19 Aug 2003 Legislative Assembly 2867

TUESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2003

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

ASSENT TO BILLS 10 June 2003 The Honourable R.K. Hollis, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Speaker I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on 6 June 2003: "A Bill for an Act to amend the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001" "A Bill for an Act to amend the Gaming Machine Act 1991 and the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003" "A Bill for an Act to provide for the continued detention of a particular class of prisoner for their control, care or treatment, or for their supervised release, and for other purposes". The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely (sgd) Governor

FILMING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that throughout this sitting week there will be periodic filming of the proceedings of the House. This filming is being conducted with my permission by students from the Griffith University multimedia school. It is anticipated that extracts from the footage taken will be used by the Parliamentary Education Service for educational purposes. Your understanding and assistance is appreciated.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE Death of Mr E. G. Lloyd, MP Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.32 a.m.): I move— 1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late Eric Gayford Lloyd, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland, for the loss they have sustained. Mr Eric Gayford Lloyd was born on 1 January 1918 in Brisbane. His father died when he was seven and his mother took a job as a cleaner to earn a living with three young children to look after. Mr Lloyd was educated at the State Commercial High School in Brisbane. Mr Lloyd's close association with the inner workings of parliament began at the age of 16 when he started his career as a reporter in the State Reporting Bureau, handling correspondence of members of the Queensland parliament with whom he would later share the parliamentary benches. In 1940 Mr Lloyd enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force, serving his country in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and the Pacific. During his time in the RAAF Mr Lloyd rose to the rank of Flight Lieutenant and was honoured with the Distinguished Flying Cross after the Battle of Tobruk with the RAAF 458 Squadron. After his discharge from the RAAF in 1946, Mr Lloyd resumed his career at the State Reporting Bureau before working as private secretary to Premier Ned Hanlon from 1946 to 1951. Mr Lloyd was elected as the Labor member for Kedron in a by-election in April 1951. In his maiden speech to the Legislative Assembly on 14 August 1951 Mr Lloyd discussed the home 2868 Legislative Assembly 19 Aug 2003 building industry and housing projects in Kedron, Stafford and Grovely—work he had championed throughout his term in office. During his speech Mr Lloyd also paid tribute to the devotion and loyalty of the many Queensland public servants who enabled governments to deliver their policies. From 1957 to 1966 Mr Lloyd was Deputy Leader of the Opposition and held the seat of Kedron until his retirement in 1972 after 21 years as a Labor member. He settled in Coolum Beach, building a successful real estate business. Away from politics, Mr Lloyd served as President of the Gaythorne RSL and Services Club and was awarded life membership of the RSL in 1972. A keen lawn bowls player, he was the founding vice-president of the Queensland 100 Social Bowls Club from 1963 to 1967 and continued to participate in activities of the Parliamentary Bowls Club after his retirement. Mr Lloyd wrote to me in April. He knew he had only weeks to live because, as he said, he had smoked too many cigarettes for too many years. Typically, though, his thoughts in this letter were for other people. A private service for Mr Lloyd took place on Thursday, 5 June 2003. The Courier-Mail, in its obituary to Mr Lloyd on 23 June 2003, identified Mr Lloyd as 'the people's servant in war and parliament'. The length and quality of his service to his electorate demonstrate why he deserves such an epitaph. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of this House to his family—to his wife, Bridie, and his children, Gary and Rick, and their families. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.36 a.m.): On behalf of the opposition I rise today to join with the Premier in expressing the condolences of the opposition to the family of the late Eric Lloyd. Eric was born on 1 January 1918 and for a lot of us that is a very long time ago. He died on 3 June 2003 on the Sunshine Coast. Eric was educated at the State Commercial High School. At 16 he began employment as a reporter in the State Reporting Bureau, which handled the correspondence of members of the Queensland parliament. In 1940 he enlisted in the RAAF and served in the United Kingdom and the Middle East, rising to the rank of Flight Lieutenant and was decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service in the Battle of Tobruk while a navigator with the RAAF 458 Squadron. He married Bridie Ross in August 1943 before serving the remainder of the war in the Pacific regions. Returning to his previous civilian employment, Eric Lloyd became the private secretary to Premier Ned Hanlon, a role he performed from 1946 to 1951. In 1951 he was the ALP candidate for a by-election in the state seat of Kedron. He held this seat for the ALP until his retirement in 1972. He was highly regarded by his colleagues and was a very capable debater in this place. He is remembered for his work in establishing housing developments in the Grovely and Stafford areas and for the expansion of schools at Mitchelton, Everton and Grovely. He was an enthusiastic lawn bowler who was an active member of the Parliamentary Bowls Club, attending many interstate tournaments. After his retirement he moved to Coolum Beach where he established a successful real estate business. He is survived by his wife, Bridie, and sons, Gary and Rick. Again, on behalf of the opposition I pass on our condolences to his family. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (9.38 a.m.): I rise to support the condolence motion for Eric Lloyd. Eric had a distinguished war record and was well regarded by the local constituents and the local branch members of the Labor Party. He was considered a quiet achiever, although his colleagues saw him as not only a smart politician but also a particularly capable debater. Much of Eric's Kedron electorate encompassed the developing areas that are now out Ferny Grove way, and I know my colleague Geoff Wilson will be speaking about some aspects there. Eric, having a distinguished war record, was the perfect person to serve postwar families and he understood their needs and the struggles of his constituents. He relied very heavily on his wife because before electorate staff they effectively worked together and his wife was his electorate secretary and campaigner who helped keep him in parliament for 21 years, much of that in opposition. On behalf of the people of the Stafford and Kedron area, I pay my respects to Eric Lloyd and pass on condolences to his family. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (9.39 a.m.): I wish to speak briefly about the late Eric Lloyd. A number of the older suburbs of my electorate of Ferny Grove were represented by Eric as the member for Kedron. He was ably assisted in his role as a member of parliament by his wife, Bridie, and his two sons when members had neither paid assistance nor an office to work from. At a local level, he was a very hardworking member with a number of notable achievements to his credit, including his involvement in the establishment of the Gaythorne RSL Club, which has been recognised as one of the leading RSL clubs in Australia and which has one of the largest Anzac 19 Aug 2003 Motion of Condolence 2869

Day ceremonies in the suburbs of Brisbane. He fought hard for the residents of the newly established suburb of Grovely, to which many new residents came from the old housing commission camp at Herston. He fought for the establishment of a new school at Grovely, which was opened in 1956, and also fought hard for the establishment of a new high school in the area, resulting in the opening of the Mitchelton State High School in 1957. These are but a few of the achievements of Eric Lloyd in the local area. Eric was an exemplary Labor member of parliament. I extend my sincere condolences to his wife and family. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE Death of Mr E. D. Jensen, MP Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): I move— 1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late Eugene Dubois Jensen, a former member of the parliament of Queensland. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the parliament of Queensland, for the loss they have sustained. Eugene Dubois Jensen was born on 13 February 1915 in Port Darwin. Mr Jensen attended Nundah State High School and Brisbane Grammar, before gaining a Diploma of Sugar Chemistry at the Brisbane Technical College. He worked as a chemist with the Fairymead Sugar Company, which later became Bundaberg Sugar, from 1934 to 1941. Mr Jensen was then employed as a chemist in the fuse section of the Maribyrnong munitions factory before being posted to St Mary's munitions factory in New South Wales in 1943. Returning to Queensland in 1946, Mr Jensen worked in a number of positions in the sugar industry over the next 20 years. He shared his in- depth knowledge of the sugar industry by presenting eight papers to the Queensland Society of Sugar Mill Technologists between 1957 and 1968. Mr Jensen's parliamentary career began when he was elected as the Labor member for Bundaberg in the state election in May 1969, and he served until 1977. Once in parliament, he wasted no time in demonstrating his parochial and unwavering support for the Bundaberg area. In his maiden speech he demonstrated his commitment to local issues, promoting the Kolan- Burnett water conservation scheme, the level of government assistance for the unemployed, the importance of the small crop and manufacturing industries in the region, and the need for a well maintained rail infrastructure to support these industries. Mr Jensen held his seat until the 1977 state election. He retired to the coast close to Bundaberg. Mr Jensen was an outspoken, active and occasionally controversial member of his local community—traits he demonstrated before, during and after his time as the member for Bundaberg. Even in retirement he would regularly write to the local newspaper to voice his opinions on world and local events—and good on him. Mr Jensen's devotion to his community was evidenced through his involvement with numerous organisations, including as patron of Blue Nursing Bundaberg and the Bundaberg Race Club and as vice-president of lifesaving and sporting organisations. Mr Jensen's funeral was held at the Funeral Service Chapel, Bundaberg, on 4 July 2003. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of the government and this House to his family—to his wife, Olive, and his children, Colleen and Dorothy, and their families. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.44 a.m.): I rise to join the condolence motion moved by the Premier for the late Lou Jensen and pass on the condolences and respects of the opposition to the family of Mr Jensen. Lou Jensen was born on 13 February 1915. He died on 1 July 2003 in Bundaberg. Lou Jensen was educated at Nundah State School and Brisbane Grammar. He later gained a Diploma of Sugar Chemistry at the Brisbane Technical College. Interestingly, he carried into this place the same level of passion for the sugar industry and its regulation that we see from many members today. In 1934, Lou Jensen was employed as a chemist with the Fairymead Sugar Company, which later became Bundaberg Sugar. He held that position until 1941. As part of the war effort, he was employed as a chemist in the fuse section of the Maribyrnong munitions factory in Victoria. It was there that he met Olive Margaret McGee, whom he later married and with whom he had two daughters, Colleen and Dorothy. 2870 Motion of Condolence 19 Aug 2003

