for this. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, the mechanisms do not formally exist at this point in time. Should that come about, the purpose of this bill is to allow land-holders to enter into contracts where they can grow trees on both freehold and leasehold land for the purposes of sequesting carbon which can be traded to a carbon emitter. We already see some preliminary deals throughout Australia where power companies, sometimes foreign power companies, enter into agreements with land-holders to grow trees on their land as a trade-off for the carbon that they emit during their principal operation. This is an opportunity that land-holders may take should circumstances arise. To that extent, I think it is probably worth while helping the member for Tablelands. It is true that Australia has not signed the Kyoto protocol. But, similarly, it is also true to say that the Commonwealth government has defined in quite public policy that by 2008—that is, the next round of reporting requirements under the Kyoto protocol—it wants to achieve outcomes as if it were signatories to Kyoto. I read out today part of a press release from the federal Environment Minister, David Kemp. He was lauding the federal government's achievements in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. He made the point in the press release that this was an extremely important outcome for the purposes of their reporting requirements under the Kyoto protocol by 2008. A number of members asked the question: in terms of leasehold land, would the land-holder actually own the trees? We know that that is already the case with freehold land. The question is if that is the case now for leasehold land. That is actually the central purpose of the bill—that is, that leaseholders will be able to own the natural resource products on their land. In terms of new plantations where they have entered into a profit a prendre arrangement with a third party or second party, they own those trees and those trees can be traded for the purpose of an agreement with another party. In order for a leaseholder to enter a profit a prendre agreement, they must own the trees. Under the Land Act, any improvements to the land belong to the leaseholder, including, among other things, tree plantations, which is trees planted by the leaseholder. The member for Toowoomba North mentioned one important exception, and that is trees planted under a mediation notice for a legal clearing. These trees must be protected and the lessees must not be able to benefit from those remediation works. The government stands firm in its commitment to ensure that no-one who clears illegally is ever able to benefit or gain by that illegal clearing. I trust that that does answer the query of a number of members, in particular the member for Gregory. Trees planted for environmental purposes like conservation, restoration of riparian zones or as part of Bushcare programs will be recognised as an improvement, meaning the profit a prendre agreements may exist but their environmental value can also be protected through the use of covenants or conservation agreements. Again, we dealt with that last week during the vegetation management debate where we talked about part of the $150 million package being able to enter into agreements with land-holders—both leasehold land-holders and freehold land-holders—to protect vegetation for conservation purposes and benefiting financially out of that action. I now come to the member for Warrego. On behalf of all members of the House, I thank the member for Warrego once again for his particularly challenging contribution to this debate. Once again, we saw a wonderful example of scientific quackery. I was actually listening to his contribution. I looked over to my senior policy adviser, Kay Pearse, and it reminded me that my senior policy adviser, too, is a doctor. The member for Warrego has brought up this one particular doctor who has said, 'This is white,' and I turned to my doctor who then says, 'No, it's black.' Now, how has that advanced the debate? It has not advanced the debate one iota. Do members know how the debate gets advanced? It gets advanced by peer review when a scientist comes up with a theory. Some of course go straight to publication to try to make a hero out of themselves, but most reputable scientists put their work to peer review—that is, they put it in front of their peers for testing and analysis before it gets out into the public arena. All of the science that the member for Warrego talked about under the Great Barrier Reef protection plan has been peer reviewed. The member for Warrego said, 'Can you table this information?' I have a better deal for him, but it is going to require him to do a bit of work. It is going to require him to actually turn on a computer and go into my department's web site and then he can download just about every publication he could ever think of in relation to the reef protection plan. He can go into Commonwealth web sites and download its reports. Because he 28 Apr 2004 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 663 spent almost two years as Minister for Natural Resources in this state, the member should know that the work done by the department is peer reviewed before it is released for public consumption. I have to say to the good Dr Morahasy, whom I know pretty well, that what she has been saying has not been reviewed. Yes, she is a contrarian and there is always a role for a contrarian in life because it does challenge us from time to time. But, member for Warrego, that does not mean she is right. I would only hope at some stage that the member will learn the principles of academic discipline before he comes into this place spouting forth his wild theories of scientific quackery which I referred to before. I turn now to perhaps a more sensible contribution to the debate, and that is the member for Gladstone. She claimed that if the valuations are not being done this year they should be provided for no fee. A number of members in fact said that. I am concerned about these statements, and I think that the member for Warrego also mentioned this. As a former Natural Resources Minister who might be expected to understand the rudiments of the Valuation of Land Act, he would know that the act states that the fee is payable annually whether or not valuations are issued in a local government area in a particular year. That has thus been the case for a long time, including the time that he was minister in this portfolio. That fee covers much more than the issuing of annual valuations, member for Gladstone. I will try to refer to you, member for Gladstone; I have dealt with him. It covers the whole service—a database that is updated every few weeks, the provision of regular statistical analysis, market surveys, consultations, valuations themselves and managing the grievance processes. Everyone in this place knows that not all councils receive their valuations every year, but they all contribute to the valuation service annually under section 73(3)(b) of the Valuation of Land Act. It was long ago decided by all concerned that this is a better system than councils having to pay the full cost of the valuation provision. The truth is that since 1985 the state has been subsidising the valuations service to councils. At the moment, valuations cost the government around about $20 million a year of which only $7.3 million is charged to councils. The Queensland government has been nothing but open in our response to the valuers dispute, and we are hopeful that a resolution to that dispute may be reached soon. I turn now to pest and stock route management. A number of members said that this issue was important, and I think that they were generally supportive of the extension of time that we had given to local government to complete their pest and stock route management plans. The primary purpose of stock routes is for travelling stock, not agistment. A move away from that would corrupt that purpose and potentially cause harm to the many people whom the member for Gregory in particular spoke about. I was fascinated to actually listen to the contributions by the member for Warrego and the member for Gregory. I can only say that if anyone wants to read their contributions they will understand why I backed the member for Gregory's view about the proper use of stock routes rather than the member for Warrego's view, because councils do have the discretion to allow agistment for up to two months for circumstances like land-holders adversely affected by drought, fire or flood, for purposes like branding, crutching or dipping or if, within a stock route plan, the land is identified as containing more pasture than is necessary. The member for Gregory called for the state to take more responsibility for pests and stock routes. The pest and stock route management reforms have been all about cementing a partnership approach between the state government, councils, regional natural resource management groups and the wider community. Local councils are close to the action and their on-the-ground knowledge is irreplaceable. They are better able to identify and speak for the individual needs of their local communities. The stock route working group is looking at ways the legislation may be improved to take on the concerns of the community to try to further strengthen this comprehensive new way of managing our stock route network. The member for Nicklin expressed concerns about hazard reduction burns and controlled burnings. I can assure the member that the state government conducts controlled burns and other fire hazard reduction activity on unallocated state land, including in the member's own electorate. Similarly, other land-holders are responsible for managing fire hazards on their own land. The member will be interested to know that the Department of State Development is leading the development of a code of practice for plantations as part of the Queensland forest practice system. That plantation code will ensure that the establishment, maintenance and harvesting of plantations satisfy appropriate operational and environmental standards. Finally, the member for Gladstone asked a question with respect to the Irvinebank amendment. Has Mr Hilla been contacted? The simple answer is that, yes, there have been ongoing negotiations with Mr Hilla. Unfortunately, they have not been brought to a satisfactory 664 Adjournment 28 Apr 2004 conclusion. Time does not permit me to go into that tonight. The member may wish to ask me about that in the committee stage. But it is fair to say that Mr Hilla has been provided with every opportunity to come to an appropriate settlement with the state in relation to this particular matter, but by virtue of the fact that he no longer occupies his former residence and, therefore, my chief executive cannot actually issue him with a permit, we need to make that amendment lest my chief executive is in breach of the act. With that, I might close and commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy) (10.00 