In 1943 Lou Jensen was posted to St Mary's munitions factory in New South Wales and he continued working as a chemist until 1946. He held many positions over the years until May 1969 when he stood for election and won the seat of Bundaberg for the ALP. By all accounts, he was a very colourful character. Lou Jensen always had a very strong social conscience and an outspoken character. In parliament he was a strong advocate for job creation projects, particularly within his electorate. Lou Jensen was not afraid of controversy. In 1974, during a debate on capital punishment, he accused the public of being too apathetic towards violent crime and warned that he would not have any hesitation in shooting anyone who harmed his family. A year later, he caused another stir when he said that drink-driving actually aided his driving ability. Prior to the 1977 state election, Lou Jensen's outspokenness saw him clash with his political organisation over the increase in the levy it placed on parliamentary members, and he refused to pay it. Subsequently, he resigned from the ALP and later sat in parliament as an Independent. On one occasion, to win a $50 bet he wore a red shirt bearing the words 'I'm a Labor Rebel Man'—another example of his outspokenness and tenacity. As a candidate in the 1977 state election running as an Independent he lost to the ALP candidate, James Blake. Mr and Mrs Jensen retired to Innes Park, a beach-side community near Bundaberg. He spent his days enjoying life—travelling, fishing, walking and gardening. But he always kept a keen eye on political events, local, national and international. Again, I join with the Premier in passing on our condolences and thoughts to the family of the late Lou Jensen. Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (9.47 a.m.): This morning I rise to pay tribute to the late Lou Jensen, as he was well known. Lou Jensen represented Bundaberg as a member of the Queensland parliament from 17 May 1969 to 12 November 1977. As the Premier said, the late Lou Jensen was born in Darwin. He was educated at the Nundah State School, the Brisbane Grammar School and the Brisbane Technical College, where he gained a Diploma in Sugar Chemistry. He worked in the sugar industry at Fairymead until 1941, in munitions factories from 1941 to 1946, in the Fairymead, Isis and Mackay sugar mills until 1957 and then in sugar mill and research technology until 1969, when he was elected to this House. His expertise in sugar technology was well known and he was clearly seen by the electorate to be well qualified to represent the sugar city of Bundaberg in the Queensland parliament. After a long career in the sugar industry spanning almost 40 years he was elected as the state member for Bundaberg on 17 May 1969. During his eight years in office, he became well known for his humour and his sometimes controversial comments, as we heard from the Opposition Leader. Lou always had the welfare of Bundaberg at heart. In his first speech to the parliament 34 years ago he raised issues that are still relevant today. He was taken to task by the then member for Burnett, because he asked a question about the Burnett electorate. Lou answered, 'I asked about his electorate—about the water supply scheme—and I asked that question because it is vital to the City of Bundaberg,' and he offered him one of his cards that were printed with the words 'Fight for water'. Ironically, he went on to say that the water scheme, which at that time was called the Burnett-Kolan scheme, had been proposed to ensure security to sugar cane farms in addition to providing an adequate water supply for many small crop farms and the city of Bundaberg, which will require additional supplies of water for its future needs and for secondary industries. He said that expenditure was needed to remove the fear of salt getting into the underground water supply. Those comments back in 1969 showed vision and highlight just how long we have been fighting for that water in Bundaberg. Lou Jensen is survived by his wife, daughters and grandchildren. He will be sadly missed by them all. While his eight years in the parliament was only a small part of his 88 years—and his wife and family have many more memories and personal events to recall—Lou Jensen worked hard for Bundaberg during those eight years. He was involved with numerous local groups. His contribution to this parliament is recorded in Hansard and will live on as part of the history of this great state of Queensland. It was my privilege to represent the Queensland government at his recent funeral service in Bundaberg and to extend our condolences personally to Mrs Jensen and her family. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (9.52 a.m.): As a member who had the privilege of serving with Lou for almost three years, I want to say that he was an old-time, fair dinkum politician. He really was very passionate about his area. When he needed to stand up he did. He did not really worry about the political consequences of doing that. More importantly, new 19 Aug 2003 Motion of Condolence 2871 members in that area at that time found him to be a fair dinkum friend. Frankly, it did not worry him what side of politics a member was on. He was a friend and a mate. I would like his family to know, on behalf of those of us who entered parliament in 1974 who are still living, that they can feel extremely proud of this great Queenslander and this great Australian. I certainly appreciated his assistance and guidance from time to time. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE Death of Mr R. C. Kruger, MP Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.53 a.m.): I move— 1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late Raymond Charles Kruger, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland, for the loss they have sustained. Raymond Charles Kruger, known to all as Joe, was born on 28 February 1935 in Brisbane. Mr Kruger was educated at Kallangur State School, Brisbane, and spent his formative years on the family farming property. Mr Kruger made his contribution to the community both as a parliamentarian and from 1973 to 1979 as a councillor with Pine Rivers Shire Council. At the state level, Mr Kruger was elected as the Labor member for Murrumba in 1977 and served until 1986. In his maiden speech of 18 April 1978, he highlighted problems facing our cattle producers at a time of drought and market uncertainty. How times have changed, but sometimes the problems do not. Mr Kruger was also an outspoken advocate for a number of local issues, including the proposed rail link to Redcliffe, the establishment of an agricultural college in the area, an increase in the number of housing commission homes, programs to assist in reducing unemployment and the provision of better facilities for schools. Mr Kruger served as the opposition spokesman for primary industries and lands, forestry and survey matters. During this time, he underlined the importance of governments not shying away from the fundamental issues facing rural industries in Queensland. Away from politics, Mr Kruger bred prize-winning beagles and played an active role in his community. As an owner of a half-beagle half-corgi I can understand why Joe would have enjoyed that so much. Among many other local sporting bodies and public organisations, he served as president of Kallangur Memorial Bowls Club, was a life patron of the Naval Association of Pine Rivers and was patron of the Kallangur Darts Association. His loyal service to his local community was recognised with the naming of a park on Brickworks Road in Kallangur in his honour. The Kruger family's service to the local community was also recognised with the renaming of a community hall as Kruger Hall. Mr Kruger's funeral service was held on Wednesday, 30 July 2003. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of the government and this House to his family—to his wife, Hazel, his children and their families. I extend personal condolences to his family because I knew him personally, particularly during my time as party secretary. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.55 a.m.): I rise to speak to the condolence motion for the late Joe Kruger moved by the Premier. Joe was born on 28 February 1935 and died on 24 July 2003 at Redcliffe. Joe was son of Frederick and Mabel, nee Goff. Although christened Raymond Charles, we was always known fondly by the nickname given to him by his father, Joe. The Kruger family owned a small crops and dairy farm at Kallangur which they farmed from 1930. Joe Kruger was educated at the Kallangur State School and then went to work on the family farm, the general routine of the time. In 1954, at the age of 18 years, Joe was drafted into the army to complete his national service. At the age of 20 Joe took up axemanship and competed at many local shows. That is something that many of us still enjoy today when we go to our shows. Another of Joe's interests was dancing. It was at a dance that he met Helen Margaret Brockhurst, whom he later married in 1960. Joe and Helen had three girls: Debbie, Narelle and Joanne. 2872 Motion of Condolence 19 Aug 2003

In 1973, Joe was elected to the Pine Rivers Shire Council, following in the footsteps of his father and brother Norman. His popularity saw him elected to state parliament as the member for Murrumba, which had been held by the Country Party but made more urban by a redistribution. In parliament, Joe Kruger was a strong advocate for public transport, particularly the Redcliffe rail link. Another issue which drew strong support from Joe Kruger was the provision of housing commission homes and increased funding to local government in order to establish employment schemes to develop parks and construct kerbing and channelling. The 1985 redistribution altered the boundaries of the Murrumba electorate. Although the sitting member, Joe Kruger was not endorsed as the ALP candidate for Murrumba for the 1986 state election. He resigned from the ALP and stood as an Independent but lost to the ALP candidate at the time, Mr Dean Wells. In his semi-retirement, with the farm sold, Joe Kruger concentrated on, as the Premier said, breeding prize-winning beagle dogs. I am sure Joe would be comforted by the fact that we have another beagle dog breeder in parliament, the member for Cunningham—although he assures me that his are not necessarily prize winning. He also worked tirelessly with local community organisations. Joe Kruger is survived by his second wife, Hazel, three daughters, four grandchildren and two stepchildren and their families. Again, I pass on to his family the strong sympathy and condolences and support of the opposition. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (9.59 a.m.): Joe Kruger served the people of Murrumba from 1977 to 1986. When he first won the seat from the National Party, it extended much further north and west than it does now, taking in a significant rural population. Joe was himself a primary producer. Not only did this give him a practical background, which he brought to bear in the service of his constituents; it was also a significant addition to the information base of the then comparatively small parliamentary Labor Party which, apart from Joe, consisted almost entirely of metropolitan and provincial city members. During my short period as the federal member for Petrie between 1983 and 1984 I worked closely with Joe, whose electorate overlapped mine. We worked together well at that time and I know he had well thought out plans for initiatives that he intended to take as a minister if the Labor Party won the Treasury benches. His love of the land made him a natural for the portfolios that he held. He was also very much at home with constituency work. He once told me that when constituents go to their MP with a problem the problem is of two kinds: one that can be fixed or one that cannot. Of the problems that can be fixed, nearly all are administrative anomalies, oversights or errors. 'It follows,' he said, 'that opposition members can represent their electors as well as government members.' Different minds might come to different conclusions as to the political science of this, but there is no doubt that there was a seed of wisdom in what Joe said that should encourage members to sustain their efforts for those whom they represent even through the changing fortunes of the political cycle. In his work as a member of this House, Joe was greatly assisted by his experience in local government. He was even more greatly assisted by his family, who were unfailing in their support for him, who were involved in the community along with him, and all of whom were well liked. On behalf of honourable members, I offer my sincerest condolences to all of Joe's extended family, including his daughters, Debbie, Joanne and Narelle. The world is better for the fact that Joe Kruger served in this parliament, and my part of the world in particular is a better place because it was represented by Joe Kruger for those years. May he now rest in peace. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (10.01 a.m.): Again, Joe Kruger is one of these people whom I served with. Quite simply, he again was a fair dinkum, old school member of parliament who had quite a lot of knowledge behind him—council knowledge and knowledge through various associations that he was tied up with—and who made a big contribution to the parliament. I can remember, though, on one occasion he would have put Vaughan Johnson to shame for his antics on an aeroplane during a storm. We were flying between Rockhampton and Brisbane when we struck this most unbelievable electrical storm. They tell me that, when this happens, Vaughan's knuckles go white. I do not know what colour Joe went that day, but I can tell members that it was interesting to be sitting beside him. I will leave it at that. Nevertheless, Joe was another good man who went through this parliament. Yes, he was very committed to his side of politics until they upset him. He gave his best for the whole parliament and the people of Queensland. He is yet another one of whom his family can feel extremely proud not only for being a reputable member of parliament but also for the other tireless efforts that he put into so many organisations within his community. 19 Aug 2003 Petitions 2873

Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.03 a.m.): I rise to speak to this condolence motion for Joe Kruger. The Premier said 'Raymond Kruger'. I never ever really knew him as Raymond Kruger; I always knew him as Joe Kruger. Prior to being elected in 1986 as the member for Caboolture, I knew of Joe, but I got to know him fairly well after that because the seat of Caboolture was redrawn in 1986 and it took in part of the old seat of Murrumba. That part included Kallangur and Dakabin. During the 1986 state campaign that I was conducting Joe was helpful towards me, because he provided me with a list of the electoral visitor voters for people who lived within the Dakabin and Kallangur areas. Of course, that in itself is particularly helpful to a new candidate who is running for election. In fact, his electorate officer, Colleen Hughes, became my electorate officer after I was elected to this state parliament and still is 17 years later. Joe Kruger was well known in the Kallangur community. Even in recent years he was active and involved in community organisations. Kruger Hall in the Kallangur electorate bears his name and in recent years it has been a hall where a lot of Labor Party meetings have been conducted—branch meetings and, as some MPs who live in the northern suburbs and the outer northern suburbs would know, a number of regional conferences. Joe was certainly well regarded in the Kallangur and Dakabin areas. We could see that at his funeral because many people from Kallangur were there. I want to particularly take the opportunity to recognise the people there who were Labor Party branch members and, I think that it is important to mention, former politicians in the Queensland parliament. I take this opportunity to pass on my condolences and that of the Kallangur electorate to the family of Joe Kruger. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence.

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

Double Jeopardy Laws Mr Quinn from 29,686 petitioners requesting the House to conduct a review of double jeopardy laws in the State of Queensland; pass legislation providing discretionary power for the Attorney-General to set aside double jeopardy provisions in exceptional circumstances; recognise that the double jeopardy principle is outdated; and ensure that public confidence in the integrity of the legal system is restored.

Foster Care Legislation Mrs Miller from 1692 petitioners requesting the House to enact legislation for permanency hearings for children in State care to take place no later than 12 months after the child has been placed in foster care with few exceptions; initiate termination of parental rights petitions when the child has been in State care for 15 months of the preceding 22 months; and focus on guardianships—adoptions to foster and kinship carers as suitable care options.

Ergon Energy Mr Pitt from 559 petitioners requesting the House to direct Ergon Energy to take whatever steps are required through maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure in order to guarantee secure supply of electricity to consumers.

Redcliffe Peninsula Harness Racing and Sporting Club Mr Speaker from 210 petitioners requesting that the Queensland Harness Racing Board be instructed to allow the Redcliffe Peninsula Harness Racing and Sporting Club to continue to be the venue for Friday night Harness Racing in South East Queensland throughout the 2003-2004 financial year.

Gold Coast Harbour Vision Project Mr Lawlor from 82 petitioners requesting the House to advise the Gold Coast City Council that the House will not agree to the recommendations contained in the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project—Report No. 1 and is against any commercial development of the Broadwater (including Wavebreak Is) and the western foreshore and any further reclamation.

Education Mr Copeland from 2036 petitioners requesting the House to take seriously the issues put forward by Queensland teachers and parents, such as reducing the current acceptable numbers for class sizes; providing qualified relief teachers; and undertaking to ensure the very best and safest education is available so as to enable our children to reach their full potential. 2874 Papers 19 Aug 2003

Leasehold Land, Harbour Beach, Mackay Mr Mulherin from 3051 petitioners requesting the House to ensure that leasehold land at Harbour Beach at East Point in Mackay be set aside as a public recreation reserve for the benefit of all the residents of Mackay for all time.

The following honourable members have sponsored e-petitions which are now closed and presented—

Education Mr Copeland from 335 petitioners requesting the House to take seriously the issues put forward by Queensland teachers and parents, such as reducing the current acceptable numbers for class sizes; providing qualified relief teachers; and undertaking to ensure the very best and safest education is available so as to enable our children to reach their full potential.

Vegetation Management Mr Seeney from 65 petitioners requesting the House to rescind the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the Land Act 1994 and commission an open and independent review of the State's vegetation management laws.