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Qantas, Gold Coast Air Services Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.01 p.m.): The decision by Qantas to abandon services from Melbourne to the Gold Coast and cut back sharply on services from Sydney to the Gold Coast is a savage attack on the Gold Coast future as a business seminar venue. Qantas's decision to replace these services with no-frills budget carrier Jetstar has understandably drawn the ire of Gold Coast residents, with the local newspaper, Gold Coast Bulletin, carrying pages and pages of letters to the editor and mobile phone text messages of readers voicing their anger. Revelations that the Gold Coast-Melbourne and Gold Coast-Sydney routes have some of the highest seat occupancy rates in the country highlight the short-sightedness of Qantas's action and refutes their claim that the Gold Coast routes were merely leisure routes. The Gold Coast is much more than a tourist destination; it is Australia's sixth biggest and fastest growing city with a thriving business sector. The Gold Coast is already a major convention destination with the long- awaited $120 million convention centre due to open in the middle of this year. Qantas's decision is a slap in the face for the Gold Coast. While there is one silver lining in Qantas's decision in that there will be increased seat capacity overall, the switch to Jetstar means that there is no more business-class travel to the Gold Coast and no more frequent flyer points for business travel to the Gold Coast. That will detract from the city's ability to market itself as both a tourist and a business destination. I am deeply disappointed that the Premier and Tourism Minister, Margaret Keech, will not stand up for Gold Coast residents, refusing to criticise this decision, with the Premier even welcoming the switch. I urge Qantas to listen to the voice of the people and maintain full service flights to the Gold Coast.

Anzac Day Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (10.02 p.m.): This evening, I rise to speak about the Anzac Day services in my electorate and the four services that I attended at schools on the Friday at Beerwah High School, Glenview State School, Peachester State School and Conondale State School. The Conondale State School held its service at 9 o'clock and it was just lovely. At the remembrance stone, laid by the Maleny RSL under the trees, the year 6 students and their teacher, Mr Phil Gaffney, led the service. It was very special in that Mary Fleiter, a long-time resident and previously a teacher at the school, reminded students that soldiers come from small towns all across Australia. She spoke about the service of our three special guests, Mr Terence Hunt, Mr Ronald Tesch and Mr William Richter. The students did a rollcall of all Conondale residents who had served in wars, and students who were relatives laid either a sprig of rosemary or a fresh flower in remembrance of their service. It was very touching and very well prepared by the school. A young high school student, Arlo Goozee, was the bugler for the occasion and he also played on Sunday at the dawn service, the Witta cemetery service, the Maleny Soldiers Memorial Hospital and the main service at the Maleny RSL. Each of those services on Sunday was special in its own way, but I want to particularly mention the service at Witta. It is a beautifully kept cemetery surrounded by trees, with many birds sounding their calls during the service. There are 63 veterans buried at Witta, with 12 columbaria and 51 grave sites marked by white crosses. After 28 Apr 2004 Adjournment 665 the President of the RSL, Mr Frank Beattie OAM, and I laid our wreaths, the lament was played beautifully by our lone piper, Mr Bill Howitt. During the lament, members of the community and ex- service men and women moved throughout the cemetery to stand at one of the grave sites and place an Australian flag and a sprig of rosemary. It was a very moving service. At the main service, we had the chance to honour a local resident's father who had performed meritorious service during World War I. Mr Ed Gordon, my old friend from Conondale, brought his father's medals and citations with him to the service. Lance Corporal Bernard Sidney Gordon was awarded the Victoria Cross and the Military Medal. On 27 August 1918, Lance Corporal Gordon single-handedly attacked a German machine gun, killing the gunner and capturing the post, which consisted of one officer and 10 men. He then took over further trenches, capturing another 51 prisoners and five machine guns. This was during a conflict at Bray, East Hamel, France. He also was awarded the Military Medal for his courageous and strategic actions in capturing another trench system. As his citation said, he showed most conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty in the face of the enemy. It is because of people like Lance Corporal Gordon that we can live safely and in freedom in Australia. It was an honour to also attend services at Caboolture at dawn and Wamuran at 6 a.m. We all reaffirmed our admiration of the magnificent heroism, self-sacrifice and endurance of the sailors, soldiers, airmen and medical staff who have served in the wars of this century and the last century. I thank all of the RSL and national service men and women's associations who organised the ceremonies and spent time talking with students and assisting them to be part of this day of honouring and remembrance. Lest we forget.