PAPERS PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 10 June 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to a paper petition presented by Mr English from 236 petitioners regarding aspects of buoy mooring requirements for tender vessels Mr John English MP Member for Redlands PO Box 3070 Victoria Point West Qld 4165 Dear Mr English I refer to a petition lodged by you on 26 March 2003 on behalf of Mr Ken Cullum, with the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, about aspects of buoy mooring requirements for tender vessels. The requirement for all buoy moorings, regardless of the type and purpose of use of the vessel attached to them, to have an approval has been part of marine legislation for a significant number of years. The placing of tender vessels on buoy moorings as opposed to the option of anchoring, particularly along shallow foreshore areas such as those at Victoria Point and Point Halloran, has significant safety benefits for both vessel owners and the community. I am satisfied that application of the existing mooring legislation and policies contributes to an effective safety management system. Therefore, I do not consider the request to exempt the owners of dinghies and tender vessels from the payment of mooring fees to be suitable. Yours sincerely (Original signed by Minister) Steve Bredhauer MP Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Member for Cook ¥ Auditor-General's Report to Parliament—Audit Report No. 8 2002-03—Results of Audits 2001-02 of Aboriginal Councils ¥ Twenty-Third Report by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal dated 10 February 2003, pursuant to the Judges (Salaries and Allowances) Act 1967 ¥ Judges' Salaries and Allowances Tribunal Determination (No. 1) 2003 13 June 2003— ¥ Auditor-General's Report to Parliament—Audit Report No. 9 2002-03—Results of Audits 2001-02 of Island Councils ¥ Island Industries Board—Annual Report for the year ended 31 January 2003 ¥ Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee—various submissions received by the committee in relation to its current three yearly review of the activities of the Crime and Misconduct Commission ¥ Ipswich Girls' Grammar School—Annual Report 2002 ¥ Late tabling statement by the Minister for Education (Ms Bligh) regarding the Ipswich Girls' Grammar School Annual Report 2002 19 Aug 2003 Papers 2875

16 June 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy (Mr Lucas) to a non-conforming petition tabled by Mr Copeland on 30 April 2003 regarding the proposed Millmerran to Middle Ridge transmission line ¥ Response from the Minister for State Development (Mr Barton) to a paper petition presented by Mr Reynolds from 39 petitioners regarding the proposal for a Townsville State Development Area at Stuart Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter dated 30 April 2003 enclosing a copy of a petition regarding the proposal for a Townsville State Development Area (TSDA) at Stuart. Townsville has the potential to develop as a major base metals processing centre capturing the value- adding and job creating potential of the enormously rich North West Minerals Province. To ensure this development occurs in a way that maximises benefits to Townsville and the State, the Queensland Government is considering the establishment of a TSDA over the Stuart Industrial Area and the Townsville Port Eastern Access Corridor. Stuart, an existing industrial area located south of Townsville, is the most strategic and cost-effective site suitable for the development of this industry. Stuart is also the area identified in the Townsville- Thuringowa Strategy Plan as the location for major industry development in the Townsville region. The specific purpose of the TSDA is to facilitate the planned establishment of industry in Townsville, whilst ensuring the maintenance of a high level of community amenity and protection of the environment. In other words, this proposal will significantly benefit Townsville. The resultant high level of planning will provide certainty for investors and the community and will confer a competitive advantage in Townsville for the attraction of industry. Public consultation on the proposal commenced on 3 February 2003 and concluded on 31 March 2003. Whilst there is strong support from Councils and industry, a community group, Clean Air for Kids, has expressed concerns about possible impacts on adjacent communities and the environment. My Department is confident that these issues can be successfully addressed in the detailed planning for the TSDA and through the major project Environmental Impact Statement processes, which are required when individual firms establish. Projects will have to secure all relevant Local, State and Federal Government approvals and apply controls to ensure that emissions meet all statutory requirements and contemporary environmental standards. Attention will also be given to maintaining the connectivity of coastal wetlands. Industry will not be established on land that is impacted by flooding or tide/storm surge levels and the siting of industry will take account of environmental considerations and the proximity of residential communities. The heavy industries that locate within the TSDA will have substantial buffering around and between them, so that this development is located well away and separated from residential communities and buffered from environmentally sensitive areas. My Department will analyse all public submissions and will provide the Government with a report. All matters raised by the community will be carefully considered by the Government in making its final decision on the TSDA proposal. I trust this information has addressed the Petitioner's concerns. Yours sincerely TOM BARTON MP Minister for State Development 24 June 2003— ¥ Crime and Misconduct Commission Report—Seeking Justice: An Inquiry into how sexual offences are handled by the Queensland criminal justice system ¥ Response from the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy (Mrs Edmond) to a paper petition presented by Mrs Smith from 6428 petitioners regarding Queensland Health's vacant land at Lutana and Bardon Avenues, Miami Mr N Laurie Clerk of the Parliament [email protected] Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter dated 1 May 2003, enclosing a petition received by the House on 30 April 2003, regarding Queensland Health's vacant land at Lutana and Bardon Avenues, Miami. This land was the subject of an exchange with Gold Coast City Council, for land to construct a multi level car park and helipad adjacent to the Gold Coast Hospital Southport Campus. The development of the car park did not proceed due to difficulties that the developer had with the Council's street parking arrangements. Consequently the land exchange did not proceed. 2876 Papers 19 Aug 2003

As the land swap arrangements with Gold Coast City Council are not proceeding, the Miami land is now surplus to Queensland Health's needs. It is not for sale at this moment. At a Community Cabinet meeting held at the Gold Coast on 16 March 2003, I committed to giving Gold Coast City Council first option to purchase the Miami land following normal Government Department canvassing in accordance with the Government Asset Management System (GAMS) Disposal Policy. I also stated that I was prepared to consider selling the land to the Gold Coast City Council at a reasonably discounted price provided the Council agreed to keep the land as open space or an environmental area. I can appreciate the desire of local residents to maintain the site as a green space, however, it is not the core business of Queensland Health to provide such a service. This is the responsibility of local council. I suggest that the Gold Coast City Council be encouraged to use their environmental levy to purchase the site if they are serious about maintaining the area as an open space or environmental area. Proceeds from the sale will used to enhance health services on the Gold Coast. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely SIGNED Wendy Edmond MP Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy 25 June 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading (Ms Rose) to a paper petition presented by Ms Nelson-Carr from 10400 petitioners regarding paint sniffing 24 June 2003 Mr Neil Laurie Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie I refer to your letter of 15 May 2003 forwarding a petition headed "Stop paint sniffing" received by the Queensland Legislative Assembly on 14 May 2003. The Government recognises the serious nature of this issue and has set up the Queensland Volatile Substance Misuse Steering Committee to examine a number of options in the preparation of an appropriate response. Rather than legislative enforcement, a significant component of the State Government's response includes the development of a code of practice for retailers to address substance misuse. This approach has gained support from retailers. It is recognised that supply reduction is an important component in tackling the issue. However, strategies to reduce demand and minimise harm associated with this behaviour are further aspects requiring consideration. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Yours sincerely Signed by Minister Hon. Merri Rose MP Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading 27 June 2003— ¥ Explanation by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Nuttall) made under section 46J of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 for the granting of an extension of time for the tabling of the Electrical Workers and Contractors Board Annual Report 30 June 2003— ¥ Auditor-General's Report to Parliament—Audit Report No. 10 2002-03—Results of Audits Performed for 2001-02 as at 30 April 2003 ¥ Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee—non-confidential submissions (nos 1-14, 16-25, 27-43) received by the committee relating to its Hands on Parliament inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Participation in Queensland's Democratic Process ¥ Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee—Summary of Consultation Document—Hands on Parliament inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Participation in Queensland's Democratic Process ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for Emergency Services and Acting Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland (Mr Nuttall) to paper petitions presented by Ms Lee Long, Mr Malone and Mr Rowell from 410, 104 and 101 petitioners respectively regarding the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover 19 Aug 2003 Papers 2877

Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Queensland Parliamentary Service [email protected] Dear Mr Laurie I refer to the petitions received by the House on 29 and 30 April 2003 regarding the introduction of the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover. At the outset, I would like to assure the petitioners that this Government is committed to providing the best possible ambulance service to the people of Queensland. The Community Ambulance Cover will come into effect from 1 July 2003 and will be collected through electricity accounts at a rate of $22 per quarter—or 24 cents a day. It is a broad-based charge, as opposed to a user-pays system, to ensure the majority of people likely to use ambulance services contribute to the cost of operating that service. The State Government has taken this important step as the current Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) Subscription Scheme is no longer raising sufficient revenue to cover the costs of providing services and the cost of administering the scheme. Had the subscription scheme been maintained, the Government would have been forced to increase the annual rates to provide the required funding for Queensland's ambulance service. Family rates would have risen to $130 per annum and Single rates would have risen to $82 per annum. The levy is not based on electricity usage, as indicated in the petition. The State Government is simply using electricity accounts as a collection mechanism, which will keep administration costs to a minimum and deliver maximum funds for frontline ambulance services. The levy will be applied to both residential and business accounts. If the levy was restricted to residential accounts or principal places of residence, it would significantly reduce the base from which funds are drawn and the levy would have to be much higher. Community Ambulance Cover on business electricity accounts may qualify for a tax deduction, and I encourage business operators to speak with a tax advisor or the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) regarding eligibility. The ATO can be contacted on telephone number 13 2866. The State Government has worked hard to develop the most equitable system possible. After 1 July 2003, all Queensland residents will be covered for ambulance services anywhere in Australia regardless of their circumstances. The QAS will be provided with an adequate and predictable funding base through the introduction of Community Ambulance Cover. I trust this information is of assistance to you. However, should further information be required, please visit www.ambulancecover.qld.gov.au or telephone the new Community Ambulance Cover hotline on 1300 304 274. Yours sincerely HON GORDON NUTTALL MP Acting Minister for Emergency Services Acting Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland 2 July 2003— ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for Natural Resources and Acting Minister for Mines (Mr Welford) to an e- petition sponsored by Ms Boyle from 400 petitioners regarding land clearing Mr N J Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets Brisbane Qld 4000 Dear Mr Laurie I refer to your letter of 5 June forwarding a copy of a Petition lodged in the Queensland Legislative Assembly, requesting the House to stop land clearing and help our native wildlife survive and enjoy life. The Queensland Government is committed to the protection of native vegetation. Satellite imagery has shown that since the implementation of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 in 2000 the clearing of native remnant vegetation has decreased. However, the Queensland Government considers greater controls on native vegetation clearing to be a priority. The Queensland Government is therefore pleased that after a number of years of seeking their involvement, the Commonwealth Government has joined with the Queensland Government to develop a proposed new framework for vegetation management in Queensland. The two governments are currently consulting with key stakeholders on the details of the proposal. The proposal includes the protection of "of concern" vegetation on freehold land and a phased reduction in broadacre clearing of remnant vegetation to zero by 2006. Importantly, it includes the continuation of the Regional Vegetation Management Planning process which has been important for building community ownership of vegetation management objectives. The proposal is underpinned by a $150 million package for landholders, made up of $75 million from the State Government and $75 million from the Commonwealth Government. 2878 Papers 19 Aug 2003

We are hopeful that the current proposal can be finalised shortly so that all Queenslanders can share in the long-term benefits. Yours sincerely Rod Welford MP Acting Minister for Natural Resources and Acting Minister for Mines 3 July 2003— ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for Emergency Services and Acting Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland (Mr Nuttall) to a paper petition presented by Mr Springborg from 133 petitioners regarding the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover Mr Neil Laurie Clerk of the Parliament Queensland Parliamentary Service [email protected] Dear Mr Laurie I refer to the petition received by the House on 28 May 2003 from HaleNET Pty Ltd of Stanthorpe, concerning the introduction of the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover. The ambulance levy will be applied to both residential and business accounts. If the levy was restricted to residential accounts or principal places of residence, it would significantly reduce the base from which funds are drawn and the levy would have to be much higher. The State Government has recently addressed the issue of multiple accounts by expanding the list of available exemptions. If a business receives electricity on a commercial (non-domestic) tariff and the electricity is supplied to a single place of business or place solely used to conduct a single activity, only one levy will apply regardless of the number of accounts received. Community Ambulance Cover on business electricity accounts may qualify for a tax deduction, and I encourage business operators to speak to a tax advisor or the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about their eligibility in this regard. The ATO can be contacted on telephone number 13 2866. The State Government has worked hard to develop the most equitable system possible. After 1 July 2003, all Queensland residents will be covered for ambulance services anywhere in Australia regardless of their circumstances. The QAS will be provided with an adequate and predictable funding base through the introduction of Community Ambulance Cover. Yours sincerely HON GORDON NUTTALL MP Acting Minister for Emergency Services Acting Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for Emergency Services and Acting Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland (Mr Nuttall) to a paper petition presented by Mr Rowell from 257 petitioners regarding the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover Mr Neil Laurie Clerk of the Parliament Queensland Parliamentary Service [email protected] Dear Mr Laurie I refer to the petition received by the House on 4 June 2003 from Mrs Marion Rick of Mission Beach, concerning the introduction of the Queensland Government's Community Ambulance Cover. The levy is not a fee for ambulance services, but is a broad based means of raising essential funding for a service used by the whole community. Whilst some people will be required to pay the levy more than once, this is generally where they have multiple properties or business operations with a separate electricity supply. These arrangements are put in place for a variety of reasons, including commercial or taxation benefits, or personal and family circumstances. It is not possible to provide exemptions that cater for every individual personal or business situation. On that basis, the ambulance levy will be applied to both residential and business accounts. If the levy was restricted to residential accounts or principal places of residence, it would significantly reduce the base from which funds are drawn and the levy would have to be much higher. Community Ambulance Cover on business electricity accounts may qualify for a tax deduction, and I encourage business operators to speak with a tax advisor or the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about their eligibility in this regard. The ATO can be contacted on telephone number 13 2866. The State Government has worked hard to develop the most equitable system possible. After 1 July 2003, all Queensland residents will be covered for ambulance services anywhere in Australia regardless of their circumstances. The QAS will be provided with an adequate and predictable funding base through the introduction of Community Ambulance Cover. Yours sincerely HON GORDON NUTTALL MP Acting Minister for Emergency Services Acting Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland 19 Aug 2003 Papers 2879

10 July 2003— ¥ Letter, dated 7 July 2003, from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to the Clerk of the Parliament referring to correspondence received by the Premier from the Commonwealth Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties regarding proposed international treaty actions tabled in both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament on 17 June 2003 including National Interest Analyses for each of the proposed treaty actions listed in the letter together with certain regulation impact statements ¥ Response from the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to a paper petition presented by Mr McNamara from 2,387 petitioners regarding the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Boat Harbour Drive and Ibis Boulevard, Hervey Bay Ms Beverley Hoyle 18 Caddy Avenue Pialba Qld 4655 Dear Ms Hoyle I refer to a petition lodged by Mr Andrew McNamara MP, Member for Hervey Bay, on 15 May 2003, with the Legislative Assembly, about the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Boat Harbour Drive and Ibis Boulevard, Hervey Bay. The Department of Main Roads has planned for the installation of traffic signals at this intersection. When the installation might take place depends on traffic growth, traffic patterns and priority compared to other projects in the area. Officers of Main Roads in Bundaberg will review the priority and timing of these works to see if the signals can be installed earlier than planned. This is in direct response to the increasing traffic volumes and the type of traffic movements that are taking place at this intersection. The department should complete the review in September/October this year. As you can appreciate, trying to juggle priorities and funding is not a straightforward exercise. Total funding for roadworks is limited and there are many urgent projects that need to be done in the Maryborough and Hervey Bay areas. The department has a responsibility to road users across the region to prioritise its expenditure so that the most urgent works are carried out first. If you need any more information, please call Mr Albert Chiu, the department's district director in Bundaberg, on 4154 0200 Yours sincerely (Original signed by Minister) Steve Bredhauer Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Member for Cook ¥ Response from the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to a paper petition presented by Ms Barry from 325 petitioners regarding an alternate access to St Paul's School at Bald Hills Mr Peter and Mrs Janet Ryan 31 Cambrian Street Bald Hills Qld 4036 Dear Mr and Mrs Ryan I refer to the petition lodged by Ms Bonny Barry MP, Member for Aspley, on 4 June 2003, with the Legislative Assembly, about an alternate access to St Paul's School at Bald Hills. Strathpine Road abuts the southern boundary of the school and is a state-controlled road under the responsibility of the Department of Main Roads. Attunga and Cambrian Streets, also bordering the school, are the responsibility of Brisbane City Council. The main access for the school is currently through a signal-controlled intersection on Strathpine Road. Improvements for school traffic would disadvantage traffic using this road as it is already congested. Departmental officers have discussed this matter with school officials and are available to discuss any other proposals for changes to the access from Strathpine Road. The school is investigating alternatives to improve vehicle access to and within the school. One proposal assessed by the school's consulting engineers does show that, if parking and car park access were relocated to the northern part of the school property, there would be an increase in traffic along some residential streets. If the school wants to implement this proposal, it is a matter for council to approve. Before Main Roads considers any formal approvals for changes to the access arrangements affecting the road, the department would need to examine the detailed traffic report prepared by the school. The department has not received a formal application to change the access or a copy of the associated traffic report. If you have any enquiries please contact Mr Bill Simpson, Main Roads' Principal Engineer (Development Control), on 3834 8248. Yours sincerely (original signed by Minister) Steve Bredhauer Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Member for Cook 2880 Papers 19 Aug 2003

¥ Response from the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to paper petitions presented by Mrs E Cunningham from 1,403 and 49 petitioners respectively regarding traffic problems on the Dawson Highway between Kin Kora and Garden Lovers roundabouts in Gladstone Ms Melanie Carlyon PO Box 526 Gladstone Qld 4680 Dear Ms Carlyon I refer to two petitions lodged by Mrs Liz Cunningham MP, Member for Gladstone, on 4 and 5 June 2003, with the Legislative Assembly, about traffic problems on the Dawson Highway between Kin Kora and Garden Lovers roundabouts in Gladstone. I recognise the importance of completing the remaining four-lane construction between Briffney Roundabout and Chapman Drive and have included planning for this work in the five-year Roads Implementation Program. Due to other higher priorities on the Dawson Highway between Gladstone and Biloela, there is no firm allocation of funding for construction of the project at this stage. A traffic analysis of the Kin Kora roundabout is currently being progressed. The outcome of this analysis will be used to formulate strategies to deal with the traffic issues at the intersection. If you need to discuss this issue further, please contact Mr Terry Hill, the department's district director in Rockhampton, on 4931 1501. Yours sincerely (Original signed by Minister) Steve Bredhauer Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Member for Cook 14 July 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for State Development (Mr Barton) to a paper petition presented by Ms E Roberts from 1,146 petitioners regarding the development of the Snapper Creek Foreshore Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter dated 17 June 2003 enclosing a copy of a petition regarding the development of the Snapper Creek Foreshore. I wish to advise that my Department has had no involvement in this development and is therefore unable to respond to the petition. Yours sincerely TOM BARTON MP Minister for State Development ¥ Response from the Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors (Ms Spence) to a paper petition presented by Ms Nelson-Carr from 10,400 petitioners regarding the display and sale of solvents to people under the age of 17 years Mr N Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE Q 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 15 May 2003 forwarding a copy of a petition tabled in the Parliament on 14 May 2003 concerning the display and sale of solvents to people under the age of 17 years. Chroming is a nationwide problem that presents with common patterns of risk factors, which includes social isolation, school absence/exclusion, unemployment, family conflict, violence and abuse. Community forums and research identifies that a collaborative and integrated response to volatile substance misuse is required. This response should include government departments such as Health, Education, Police, Emergency Services, Justice, Youth Affairs, Local Government and Housing as well as community-based agencies and the business sector. The Department of Families is one of the key agencies in addressing volatile substance misuse, particularly as it relates to child protection and youth justice issues. The Department of Families has committed $111,250 from April 2002 to June 2003 under a Joint Inner City Homelessness Response between the Department of Housing, Brisbane City Council (BCC) and the Department of Families to the Brisbane Youth Service to contact young people involved in "chroming". 19 Aug 2003 Papers 2881

On 21 January 2003, the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) hosted a Volatile Substance Misuse Forum for Retailers and Service Providers. At this forum, the leading retailer associations committed to collaborating with the CCYP in developing a voluntary code of conduct in relation to the supply and access of paints and other volatile substances to children and young people. Additionally, the Department of Families in Townsville is currently leading a cross-government working party to develop strategies to respond to the issue. In particular, the Department of Families and the Queensland Police Service are attempting to address crisis response issues, specifically, crisis accommodation and medical issues. The Townsville working party has developed a Retailer's Kit, based upon a kit developed in Western Australia. This kit has been forwarded to Crown Law for their legal opinion. A number of key agencies have provided advice on this kit including Queensland Police Service, Fair Trading, Department of Premier and Cabinet and the local Council. It is intended that this kit will be widely distributed, funded by the Townsville City Council, and that training for retailers will accompany distribution. Several large retail chains (Crazy Clark's, IGA, Mitre 10, Treasure Kingdom) have supported the process and have reduced accessibility to chroming goods eg. paints. While there is no specific treatment for volatile substance misuse, specialist alcohol and drug services offer a range of interventions, such as assessment, individual and group counselling, relapse prevention, education and referral that assist substance abusers. One of the major factors in reducing the use of inhalants is the provision of alternative activities programs, especially for young people, such as recreation programs and arts programs. In addition, developing co-ordinated local employment and skills training strategies has been shown to have a positive impact in reducing volatile substance misuse and reduce associated social disruption. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely JUDY SPENCE Minister for Families and Minister for Seniors 17 July 2003— ¥ Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee Report No. 39—The role of the Queensland Parliament in treaty making—Review of tabling procedure 22 July 2003— ¥ Final report on the South-east Queensland Drug Court pilot by John J Costanzo, Magistrate ¥ Joint Ministerial Policy Statement by The Honourable Robert Schwarten, MP Minister for Housing and The Honourable Judy Spence, MP Minister for Disability Services : Future directions in housing assistance and the provision of support for people with a disability 23 July 2003— ¥ Report for the Legislative Assembly pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 by the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines (Mr Robertson) ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for State Development (Ms Bligh) to a paper petition presented by Mr Speaker from 2,891 petitioners regarding a commercial development planned for the reclaimed Scarborough Boat Harbour Precinct Breakwater Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter dated 19 June 2003 enclosing a copy of a petition regarding the proposed sale of State Government land and the multi-level residential and commercial development planned for the reclaimed Scarborough Boat Harbour Precinct Breakwater as prepared by Buckley Vann for and on behalf of the Port of Brisbane Corporation. I wish to advise that the Department of State Development has had no involvement in this development and is therefore unable to respond to the petition. Yours sincerely Anna Bligh MP Acting Minister for State Development 25 July 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to a paper petition presented by Mr Quinn from 22 petitioners regarding rail commuter parking near Eagle Junction rail station Mr C Abraham 42 Sydney Street Clayfield Qld 4011 Dear Mr Abraham Thank you for presenting your petition about rail commuter parking in your residential area to the Members of the Legislative Assembly for attention. 2882 Papers 19 Aug 2003

Development options to extend existing QR provided commuter car parking facilities at Eagle Junction rail station have been investigated. Unfortunately, there is no suitable adjoining land that could be redeveloped to provide additional car park spaces. Installation of a multi-storey car park on the existing site would provide only limited additional spaces as most of the area would be taken up with providing vehicular access ramps. The number of these additional spaces may not warrant the substantial expenditure needed for construction. It is government's preference not to provide additional park 'n' ride facilities so close to the CBD as this tends to encourage commuters from outer areas to travel more of their journey in private vehicle rather than by public transport. Nonetheless, on-street parking that causes concerns for residents needs to be addressed. Given that the management of residential street parking issues in Brisbane falls within the jurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council, I have copied this letter to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Cr Tim Quinn, for his attention. You may also care to contact the Lord Mayor's office direct to consider the introduction of resident only parking along Keith, Cooma and Sydney Streets, similar to that in other areas within Brisbane. About future planning, the suitable provision of new or expansions to existing park 'n' ride facilities will be determined as part of a Public Transport Network Plan that is currently being developed by Translink. Translink has been established by this government to plan and develop an integrated public transport network and to introduce integrated ticketing. Thank you for your interest in this issue. Yours sincerely (Original signed by Minister) Steve Bredhauer MP Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Member for Cook ¥ Response from the Minister for Environment (Mr Wells) to a paper petition presented by Ms Molloy from 5,347 petitioners regarding the sale of the Halse Lodge Guest House in Noosa Mr N Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE Q 4000 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 17 June 2003 forwarding a copy of a petition tabled in the Parliament on 6 June 2003 regarding the sale of the Halse Lodge Guest House in Noosa. I met with the Member for Noosa, Cate Molloy, and current lessee in March of this year about the proposed sale of Halse Lodge. In April I issued a press release reassuring Noosa residents that the heritage-listed Halse Lodge is protected from unsuitable development or demolition. Halse Lodge and its surrounds, were permanently entered on the Queensland Heritage Register in 1997. Fines of more than $1 million could be imposed if development of the site took place without Queensland Heritage Council approval. An administrative advice is attached to a property's title when it is listed on the Heritage Register, so new owners are notified of the site's cultural heritage significance. The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 requires owners to seek Heritage Council approval for any development, such as subdivision, change of use or proposed demolition. Halse Lodge is significant for its continuous use as a guest house since the 1920's and for its special associations with the community. If an application for a change of use was submitted, the Queensland Heritage Council would consider public use of Halse Lodge in regard to the cultural significance of the place in assessing the application. Other legal avenues such as stop orders are also available if needed to protect Halse Lodge. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely DEAN WELLS Minister for Environment 28 July 2003— ¥ Response from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to a paper petition presented by Ms E Clark from 180 petitioners regarding a proposed immigration detention centre at Pinkenba Mr Neil Laurie Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Neil Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2003 enclosing a copy of a petition from the Bayside Residents Against Toxic Sites Inc, received by the Queensland Legislative Assembly relating to a proposed immigration detention centre at Pinkenba. 19 Aug 2003 Papers 2883