Currimundi State School Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.06 p.m.): As all members are aware, corporate Australia has gone through major changes in the past 10 to 20 years. In fact, to be successful in this competitive age, any business—small or large—must plan adequately for its development, growth and future. This need for planning is now a component of most schools throughout our state. Tonight, I would like to comment on Currimundi State School, which is located in my electorate and which currently has an enrolment of 677 students ranging from preschool to year 7. The principal, Mr Richard Wilkinson, has adopted a very proactive approach to the requirement of ensuring the future of the school. That future correlates with the growth within the Currimundi area and the school itself has become not just a place of learning but a focal point for future community development. The school has adopted as its theme the phrase 'Riding the Waves to Success' and has published a document titled Reshaping our school culture through shared leadership. Mr Wilkinson and the teachers, staff, parents and students are to be congratulated on taking such an approach. The document states as follows— Currimundi State School, through a strong sense of purpose, manifested in the school vision 'Riding the Waves to Success' and the sharing of leadership with everyone, is reshaping the school culture and expanding its capacity to create its future. Currimundi's vision encapsulates the school community's belief that effective learning is: Lifelong Recognises the individual Is challenging and future focused Is carefully and meaningfully sequenced Benefits the global community Requires a 'have a go' attitude Happens in a well organised, relaxed and friendly environment. The attitude of the school is further evidenced by an ambitious project to construct a multipurpose community hall at a cost of $840,000. It is the intention that the hall be used not just by the school but by the wider community. The document goes on to detail statistics, including that 97 per cent of parents were satisfied with student confidence in using computers compared with 79 per cent in 2001, while 100 per cent of staff agreed that the school's vision is evident in the student's achievements—a 44 per cent improvement in 2001—and that in 2003, there was an 11.5 per cent decrease in behaviour incidents. This document provides parents with a vision for the future and material to gauge the school's teaching qualities. It details strategic change put in place to continue the school's growth. 666 Adjournment 28 Apr 2004

The document discusses thoroughly the strategy with which the school intends to take itself forward. It is a fine example of how Caloundra schools are changing to suit current needs. The work that is undertaken by the principal, staff and parents and the students— Time expired.

Anzac Day Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (10.10 p.m.): The ever-increasing numbers of Australians attending Anzac Day services across our state and country is a source of real pride for our community. Anzac Day has become a time for individuals, families and communities to remember, recall and reflect on the experiences and sacrifices that the service men and women have made in the name of peace for each of us. Anzac Day services commemorate not only the conflict at Gallipoli but also, as the Anzac story is told each year, the stories of many other battles. This year the RSL featured the contribution that nurses have made and are making in times of war. At the Kapyong Day service held on 24 April at Geebung Zillmere RSL sub-branch this year, a large crowd heard Lt Col Jean O'Neill reflect upon her time as a registered nurse in the Korean conflict. As a nurse myself, I struggled immensely to comprehend the enormity of the tasks that those nurses undertook. The challenge to provide professional nursing care in such profoundly difficult circumstances is worthy of always remembering. I thank the RSL for its decision to have our nurses' story heard by a new generation of Australians. I thank my nursing ancestors for their courage and compassion in times of war. It is an amazing legacy. Anzac Day 2004 also provided me with an opportunity to attend Strathpine State School commemorative service last Friday. The service held in front of the RSL memorial at the school was, without a doubt in my mind, one of the most moving and thoughtful school Anzac Day services I have attended. Present at the service