I have carefully noted the contents of the petition and have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of it to the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The decision regarding location of these facilities is a matter for the Commonwealth Government. However, I have previously expressed my concern about the lack of community consultation in relation to the selection of the preferred site at Pinkenba with both members of that community and with Minister Ruddock. In response, the Commonwealth Government has advised that they intend undertaking further consultation with the local community at Pinkenba and also with a number of local councils that have expressed an interest in the facility being located in their area. Please be assured that I, and my Government, will continue to work to balance the interests of all communities affected by this issue. I want to thank the petitioners for bringing their concerns to the attention of the House. Yours sincerely PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER AND MINISTER FOR TRADE 30 July 2003— ¥ Letter, dated 25 July 2003, from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to the Clerk of the Parliament enclosing an amended national interest analysis and regulatory impact statement regarding a proposed international treaty action tabled in both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament on 24 June 2003 ¥ Queensland Abattoir Corporation—Final Report 2003 ¥ Report by the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities under section 56A(4) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 ¥ Response from the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines (Mr Robertson) to Public Works Committee Report No. 79 entitled The Burdekin River Project ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for State Development (Ms Bligh) to a paper petition presented by Ms E Roberts from 1,146 petitioners regarding the development of the Snapper Creek Foreshore Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie I refer to my letter of 9 July 2003 regarding a petition you forwarded to me for response in relation to the development of the Snapper Creek Foreshore. As previously advised the Department of State Development has had no involvement in this development and is therefore unable to respond to the petition directly. However, as the petition falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Honourable Steve Bredhauer MP, Minister for Transport, I have forwarded the petition to his office for direct reply. Yours sincerely Anna Bligh MP Acting Minister for State Development ¥ Response from the Acting Minister for State Development (Ms Bligh) to a paper petition presented by Mr Speaker from 2,891 petitioners regarding a commercial development planned for the reclaimed Scarborough Boat Harbour Precinct Breakwater Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Laurie I refer to my letter of 22 July 2003 regarding a petition you forwarded to me for response in relation to the proposed sale of State Government land and the multi-level residential and commercial development planned for the reclaimed Scarborough Boat Harbour Precinct Breakwater as prepared by Buckley Vann for and on behalf of the Port of Brisbane Corporation. As previously advised the Department of State Development has had no involvement in this development and is therefore unable to respond to the petition directly. However, as the petition falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Honourable Steve Bredhauer MP, Minister for Transport I have forwarded the petition to his office for direct reply. Yours sincerely Anna Bligh MP Acting Minister for State Development 2884 Papers 19 Aug 2003

4 August 2003— ¥ Addendum to Explanatory Notes—Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Bill 2003 6 August 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mrs J Cunningham) to a paper petition presented by Mr Lingard from 57 petitioners regarding a proposed poultry farm at Sawmill Road, Aratula Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Queensland Parliamentary Service CENTRAL DOCUMENT EXCHANGE M29 Dear Mr Laurie Thank you for your letter of 16 April 2003 regarding a petition against a proposed poultry farm at Sawmill Road, Aratula. Under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (the Act) the responsibility for preparing administering and enforcing planning schemes to manage development rests with the relevant local government, in this case Boonah Shire Council (Council). Officers of my Department of Local Government and Planning have contacted Council and were advised that the Council approved the proposed poultry farm development on 25 March 2003 subject to conditions. Officers of my Department were further advised that the development application for the proposed poultry farm was subject to 'code' assessment in accordance with Council's planning scheme provisions. Under the Act, there are no statutory requirements for applicants to undertake public notification for code assessable development. The decision to make the poultry farm 'code' assessable is a determination of Council. Whilst I appreciate the petitioners' concerns, as the Minister for Local Government and Planning, I have a strong obligation under the Local Government Act 1993 to respect the independence and authority of individual councils and have no powers to intervene in this matter. I trust this information is helpful to you. Yours sincerely Nita Cunningham MP Minister for Local Government and Planning 11 August 2003— ¥ Response from the Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mrs J Cunningham) to various paper petitions presented by Mr Lawlor from 3,065 petitioners in total regarding the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project—Report No. 1, prepared by the Gold Coast City Council Mr Neil Laurie The Clerk of the Parliament Queensland Parliamentary Service CENTRAL DOCUMENT EXCHANGE M29 Dear Mr Laurie I refer to the petitions from Ms Sharyn Masters, 24 Musgrave Avenue, Chirn Park (the principal petitioner) regarding the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project—Report No. 1, prepared by the Gold Coast City Council. Details of these identical petitions are as follows: Petition No. Date Tabled in the Legislative Assembly 2199 6 March 2002 2297 9 April 2002 2465 17 April 2002 2753 18 June 2002 3195 20 August 2002 3697 22 October 2002 4138 26 November 2002 4641 11 March 2003 4987 29 April 2003 5212 15 May 2003 Please find enclosed a copy of my reply to Ms Masters dated 17 April 2002 in response to this matter. My response to Ms Masters has not changed and I would appreciate it you would arrange for my letter of 17 April 2002 to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly as my response to each of the above mentioned identical petitions. Yours sincerely (sgd) Nita Cunningham MP Minister for Local Government and Planning

19 Aug 2003 Papers 2885

17 April 2002 Ms S Masters 24 Musgrave Avenue CHIRN PARK QLD 4215 Dear Ms Masters I refer to your petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland regarding the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project—Report No. 1 (Harbour Vision Report) prepared by the Gold Coast City Council, which outlines your opposition to any commercial development and any further reclamation in the Broadwater including Wavebreak Island and the western foreshore. The petition has been referred to me for consideration and reply. Officers of my Department have contacted the Gold Coast City Council in relation to this matter. Council officers have advised the Harbour Vision Report was prepared as a discussion paper for preliminary consultation purposes and does not reflect a policy position of Council. I am advised an extensive preliminary community consultation program in relation to the preparation of the Gold Coast Harbour Study was undertaken by Council between December 1998 and February 1999. It is understood a number of consistent themes emerged from this consultation. The consultation also identified a lack of baseline environmental data and accordingly Council undertook an environmental baseline study. I am advised as a result of the complex nature of issues identified in relation to the Harbour, the Council subsequently widened the scope of its Harbour Study resulting in the preparation of the Harbour Vision Report. I understand Council has not adopted the recommendations of the Harbour Vision Study, however, intends to establish a committee for the Gold Coast Harbour Vision project, with membership from a broad range of community and industry stakeholders, to progress the broad range of issues and options identified in the Report. The Harbour Vision project is intended to address all aspects of planning and management for the Gold Coast Harbour. Council anticipates further community consultation will be undertaken during the development and finalisation of a vision for the Harbour. Council officers have advised the development of a vision for the Harbour is likely to result in the initiation of an amendment to Council's planning scheme in accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA). An amendment to Council's planning scheme must be processed in accordance with Schedule 1 of the IPA, which initially involves the preparation and public notification of a Statement of Proposals (the preliminary consultation phase). After receiving and considering community feedback on a Statement of Proposals, Council may proceed with preparation of a planning scheme amendment. A proposed planning scheme amendment must be forwarded to the State Government for consideration of State interests and my authorisation to commence public notification. Subsequent to approval, the amendment must be publicly notified in accordance with the statutory requirements of the IPA, which provides a further opportunity for community input. Prior to adoption of an amendment, Council must again forward it to the Government for final consideration of State interests and approval to proceed to adoption. In addition to the preliminary consultation currently being initiated by Council, as outlined above there will be a number of formal opportunities for the community to be involved in planning the future of the Gold Coast Harbour. It is also highlighted a number of State and Commonwealth approvals will be required before any future development proceeds in the Harbour. Whilst I appreciate the concerns you have raised, the Government does not have any decision making powers in relation to this matter at this preliminary stage. I encourage you to contact the Council directly to discuss your concerns in relation to this matter and determine if there are opportunities to be involved in the planning process. I trust this information is of assistance. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact my office. Yours sincerely (signed by Minister) Nita Cunningham MP Minister for Local Government and Planning ¥ Estimates Committee A—Report No. 1, 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee A—Report No. 2, 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee A—Additional Information Volume 2003 18 August 2003— ¥ Estimates Committee B—Report 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee B—Additional Information Volume 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee C—Report 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee C—Additional Information Volume 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee D—Report 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee D—Additional Information Volume 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee G—Report 2003 ¥ Estimates Committee G—Additional Information Volume 2003 2886 Papers 19 Aug 2003

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— ¥ State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2003, No. 107 Local Government Act 1993— ¥ Local Government Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 108 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— ¥ Workplace Health and Safety (Miscellaneous) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 109 Building Act 1975, Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990— ¥ Fire Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 110 Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003— ¥ Community Ambulance Cover Regulation 2003, No. 111 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982— ¥ Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003, No. 112 Sports Drug Testing Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 113 Criminal Code (Palliative Care) Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 114 Motor Vehicles Securities and Other Acts Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 115 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 116 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002— ¥ Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Regulation 2003, No. 117 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statement for No. 117 Local Government Act 1993— ¥ Local Government Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 118 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003— ¥ Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003, No. 119 Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 120 Gas Supply Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 121 Gas Supply Act 2003— ¥ Gas Supply Regulation 2003, No. 122 Electricity Act 1994— ¥ Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 123 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 124 Statutory Instruments Act 1992— ¥ Statutory Instruments Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 125 South Bank Corporation Act 1989— ¥ South Bank Corporation Regulation 2003, No. 126 Gaming Machine Act 1991— ¥ Gaming Machine Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 127 Government Owned Corporations Act 1993— ¥ Government Owned Corporations (Ports) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 128 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994— ¥ Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 129 Food Act 1981, Health Act 1937, Health Services Act 1991, Private Health Facilities Act 1999, Radiation Safety Act 1999— ¥ Health Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 130 Hospitals Foundations Act 1982— ¥ Hospitals Foundations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 131 19 Aug 2003 Papers 2887

Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 132 Prostitution Act 1999— ¥ Prostitution Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 133 Weapons Act 1990— ¥ Weapons Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 134 Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995— ¥ Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 135 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— ¥ State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2003, No. 136 Forestry Act 1959, Marine Parks Act 1982, Nature Conservation Act 1992 Queensland Heritage Act 1992, Recreation Areas Management Act 1988— ¥ Environmental Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 137 Environmental Protection Act 1994— ¥ Environmental Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 138 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991— ¥ Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 139 Juvenile Justice Act 1992— ¥ Juvenile Justice Regulation 2003, No. 140 and Explanatory Notes to No. 140 Racing Act 2002— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 141 Racing Act 2002— ¥ Racing Regulation 2003, No. 142 Associations Incorporation Act 1981, Bills of Sale and Other Instruments Act 1955, Business Names Act 1962, Collections Act 1966, Cooperatives Act 1997, Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982, Introduction Agents Act 2001, Land Sales Act 1984, Liens on Crops of Sugar Cane Act 1931, Liquor Act 1992, Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986, Partnership (Limited Liability) Act 1988, Pawnbrokers Act 1984, Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002, Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984, Security Providers Act 1993, Trade Measurement Administration Act 1990, Travel Agents Act 1988, Wine Industry Act 1994— ¥ Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 143 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003— ¥ Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Regulation 2003, No. 144 Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986— ¥ Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 145 Explosives Act 1999— ¥ Explosives Regulation 2003, No. 146 and Explanatory Notes to No. 146 Valuation of Land Act 1944— ¥ Valuation of Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 147 Ambulance Service Act 1991— ¥ Ambulance Service Regulation 2003, No. 148 Electrical Safety Act 2002— ¥ Electrical Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 149 Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act 1980, Building Act 1975, Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002 ¥ Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Regulation 2003, No. 150 Industrial Relations Act 1999— ¥ Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2003, No. 151 South Bank Corporation Act 1989— ¥ South Bank Corporation (Modified Building Units and Group Titles) Regulation 2003, No. 152 Petroleum Act 1923— ¥ Petroleum (Entry Permission—RLMS Pty Ltd) Notice 2003, No. 153 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000— ¥ Guardianship and Administration Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 154 Recording of Evidence Act 1962— ¥ Recording of Evidence Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statement to No. 155 2888 Papers 19 Aug 2003