was the entire school student community. All of them were respectfully quiet throughout the entire proceedings. The school leadership team of Mitchell Mardiste, Melanie Aviles, Emma Pitt, Ben Duncan, Michelle Lim, Braeden Claus, Rebecca Drahiem and Rima Maulio conducted the service with a real sense of pride and understanding of the importance of the day they were commemorating. The service was held in front of an assembled group of local ex-service men and their families who were represented by Mr Bob Swan. Principal Mr Col Tune addressed the school by reading an excerpt from a book that he is writing. He shared a story from his visit to Gallipoli with his son last year. The audience, including me, were frankly spellbound at his description of the emotion and atmosphere of Australians commemorating Anzac Day at this sacred site. Ben Dawson, a student from the school, recited a poem called Sir to Mr Swan and the other diggers. It was recited word perfect and delivered with real heart. Trent O'Brien and David Kachel, Pine Rivers State High School students, performed the Last Post and Reveille flawlessly. The choir was incredibly beautiful and sang a number of very special songs. The service ended with each class laying a floral wreath on the memorial at the school. As district director Jenny Haddrell said to me during this process, a picture paints a thousand words and the picture painted by the Strathpine State School was one of utmost poise and respect for the memory of an Australian Anzac spirit that lives on at this very special state school. I thank them for their efforts.

Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (10.13 p.m.): As members may be aware, the electorate of Charters Towers is one of the largest electorates in the state. I can travel over 200 kilometres without seeing one single person. People drive a round trip of up to 800 kilometres just to get a tooth fixed or seek specialist treatment. In the past 15 years, we have seen many of our health services removed. Many residents living in rural Queensland have to travel further to access those services. Country people do not have heavily subsidised public transport running to frequent schedules. They have no choice but to use their own cars to access specialist medical services. It is disappointing for many of those who use their own vehicles because the Patient Transport Subsidy Scheme pays just 10c per kilometre, as it did a decade ago. This level of subsidy is an insult when one considers that the cost of running an average family car is at least 50c to 60c per kilometre, as independently assessed by organisations such as RACQ. 28 Apr 2004 Adjournment 667

The government shows little concern for country people who do not have heavily subsidised public transport running to frequent schedules as our city cousins do. It is time to show that we have the interests of Queenslanders and rural and regional Queensland at heart. In the past 10 years, vehicle running costs including purchase, registration, insurance, fuel and maintenance costs have increased substantially. Yet country people who have to drive themselves to gain access to specialists are being paid the same rate as a decade ago. I strongly support an increase in this subsidy. Many individuals and organisations have repeatedly asked that these types of subsidies be indexed to the consumer price index. In all fairness, the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme needs to be doubled to a minimum of 20c per kilometre and this rate should be linked to the CPI so that it keeps pace with rising costs. I call on the minister to take this issue into consideration because we really need to bring this support in line with 2004 costs and keep it at relevant levels. The fact is there has been a very real and ongoing shrinkage of medical treatment available in regional Queensland, especially specialist treatment. This shrinking has impacted on the cost to all people who need to travel for treatment. While it is clear that the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme mileage rate has fallen way behind the cost of running a vehicle, so too has the accommodation subsidy rate of just $30 a night for spouses or family members who have to take other family members to large centres for treatment. The overnight rate for staying at a commercial motel is just $30. For those who stay in non-commercial accommodation it is just $10 a night. In any town the cost of staying in a motel is at least $60 to $70 a night. Time expired.

Southport State High School Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (10.16 p.m.): To avoid the risk of plagiarising, may I say at the outset that I am referring to the words of Mr Rob Stones, the principal of the Southport State High School—one of my alma maters—from the February newsletter. I cannot improve on these words, so I quote— I can't begin the year without responding to John Howard's ridiculous comment that State schools are "values neutral"! In our school there are many influences that ensure that, far from being neutral we are 'value rich'. These influences include: The idealism of the teaching staff; The strong influence of parents and community; My personal beliefs as the principal. We know that we are creating futures here. We are not simply about teaching subjects (though we do that well too). We are totally committed to the belief that, as teachers, we have a huge responsibility for the future of our community and our world. We believe that our job is not only to make it possible for our students to achieve academic success, but also to encourage them to be loving, responsible, generous, honest, compassionate and loyal. We try to structure our school so that our young people learn that they are unique, lovable, capable individuals who respect and value themselves. We do value equity, respect for difference and alternative cultures, but in parallel with this we still expect and demand high levels of personal responsibility. We want our students to be happy, to care about others, to expect greatness of themselves but to have their feet firmly anchored in reality. We believe that these are the dimensions of personal excellence. Our present Prime Minister is a consummate politician. He clearly understands and utilises devices such as wedge politics, attention getting sound grabs, divisive issues. His priority is power—staying in power particularly. That is very different from what we are about. We are about your kids. They are what we value. We want what is best for them. Whatever minor deficiencies in physical resources we sometimes battle, we are fully resourced in what matters—care, commitment, vision and skill. We care for your kids, we want the best for them, we work very hard to get the best for them, we do whatever it takes to help them. I think that that says it all. Those are the comments of the principal of a Gold Coast high school that has those values. They are the very opposite to the values of the Prime Minister.

Ergon Energy Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.19 p.m.): Tonight I speak about the hidden but very real costs of corporatisation and privatisation. At a state level there is a glaring example with Ergon Energy. Under the user pays principle, it is becoming unbearably expensive for many in my electorate to connect to the power supply or to upgrade their connections for farming of business 668 Adjournment 28 Apr 2004 purposes. For example, I am regularly approached by farmers who want to upgrade to a three- phase power supply but are horrified at the huge sums required to get the work done. Quite often quotes are in the $20,000 to $30,000 price range, which is prohibitive in the current economic climate. The problem is that Ergon operates as a corporation with a profit motive for its shareholders, the government, but in practical terms it is a monopoly. It is not as if there are a host of alternative power line erection companies to which the farmer can go. In a world supposedly driven by competition, Ergon is sitting very pretty. If one is unhappy with the reliability of power supply, that is too bad. If one is dissatisfied with the quality of power supplied, one cannot go to another supplier. If one is unhappy with the cost of connection, one still cannot go to another supplier. Telstra is another example of how the bush is missing out. Let me recount a very recent experience of a business in my electorate. The business involved operates in the financial markets and, therefore, needs full Internet access to conduct its business. But a fault closed down this vital business connection for nine days. It is impossible to continually cut staff, as Telstra does, and maintain a capacity for prompt service and support. If the people are not on the ground, the repairs cannot be done. It is as simple as that. We have to remember that this is taking place whilst Telstra is still 51 per cent government owned. Heaven knows how poor the service and support will become if it is ever completely privatised. So we in rural areas might all need to begin investing in carrier pigeons. Claims against Telstra for full compensation places its own added costs and burdens on small business. I think it has a hide to ask anyone to detail how they tried to minimise any loss caused by its own incompetence. There is no way anyone subject to such faulty service and such poor support could think privatising Telstra would be of any help at all. The impact of the corporatisation and privatisation of essential services is clearly apparent in the bush. These things—corporatisation and privatisation—come at the cost of services and support in regional areas. It is impossible to create an entity charged with operating commercially and then expect those same organisations to operate in the interests of economically difficult ways, such as servicing rural and remote communities. This government's own Health 2020 identifies a trend towards knowledge based industries. That is why I have concentrated tonight on electricity and telecommunications. Both are vital to knowledge based industries and both are suffering under corporatisation. The same document states that health services are increasingly being provided by corporations. It is frightening to contemplate the care of our ill and injured being left to the ungentle hands of profit-driven operations. Time expired.