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— ¥ State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 7) 2003, No. 156 Residential Tenancies and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 157 Plant Protection Act 1989— ¥ Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 158 Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949— ¥ Standard Sewerage and Water Supply Legislation Amendment Law (No. 1) 2003, No. 159 Fair Trading Act 1989— ¥ Fair Trading (Yo Yo Balls) Order 2003, No. 160 Residential Tenancies Act 1994— ¥ Residential Tenancies Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 161 Land Sales Act 1984— ¥ Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003, No. 162 Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986— ¥ Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 163 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Act 2003— ¥ Governors (Salary and Pensions) Regulation 2003, No. 164 State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983— ¥ State Buildings Protective Security Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 165 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003— ¥ Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 166 Retirement Villages Act 1999— ¥ Retirement Villages Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 168 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— ¥ Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003, No. 169 Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977— ¥ Financial Management Amendment Standard (No. 1) 2003, No. 170 Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001, Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act 2001, Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001, Medical Radiation Technologists Registration Act 2001, Speech Pathologists Registration Act 2001— ¥ Health Practitioner Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 171 Radiation Safety Act 1999— ¥ Radiation Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 172 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991— ¥ Queensland Building Services Authority Regulation 2003, No. 173 and Explanatory Notes to No. 173 Mineral Resources Act 1989— ¥ Mineral Resources Regulation 2003 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statements for No. 174 Building Act 1975— ¥ Building Regulation 2003, No. 175 Grammar Schools Act 1975— ¥ Grammar Schools Regulation 2003, No. 176 Forestry Act 1959, Nature Conservation Act 1992— ¥ Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 177 Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988— ¥ Foreign Ownership of Land Register Regulation 2003, No. 178 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Infrastructure Act 1994— ¥ Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 179 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— ¥ Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 180 Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000— ¥ Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 181 Magistrates Act 1991— ¥ Magistrates Regulation 2003, No. 182 19 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 2889

Property Law Act 1974— ¥ Property Law Regulation 2003, No. 183 Queensland Building Services Authority and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003— ¥ Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 184 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991— ¥ Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003, No. 185 Local Government Act 1993— ¥ Local Government Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003, No. 186 Public Trustee Act 1978— ¥ Public Trustee (Fees and Charges Notice) (No. 1) 2003 Queensland University of Technology Act 1998— ¥ Queensland University of Technology Statute No. 3 (Fees) 2003 Queensland University of Technology Act 1998— ¥ Queensland University of Technology Statute No. 5 (Conduct of Elections for Elected Members of Council) 2003 University of Queensland Act 1998— ¥ University of Queensland Statute No. 7 (Admission and Enrolments) 2002 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996— ¥ Governor in Council approval of expenditure by WorkCover Queensland to the Department of Industrial Relations for the prevention of injury to workers, notified in the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette on 16 May 2003 MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by The Clerk— Minister for State Development (Mr Barton) ¥ Report about Minister's decision to change conditions of a development approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997, development applicant Stadium Redevelopment Authority

NOTICE OF MOTION Draft Code of Conduct for Election Candidates Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.09 a.m.): I give notice that tomorrow I will move— That the House endorse the draft code of conduct for election candidates.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Health Care Agreement Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.09 a.m.): The federal government's vision for health care is failing Australians. For proof of that members need look no further than their local public hospital emergency department. Last year about 450,000 presentations at Queensland hospital emergency departments were for non-urgent complaints. That is almost 60 per cent of total presentations in emergency departments. They included people with minor ailments such as coughs and colds who could have been treated by their GPs. We think they should be treated, but by their GPs. It is not the fault of patients. They just cannot find GPs to bulk-bill. As Commonwealth policies erode bulk-billing, people with coughs, colds and minor injuries turn up at hospitals in ever-increasing numbers. Non-urgent GP-type attendances—categories 4 and 5—at public hospital emergency departments in 2002-03 are as follows, and these figures highlight the crisis. Category 4 and 5 attendances in Bundaberg were 72 per cent, or 20,646 patients. They could have gone to a GP. Category 4 and 5 attendances in Caboolture were 66 per cent, or 20,508 patients; at Cairns Hospital 57 per cent, or 16,705 patients; on the Gold Coast 43 per cent, or 23,744 patients; at Hervey Bay 84 per cent, or 24,727 patients; at Ipswich 72 per cent, or 29,117 patients; at Logan 58 per cent, or 30,604 patients; at Mackay 69 per cent, or 23,798 patients; at the Mater Adults in Brisbane 65 per cent, or 17,787 patients; at the Mater Children's 72 per cent, or 22,480 patients; at Mount Isa 84 per cent, or 28,693 patients; at Nambour 50 per cent, or 15,607 patients; at the Princess Alexandra 41 per cent, or 17,040 patients; at the QE II 69 per cent, or 21,229 patients; at Redcliffe 55 per cent, or 20,030 patients; at Rockhampton 45 per cent, or 15,858 patients; at the Royal Brisbane 45 per cent, or 31,055 2890 Ministerial Statement 19 Aug 2003 patients; at the Royal Children's 64 per cent, or 15,207 patients; at Toowoomba 66 per cent, or 28,243 patients; and at Townsville 56 per cent, or 23,224 patients. They are the formal figures advised to me by Queensland Health. Those figures clearly illustrate the need for major reform of the Australian health system. That is why we want the federal government to put in its fair share and work with us on the reforms. In another sign of the failure of federal policies, people are deserting private insurers at the same time as the Commonwealth allows private insurance premium increases to leap ahead of the inflation rate. Let us talk about where we are here: 40.8 per cent of Queenslanders had private insurance in the June quarter. This marked the sixth consecutive quarterly fall since December 2001, when 42.4 per cent of Queenslanders had private insurance. The premiers and chief ministers have written to the Prime Minister reinforcing our calls for him to discuss health at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 29 August. We want to explain to him why the Commonwealth's funding offer is grossly inadequate. We also want to explain to him how our seven points to reform will deliver better health care to Australians. Over five years the current Commonwealth offer would give Australians about $1 billion less compared to what we would receive if the 1998-2003 agreement continued. Mr Howard admitted this in the Australian on 28 April. The federal budget papers show that it will remove $918 million over the next four years. That information can be found on page 54 of Budget Paper No. 2. Queenslanders would bear about $160 million of this burden. That is our loss. This means that potentially 61,000 Queenslanders would miss out on hospital admissions or 500 extra staff would not be employed. We are pumping in an extra $1.6 billion over four years. The Commonwealth is not even keeping up with inflation. We are doing our fair share; the Commonwealth is not. The state government spends about $1.50 for every $1 spent by the Commonwealth on health in Queensland. State and territory leaders want the Commonwealth to engage in discussions about the following seven points. The first relates to GP services and emergency departments—to extend trials that benefit patients and reduce pressure on hospital emergency departments. The figures from Queensland Health that I have released today for the first time demonstrate why that point has to be the key point of any reform. The second point relates to measures to address the shortage of residential aged care beds. Today there are about 400 elderly people in Queensland public hospitals awaiting a place in a nursing home because the Commonwealth does not provide enough nursing home beds to meet the needs of our ageing population. It is unfair to elderly people who want nursing home care. It is not a smart use of taxpayers' money. It costs $427 a day to care for an acute care hospital patient while a nursing home bed costs less than one-fifth of that—$80 a day. These are national figures. The third point for discussion is the coordination of patient care to ensure patients receive uninterrupted care as they move between hospitals, GPs and community based services. The fourth point relates to elective surgery—to develop a national elective surgery access strategy. The fifth point relates to e-health and quality of care—to use new technologies to improve record keeping. The sixth point relates to workforce issues—to overcome the shortage of health professionals and ensure proper coverage in rural and regional areas and outer suburbs. The seventh point relates to remote service delivery to improve indigenous access to health services. Queensland is the growth state of Australia. It is growing by more than 86,000 people per year, most of whom are from interstate. Our population is also ageing, along with the rest of Australia. Bulkbilling is in decline thanks to federal policies, and health costs are growing by up to eight per cent per annum. We have Australia's shortest elective surgery waiting times, according to the independent Productivity Commission. We want our waiting lists to be shorter, but the Commonwealth's plans will take us backwards. I have written to the Opposition Leader, the Liberal Leader, all federal National and Liberal MPs representing Queensland and National and Liberal Queensland senators. I have pointed out how it is essential for us all to fight for Queensland to obtain the health funding we are entitled to. Are they going to fight for better health care for Queensland? That is what we want; that is the question they have to answer. Are they going to fight for Prime Minister Howard and the billion- dollar cut in federal health funding or are they going to fight for the 61,000 Queenslanders who could miss out on hospital treatment because of Mr Howard's $1 billion cut in funding? It is time for them to let Queenslanders know whose side they are on. 19 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 2891

I note that the federal government has talked about its current Health Care Agreement offer. I will talk about the detail. The Commonwealth offer is not enough to keep up with cost and demand pressures. Compared to rolling forward the 1998-2003 Health Care Agreement, it is actually taking $160 million from hospital funding to Queensland. The fact that it is cutting $918 million over four years from health funding to the states is beyond dispute. It is on page 54 of its Budget Paper No. 2, so let there be no argument about it. The Commonwealth offer would increase health funding from $1.3 billion in 2002-03 to $1.78 billion in 2003-04. The Commonwealth claims that its offer is a real increase in funding of 20 per cent over five years. That is about four per cent per annum. However, the Commonwealth is being tricky by using the CPI as the measure of health cost inflation because the increase in the cost of delivering health care is rising. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that health cost inflation was 7.5 per cent last financial year. There would barely be any increase in Commonwealth health funding in real terms if health cost inflation was used to calculate the real increase. To meet health cost inflation and demand growth the Commonwealth needs to boost its funding offer by around 10 per cent. I turn to demand growth in hospitals. Over time we are expecting population growth of around two per cent per annum, and per head of population more procedures are being performed. This is known as utilisation growth and this is also expected to be around two per cent per annum. Let us talk about cost pressures. Health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation. That is a fact. The cost of wage rises for 2003-04 in the recent enterprise bargaining round came to $219 million. Of this, the state will pick up $198 million and the Commonwealth will pick up $21 million. Clearly, this is not an equal partnership. I ask the Prime Minister to put the health of Queenslanders first. The federal government is using penalties. It is saying that if we do not sign by 31 August there will be a $9 million penalty or after that a $146,000 penalty per day. It is nothing more than blackmail and thuggery. All we want is a fair go. If we look at these figures, we see that the waiting lists in Queensland will get longer because of neglect by the Commonwealth government. I ask all members of this parliament, regardless of their politics, to fight for a better deal. I table for the information of the House my letters to the various federal and state members of parliament.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Health Care Agreement Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (10.20 a.m.): I want to begin by referring members to an article in today's Financial Review entitled 'Less care, no responsibility' which clearly and independently spells out what we are up against. I have just returned from two days at the Australian Health Care Summit 2003 in Canberra attended by several hundred concerned health professionals and equally concerned state health ministers. The Commonwealth minister declined the invitation. What concerns us is the refusal by the Commonwealth government to negotiate something as important as the Australian Health Care Agreement. What concerns us is the failure by the Commonwealth to recognise why we cannot accept a deal that will leave us worse off than we would be with the continuation of the existing Health Care Agreement, and what concerns us is the claim by the federal Health Minister, Senator Kay Patterson, that this issue is about closing beds and bed numbers. We have moved on from the days when bed numbers were the only measure of medical services in a responsible health service delivery system. Even so, Queensland has more hospital beds per capita than any other state. Obviously when hospitals are very busy the most urgent patients get seen first, but nobody is denied care in our network of hospitals. In 20 years, the average length of stay in hospitals has halved from seven days to 3.5 days. So obviously technology and improved medicine means that we need fewer beds per head of population. More than 50 per cent of elective surgery is now done on the same day, around 70 per cent of elective surgery patients are not admitted until the day of surgery, and more and more patients are treated without even the need for admission. For example, not that many years ago a hernia might involve five nights in hospital. Now hernias can be treated in the outpatients department. Not that many years ago a first baby caesarean might mean a mother being hospitalised for 10 days. Now it is more likely to be two to 2892 Ministerial Statement 19 Aug 2003 three days. Bed numbers are an obsolete notion as a measure of service provision, and this is a view shared by a previous health minister in Queensland. On 19 August 1997, in answer to a question on notice about the closure of 24 beds in the surgical ward at the Caboolture Hospital, the then Health Minister, Mr Horan, replied— It must be understood that using numbers of beds to judge the adequacy of health services is an outdated concept. The critical question is the quality and quantity of services provided, not the numbers of beds. However, the Prime Minister seems to be intent on returning to an outmoded health service delivery of Florence Nightingale wards in keeping with white picket fences.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Draft Code of Conduct for Election Candidates Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.23 a.m.): Earlier today I gave notice of a motion in relation to the conduct of election candidates. I want to advise the House—because I intend to lay it on the table—by way of a ministerial statement that the purpose of the code is to strengthen democracy by maintaining public confidence in the electoral system. The draft code makes it very clear to sitting and aspiring members of parliament how they should conduct themselves during an election campaign. Queenslanders expect that candidates who have put themselves forward for public office should behave with honesty and integrity. I should make it clear that the code is voluntary except for the commitment to avoid conduct contrary to the law. However, as members know, it would raise some very serious concerns with electors if a candidate chose not to subscribe to the code. I intend to move this motion in the next sitting of 9-11 September so members will have time to consider it and prepare their responses. This will ensure that the House has enough time to think about the code and what it will mean for Queenslanders. It will help maintain Queenslanders' trust in our electoral processes. It will represent a promise that candidates will adhere to the standards they expect of people seeking their support at the ballot box. The code of conduct is in line with an announcement I made in Barcaldine in January 2001 before the last state election. While I intend to move this motion seeking the endorsement of the code by the House in the September sitting, I am open to suggestions of ways to enhance the code. I commend the draft code to the House. I hope all members take the time to seriously consider the benefits it will bring to the electoral process by aiding the democratic imperative of fair elections.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Ministerial Expenses Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.25 a.m.): I wish to table the public report of ministerial expenses for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. This is the 10th public report of ministerial expenses I have tabled since becoming Premier in 1998. The public report gives maximum transparency to the community about the expenses of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their offices. It shows how my government is acting responsibly by keeping costs to a minimum. In the area of administrative costs, ministerial offices have saved over $400,000 in expenses compared to last financial year. Considering ministers' significant achievements, including their work to engage the community, I believe this report clearly shows that expenditure is being maintained at reasonable levels. The increase in costs compared to last year relates to funding for salaries, including enterprise bargaining increases and normal salary increases, in line with Public Service standards. I table the report for the information of the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Swimming Pool Fencing Laws Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.26 a.m.): Today I am delighted to announce that legislation will be introduced shortly to significant reduce the risks of toddlers drowning in residential swimming pools. The Minister for Local Government and Planning, Nita Cunningham, will introduce legislation all about further reducing the number of 19 Aug 2003 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 2893 infant deaths associated with poorly or illegally fenced swimming pools. Sadly, a recent survey showed that some councils were allowing far too many exemptions from existing pool fencing laws. Well, no more. Action has to be taken now before the summer swimming season gets under way to help prevent any more tragedies involving toddlers. Little children are precious and need every protection we can give them. In the eight years before pool fencing legislation was introduced in Queensland in 1991 there were 107 residential pool drowning deaths involving children, but between 1991 and 2001 the number fell to 73 even though the number of pools doubled in the past decade. That is still not good enough. That is still too many tragedies, but it shows that legislation does reduce the risks, and my government, including Minister Cunningham, is committed to making pool safety legislation as effective as possible. A survey of Queensland councils raised a number of issues that needed to be addressed. The review highlighted the fact that a number of councils had made a significant number of exemptions to allow non-complying pool fencing, and some councils did not keep an accurate record of these exemptions. That is not good enough. Introduction of the new legislation will be accompanied by an amendment to the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2000 that will enable councils to impose on-the-spot fines for anyone not complying with pool fencing laws. Following statewide consultation, the amendments to be moved include requiring a sign to be posted advertising to the public that a pool is being constructed on the property, limiting the exemptions councils can give regarding pool fencing only to circumstances where an occupant of the building has a disability, requiring new residential swimming pools to have a sign installed nearby which details procedures for CPR and requiring pools constructed on a building such as on a deck or a roof to be fenced. Enhancing this, earlier this year a further strengthening took place to make it mandatory for fences constructed around new pools to be inspected and certified by a certifier before the pool is filled. Failure to do so could result in a maximum penalty of $12,375.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Class Sizes Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.28 a.m.): Last week the Education Minister and I announced that Queensland will have the smallest class sizes in the country for years 4 to 10. We launched the middle phase of the Learning State School Action Plan. The detail is important for the House, and I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard for the information of all members. Leave granted. The strategy includes reducing class sizes from 30 to 28 in years 4 to 10 by 2007. Up to 300 new teachers and 180 new teacher aides over and above the number needed for growth will be employed as part of the plan to reduce the class sizes in these middle years, with the State Government committing up to $38 million a year when fully implemented. This is on top of the 800 teachers over four years being employed as part of a Government election commitment in 2001. The reduction in class sizes in the middle years will be staged so that we reach a target of 29 by the start of the 2005 school year and 28 by 2007. Some of the major achievements of my Government have been the improvements we have made to the education system to help all Queensland students reach their full potential. Queensland is the only state not to have a full-time prep year. We have already started a trial in 39 state and non-state schools of a full-time prep year. At the other end of the spectrum more than 23,000 Year 10 students in 200 schools and 11 TAFE colleges will take part in trials designed to ensure teenagers are "learning or earning" instead of dropping out. That left us to tackle the middle years of schooling. These are the years when some students surge forward while others find the challenges too daunting, their interest falls, their progress slows and they are more likely to leave school early. It is a landmark plan and a key plank of the State Government's third-term agenda to consolidate Queensland as the Smart State.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.29 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the House can continue to meet past 7.30 p.m. this day. The House 2894 Questions Without Notice 19 Aug 2003 can break for dinner at 7 p.m. and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. An incident having occurred in the public gallery— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Remove that lady from the gallery.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Foster Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr SPRINGBORG (10.29 a.m.): My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I ask a question which relates to her period as Minister for Families when an assessment of protected needs dated 18 July 2000 was prepared by the Families Department in relation to five foster children who had been subject to ongoing abuse since the early 1980s. Will the minister now explain to this parliament why she advised two members of this House, including her colleague the member for Cleveland, who expressed concern to the minister about the welfare of these children, that the department held no concerns for the children, particularly when substantiated neglect and abuse involving this family had been recorded for more than a decade? Why did the minister not satisfy herself personally and call for the file? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As the member would be aware, this is not a matter for my portfolio and is technically a question that is out of order. However, I am happy to make a couple of comments in relation to it. Firstly, and I think most importantly, members should be aware by now that the matters raised by the member are the subject of a CMC inquiry or investigation. That is an appropriate place for this matter to be investigated. I indicated to the inquiry on 29 July that I would be available to cooperate in any way that the inquiry may find of assistance. I think it is also important for us all to be aware that the issues raised by this and other cases are serious and complex. They warrant and they demand careful and rigorous investigation, not amateur, ill- informed detective work by the opposition. I have indicated on the record that I have no recollection of this case. Sadly, it is the lot of a Families Minister to receive literally thousands of letters about hundreds of cases and I do not believe that any reasonable person would expect anybody in that position to have a deep recollection of any of those cases. I do not know what might have happened next but, frankly, neither does the Leader of the Opposition. It is now the job of the CMC to determine matters that have been raised in the honourable member's question and any other matters related to it. In my view, it is our job to let the CMC do its job. The documents that are in the public arena about my knowledge of this case or my involvement with this case were put into the public arena by me and other members of the government. We did that because we believe there is a public interest in understanding how all of these issues might have arisen. As I understand it, the documents were found by accident. These documents could just as easily have not been found. They could have stayed in the box where they were found. I would like to take the opportunity here this morning to say that whatever difficulties this might cause for me or the government—the fact that they have been found—I, for one, am glad that this correspondence has been found, because this issue is not about me. This issue is not about individual ministers. This issue is about Queensland's most vulnerable citizens, and that is our children who are in care. I conclude my remarks by saying that I stand by the record of our government in relation to child protection. It is an honour for everybody on this side of the House to serve in a government that has been so determined in its effort to improve the child protection system. I do not just mean my personal record or that of my successor in the portfolio. I mean everybody who has been part of this government, because it has required a great deal of political will as a government, as a whole, to make the tough decisions that have seen the kinds of improvements that we have seen over five years—the tough decision around the cabinet table to hold the Forde inquiry, the many tough decisions over five years on new legislative reforms, and the willingness by other ministers to put aside worthy projects to make sure that we saw these improvements.

Foster Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr SPRINGBORG: This is not about rhetoric; it is about kids. In asking my second question of the Minister for Education, I say that this is precisely why we are asking these questions. This 19 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 2895 reveals a litany of mismanagement that goes back many years. Most of these people who have contacted us will not have the chance to have their matters raised in this restricted inquiry. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, will you ask the question? Mr SPRINGBORG: I again refer to the assessment of protected needs in relation to five foster children which confirms that a foster child had an abortion procured with the assistance of what was then her department. Was this a usual practice for the department under her stewardship? If so, at what level of the department would this abortion have been approved and were ministers usually advised of these abortions? Mr SPEAKER: I will give the minister the opportunity to answer, but the question is out of order and I cannot keep allowing questions that are out of order. Minister, it is your call. Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker, I repeat my earlier point—that these matters are now the subject of a CMC inquiry. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that children in care are entitled to privacy—privacy about their most intimate details— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, you will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: I can advise the member that decisions made about the health needs of children in care are made in accordance with law and in accordance with policy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Stafford, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Tannum Sands State High School in the electorate of Gladstone. Welcome.

Private Health Insurance Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I direct my question to the Premier. There is clear evidence that Queenslanders are continuing to desert private health insurance despite the federal government's attempts to shore up the industry. Would the Premier update the House of the latest developments in the private health insurance industry? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question because, like me, he is concerned about health care and making sure that Queenslanders get a fair go—that they get access to their GP and access to hospitals. If members have a look at the statistics over the last few years, they will understand why the current federal government's policies in relation to private health funds are not working. Think of how many people have had to pay more and more and more for private health cover, yet the number of Queenslanders who are dropping out is starting to reach proportions that should be of concern to everybody in the federal government. Let us have a look at where we started. Let us go back to December 2001. Then the percentage of Queenslanders with private cover was 42.4 per cent. By 31 March 2002 it had dropped to 42.3 per cent; 30 June 2002, 41.9 per cent; 30 September 2002, 41.6 per cent; 31 December 2002, 41.5 per cent; 31 March 2003, 41.2 per cent and the latest figure, 30 June 2003, 40.8 per cent. I say to the federal government that its policies in relation to private health funds are not working. They are not working. I table those figures for the information of the House. On the one hand, there are fewer people in private health funds. So where do they go? Mr Terry Sullivan: Public health. Mr BEATTIE: They go to the public health system. That is what they do. Yet what does the federal government do for the public health system, which is under more pressure? It puts less money in. I have spelt out in my ministerial statement this morning irrefutable evidence that we are being underfunded for Queensland's hospitals. Mr Terry Sullivan: That is right. Mr BEATTIE: Let us look at this. Let us look at the issue of bulk-billing, which again is putting pressure on our public hospitals. That is why the premiers and chief ministers have agreed to try to get GPs located in or near to emergency departments in hospitals. Look at these category 4 and 5 figures. It does not matter where one looks; there are patients using our public hospitals who should be going to a GP. Through no fault of their own they are being prevented from going to a GP, because the federal government is destroying bulk-billing. Mr Terry Sullivan: That's right. 2896 Questions Without Notice 19 Aug 2003

Mr BEATTIE: Why do they not take some of the money which they are putting into private health funds, which is not working, and put it into bulk-billing? Why do we not pay our GPs properly? It does not matter what hospital you pick. Take the Mater Children's—72 per cent, or 22,480 patients, are in category 4 and 5 and should go to a GP. Mr Terry Sullivan: They should be at their local doctor. Mr BEATTIE: Let us look at Bundaberg. Some 72 per cent, or 20,646 patients, should be at a GP. Let us look at the hospitals where we are continually pressured. Let us look at the ones where our health workers are really pressured. In Nambour, 50 per cent should go to a GP. We call for reform now. We need it.