Road Safety Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (10.22 p.m.): I rise to address the House tonight on a very serious issue of road safety. In Hervey Bay in recent weeks we have tragically had three fatal traffic accidents which have claimed four lives. My deepest sympathies go to the families and friends of those people who so suddenly lost their lives in such circumstances. The three accidents occurred at the intersections of Booral Road and River Heads Road, Booral Road and Main Street and on the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Road at Scrub Hill. Each accident involved two or more vehicles and they occurred in good weather with good visibility. I do not wish to speculate on the precise causes of each accident. The police traffic incident reports are not yet available and I do not wish to add to the grief of the families by making premature and uninformed comment on such gravely serious matters. I will say, however, that if the road condition, width or speed limits applicable is suggested by the traffic incident reports to be a relevant factor in any or all of these accidents, I will ensure that any necessary remedial works are undertaken immediately. There has been some comment recently in Hervey Bay's print media to the effect that I should be screaming for immediate roadworks at the sites of these tragic accidents without waiting to see what the actual causes of the accidents were. The problem with such an approach is that it potentially allows scarce roads funding to be poured into improvements which may not have any beneficial effect in preventing future occurrences of similar tragedies. In this job I will always endeavour to tell the truth as I see it. I am repulsed by the sort of politics and publicity seeking which sees people who do not know what happened trading on 28 Apr 2004 Adjournment 669 other people's loss to push a particular barrow. I will never call a press conference or issue a media release off the back of a tragedy such as a fatal road accident. If police and road traffic engineers recommend roadworks to deal with an identified road safety issue, I will do everything possible to obtain funding to have those works performed by speaking directly with the minister and the district roads manager. In the end, though, we all have a responsibility to be realistic about roads funding. The roads budget is not bottomless. If we want to have the safest roads possible, the money needs to be spent wisely and where it is most effective. The Roads Implementation Program for Hervey Bay provides for over $1 million to be spent along Booral Road between 2005-06 and 2007-08. In particular, there is an allocation of $250,000 to improve the Booral Road/River Heads Road intersection. If these works need to be brought forward or if speed limits need to be lowered, I will play my part responsibly in that process. I met with the Transport Minister, Paul Lucas, about River Heads Road in particular only last week and will do so again when expert advice is available.

Anzac Day Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.24 p.m.): Anzac Day came early to the electorate of Mirani. Services started on Friday, 23 April. Remembrance services were held at the Sarina State High School, Mirani State High School, Mirani State School and many other schools throughout my electorate. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Sarina State High School service this year due to commitments in the Pioneer Valley. However, I was able to donate a wreath to the school community, which they placed on the memorial on my behalf. I was grateful to them for that. By doing that I was still able to feel part of the service. The Mirani State High School had a great ceremony at 9 o'clock on the Friday. I would like to congratulate the principal, Magdeline Wong, and her staff and students on a very poignant service and the professional program chaired by the school leaders, Kelly Dionysius, Amy Everett and Katie Angus. The school band—a big band—in Mirani State High School was magnificent, as always. The recessional sung by Ms Tina McCarragher and Michelle Beswick was especially moving. The song they sang was the Green Fields of France, which was absolutely magnificent. I would also like to compliment Robert Nicolai on a very stirring Last Post. Of course, I commend year 11 students Aaron Derbin, Mitchell Boyd and Adrian Vassallo on their commemorative address. The Mirani State School held a service at 11 o'clock which I attended along with the acting principal, Jo Turner, and the staff and students. It was a very moving service. It was obviously not easy for the young students to sit for extended periods while the service was held. They did that in a great manner. They were very attentive while the service was being held. The students need to be commended for their excellent behaviour. I enjoyed hearing for the first time the song sang by the school choir Lest We forget. It was beautifully performed. It was a privilege to be present for the laying of wreaths and poppies for the first time on the school's new Anzac memorial. I congratulate the school and the community on this very wonderful project. Credit goes to everyone in the school community. Anzac Day proper started early of course right through the electorate. I was able to attend the first service in Koumala at 7 o'clock in the morning. I congratulate Ross Gillespie, the principal of Koumala State School, as well as the parents and pupils who turned up for the service. Later, the CWA in Koumala provided a morning tea for all those present. The Sarina band attended. The returned service men and women and Nashos marched. At 10 o'clock I also attended the service at Sarina with participating schools: Alligator Creek State School, Sarina State High School, Sarina State School, St Anne's Catholic Primary School and Swayneville State School. The service was well attended by all of those schools. The guest speaker at the Sarina ceremony was Captain Tamara Rowhurst. She was educated in Sarina and was a member of the high school cadet unit 131 RCU. She graduated from the Australian Defence Force Academy and Royal Military College Duntroon. She has held various positions and was deployed to East Timor in January 2000. In 2003 she was posted to ADFA as divisional officer and to the SO-3 cadets in 2004. Captain Rowhurst is responsible to the Commanding Officer for the administration, welfare and professional development of midshipmen and officer cadet trainees. In the Mirani shire, remembrance parades and ceremonies were held at Marian at dawn and the Marian State School attended. An afternoon service was held at Mirani, which I attended as well as the Mirani State School, Dows Creek State School and the Mirani State High School. I was 670 Adjournment 28 Apr 2004 guest speaker at the Finch Hatton celebration which was also attended by Eungella, Finch Hatton and Pinnacle State Schools. It was a great service as the sun fell on the range behind Finch Hatton and the Pioneer Valley. Many other schools in the Mirani electorate honoured Anzac Day with their own ceremonies. I believe that the spirit of Anzacs is safe in the hands of our young community. Primary and secondary students warmly embrace the essence of Anzac and all that it represents. They are proud to remember the men and women who served their country.

Thuringowa City Council Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (10.29 p.m.): Before such a large assemblage tonight I would like to inform the House that this year my city of Thuringowa will celebrate 125 years as a local government. This makes Thuringowa one of the oldest local governments in the state of Queensland. I would like to congratulate Thuringowa mayor Les Tyrell and his council on the program they have designed to celebrate this milestone. As part of the celebrations, Thuringowa residents are being encouraged to sign the city flag. The flags are able to be signed at the council's customer service centre, city library, schools and at all council and community events. It is hoped that over half of the city's population—all 26,000 people—will add their names to the flags. Once completed, the flags will be hung throughout the council and at the end of the year added to the Thuringowa Historical Service's collection. Another major event of this anniversary will be a major conference on 15 May at Dairyfarmers Stadium—home of the mighty North Queensland Cowboys. Major bands will play at the concert and entry is by a gold coin donation, all proceeds of which will go to Camp Quality. As part of the celebrations, the Thuringowa City Council will be the major sponsor of a Cowboys game later in the year which I am sure will see a victory for that magnificent team. But it is not just these major events that are the focus of this year's celebrations. The council recently delivered birthday presents in the form of $500 cash donations to various community groups across the community so that they could host an event marking this important anniversary. Some of the recipients are the Willows Golf Club, Upper Ross PCYC, Brothers Cricket Club, Pioneer Park Scouts, Rotary Club of Thuringowa Central, Quota Club of Thuringowa, Thuringowa Ladies Bowls Club and La Luna. The theme of our birthday is 'Thuringowa celebrates' and this hectic year of events will conclude on Thuringowa Day, 26 September, when we will hold a massive party. This will involve an afternoon of fun and activities for the whole family, including welcoming Thuringowa's newest born and bred residents. Babies born between 20 September 2003 and 23 September 2004 will be welcomed into the community and presented with a commemorative gift pack. Thuringowa is a vibrant and exciting place to live. Our city not only enjoys a wonderful tropical lifestyle but also has one of the fastest growing populations in the country. The past 125 years have seen some enormous changes across the former Thuringowa shire—now fully fledged city. It is with confidence that we look to the next 125 years of growth. I would invite all honourable members to attend any events in this year's celebrations. The House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.