Foster Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr SEENEY: I refer the Minister for Families to the question that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition asked a moment ago of the former Minister for Families about an assessment of protective needs into five foster children that confirmed a foster child had an abortion procured with the assistance of the minister's department, and I ask: can the minister tell the House what procedures are in place in the department to handle a similar situation if it arises today? Has the minister changed those procedures since she came into the job as Minister for Families? At what level of the department would such a matter be considered now and at what level would it have been considered before she came to office? Would the minister be advised of that today, and would the minister's colleague have been advised of that in the past? Ms SPENCE: The situation as it is today is the situation as it has been under previous ministers, including former Minister Lingard. The situation is that the director-general of the Department of Families is the legal guardian of all of our children in care, so those decisions would ultimately have to be approved by the director-general, who would act on medical advice before approving such a procedure. As with any termination in Queensland, a termination cannot be performed without that kind of medical advice. That is the situation.

Tourism and Film Industries Ms BOYLE: My question is directed to the Premier. Considering the importance of the tourism and film industries to Queensland's economy, will the Premier outline what the government is doing to boost activity in these sectors? Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer that question. Last Friday the Tourism Minister and I, along with the local members, hosted the launch of the movie Finding Nemo on Green Island, which is in the electorate of the member for Cairns. A government member: Did you find Nemo? Mr BEATTIE: We are still looking for Nemo. Having been to Green Island, I have to say that I do not think we should pay the member for Cairns; she should pay us to be the member for Cairns. This movie, which highlights the adventures of a clownfish hailing from the Great Barrier Reef, is the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Finding Nemo showcases the reef in a way no movie has done before, and I hope audiences will be inspired to come and visit the real thing. Education programs are but one of the spin-offs from this movie. Importantly, this is probably the most significant worldwide promotion of the Great Barrier Reef ever in our history, which is important for tourism and jobs. Tourism Queensland aims to capitalise on the interest in the reef that the movie is expected to generate by running a marketing campaign with Buena Vista/Disney, the distributors. The campaign is targeting the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. A number of representatives of the Japanese media were present at the launch on Green Island. This movie will be a boost for the tourism industry, which is still recovering from the impact of SARS and the war in Iraq. The Finding Nemo campaign will build on our efforts to promote Queensland in the United States as both a holiday destination and a prime location for making movies and television programs. During my recent trade mission to the United States I hosted a reception in Los Angeles for representatives of the tourism and film production industries. I told them that, when we combine the incredible range of landscapes that are to be found in Queensland with competitive business costs, a relaxed lifestyle and highly skilled technical crews, we have an ideal place in which to 19 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 2897 shoot a movie or television show. I also highlighted the recent expansion of the Warner Roadshow Movie World Studios at the Gold Coast, which has increased the facility's size by 50 per cent, making it one of the largest studio complexes in the Southern Hemisphere. As the Minister for the Arts would tell me very quickly if I allowed him to, these studios have been full ever since. So it was the right decision, even though there were a few critics and cynics. The use of Queensland's natural attractions by the movie industry also underlines the need to protect them. A report on coral bleaching that I released with the Minister for Natural Resources last week focused on the threat the Great Barrier Reef is facing from global warming. The report, which was considered by cabinet, underlined the urgent need for action to protect the reef and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The coral bleaching report hardens my resolve and that of my government to forge ahead with the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan we are undertaking jointly with the Commonwealth. If we do not act, future generations will miss out on experiencing one of the world's truly great natural wonders. I thank the directors of Finding Nemo, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich, as well as producer Graham Walters, all of whom were on Green Island. These are the sorts of opportunities that we have to seize with both hands. Tourism is our second biggest industry. This is about jobs. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the greatest marketing opportunities in the world, but we have to protect it for future generations. I thank the member for Cairns for her support.

Foster Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr MALONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Families. Can the minister confirm to the House that when abortions are approved by the director-general it is standard practice for them to be advised? Has the practice been advised to the minister and has this changed in recent times? Ms SPENCE: As I just explained, these decisions are made by the legal guardian of the children in care. It is up to the director-general ultimately to make that decision in conjunction with medical authorities. In coming to that situation, we have to appreciate that a child may be above 16 years of age and still in care and require a termination, on her doctor's advice. We have also to appreciate that there is a High Court decision that allows minors to participate in medical decisions concerning them. The director-general must take that into consideration ultimately when having that conversation with a doctor. In terms of the process of the director-general informing me, in this case that would be the process, but I cannot comment on whether that would have been the case under previous ministers. As I said, by law it is the director-general's decision and not the minister's decision. But I know that my relationship with the director-general is one such that those sorts of matters would be regularly discussed in our briefings.

Swimming Pool Fencing Laws Mr FENLON: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government and Planning What measures is the Minister taking to reduce the risks of toddlers drowning in swimming pools in Queensland? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: As the Premier said earlier, during this sitting I will be introducing a bill to significantly reduce the risks of toddlers drowning in residential swimming pools. On behalf of the state government, I will introduce legislation aimed at further reducing the number of infant deaths associated with poorly or illegally fenced swimming pools. Sadly, a recent survey showed some councils were allowing far too many exemptions from existing pool fencing laws. No more! Action will be taken now, before the summer swimming season gets under way, to help prevent any more tragedies involving toddlers. Little children need every protection we can give them. In the eight years before the pool fencing legislation was introduced in Queensland in 1991 there were 107 residential pool drowning deaths involving children. However, between 1991 and 2001 the number fell to 73, even though the number of pools doubled in that time. That is still too many tragedies, but it shows that legislation does reduce the risks. This government is totally committed to making pool safety legislation as effective as possible. A survey of Queensland councils raised a number of issues that need to be addressed. It highlighted that a number of councils have made a significant number of exemptions so as to allow non-complying pool fencing and that some councils have failed even to record those exemptions. That is not good enough. After statewide consultation, the amendments will include 2898 Questions Without Notice 19 Aug 2003 requiring a sign to be posted advising the public that a pool is being constructed on a property, limiting the exemptions councils can give only to circumstances where an occupant of a building has a disability, requiring new residential swimming pools to have a sign installed nearby, and requiring pools constructed on a building to also be fenced. This legislation will be accompanied by an amendment to the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation to enable councils to impose on-the-spot fines for non-compliance with pool fencing laws. These amendments will enhance amendments made earlier this year requiring fences constructed around new pools to be inspected and certified before the pool is filled. On average, there are still seven children a year dying in backyard pools and an unacceptable number living for the rest of their lives with brain damage because they were under the water for too long. These amendments will mean tougher new changes. While they may seem too tough for some pool owners, this government will take whatever steps it can to reduce the danger to children of residential swimming pools.

Foster Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the honourable Minister for Education. I refer to the allegations made to the minister by the member for Cleveland when she was Minister for Families regarding the abuse of foster children. He advised that his informant had requested a covert investigation of the matter. Will the minister now tell the House why no investigation, let alone a covert one, was undertaken and why, as a result of the minister's failure to take the action requested, this abuse continued until a couple of months ago when this matter was made public? Mr SPEAKER: Again, this question is out of order. If the minister accepts it today I will allow it. We have to get back to the rule of the parliament which is that members ask ministers questions about their portfolios. The minister has acceded to answer the question this time. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I repeat my earlier assertion that it is important that we remember that these matters are now the subject of a serious, rigorous and detailed examination, and not subject to assertions that are completely untested. The honourable member's question contained at least three assertions about which he has no evidence. He does not know what investigation was conducted. He is not privy to the investigation that the CMC will conduct by interviews with staff. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms BLIGH: I look forward, like every other member on this side of the parliament, to the outcomes of the CMC inquiry because we will take those outcomes and use them to build on the already significant improvements we have made to this system and which we have every right to be proud of. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. This is my final warning.

Radiation Therapists Ms PHILLIPS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy. The minister will be aware of my concern expressed on behalf of some constituents in Thuringowa with regard to accessing radiation treatment. What outcomes have there been from the minister's effort to recruit radiation therapists to address this problem? Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for the question. I am aware of the concerns that she and other members on this side of the House have raised. They have asked us to look at all avenues to address this. I have good news for them. As I have said in this House on several occasions there is a well-known, worldwide shortage of radiation therapists. Queensland is not immune to that. In June 2003, the government, through Queensland Health, commenced a national and international recruitment campaign, or rather we stepped up that campaign, for radiation therapists. It was described at the time by those opposite as a junket and a waste of money. I am pleased to advise that five overseas trained radiation therapists have signed contracts at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and Townsville Hospital to commence work in 2003. In addition, negotiations are continuing with a number of potential recruits who have expressed interest in both short-term and permanent vacancies in Queensland. 19 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 2899

I am delighted to note that one of the key reasons the recruitment campaign has borne fruit is that it has been recognised that not only do Queensland hospitals have world-class staff but they also now have world-class infrastructure and equipment. This is because of the $28 million investment in the best and latest equipment as part of the Beattie government's radiation oncology services plan. This includes, for example, the establishment of a new unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, two of the latest linear accelerators at the new $182 million Townsville Hospital and the new $48 million radiation therapy department at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. Additional to this and of long-term benefit, the state government has successfully lobbied the Commonwealth government to create extra training places at the Queensland University of Technology in the 2002 and 2003 intake of the radiation therapy course. The Queensland University of Technology has advised that it will continue additional training places in 2004. Clearly, this will decrease pressure in the future as these graduates come on stream. As I have said previously, the Beattie government is committed to improving access for public patients requiring radiation oncology services in Queensland public hospitals.

Promotional Material Mrs PRATT: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors. The minister's department sent promotional material on behalf of insurance agencies to the client base. How do these clients remove themselves from being forced to accept unsolicited promotional material being sent through the department? As no government material was forward to the seniors at the same time, who paid for the postage to promote that material? Is it an acceptable practice endorsed by government? Do these departments receive some sort of kick- back? Ms SPENCE: I think the member is referring to latest Seniors Card Directory. The member did not tell me which publication she was referring to. Mrs Pratt: The publication related to an insurance agency. There was nothing else included. It was a little attachment on the top forwarded by your department. Ms SPENCE: I am not aware of that occurring at all. I do know the latest Seniors Card Directory, one of our publications, was sent out. Mrs Pratt: It wasn't. Ms SPENCE: I will look into it. We have gone out and looked for corporate sponsorship for some of the publications that we produce. I think the Seniors Card Directory is one of them. We certainly go and actively seek that kind of corporate sponsorship. These publications are sent out freely to a large number of seniors throughout Queensland. Certainly, there are whole-of- government guidelines we follow before accepting that kind of sponsorship in government publications. It is something that I certainly do not discourage. I think that if we are going to continue to produce more and better information and freely send it out to our constituency then it is quite reasonable for the government to look for advertisers in its publications when they are of a general nature such as that. I am happy to look into the particular case that the member is talking about.

Coalition Policy Ms MALE: My question is directed to the Minister for Families. Is the minister aware of the coalition policy on child protection? Can the minister inform the House how it would compare with this government's reform agenda? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for the question. I, like many members of the House, have been critical of the opposition from time to time for having no policies. So I was very pleased that it came out with a policy on child protection. I was doubting its interest in this issue, particularly during the estimates process where the shadow minister for families spent two-thirds of the estimates time asking me questions about another government department. Opposition members finally got around to asking me five questions about the Families Department in the last 10 minutes of the estimates process. Members can forgive me for thinking that they had no idea where they wanted to head in child protection or anything else to do with the Families Department. 2900 Questions Without Notice 19 Aug 2003

I am happy that they have come out with a policy. Obviously, their policy is to re-tread Kev and put him back as families minister. Like many members, I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition's positive policy strategy is to recycle a former minister who was sacked from this portfolio. I think we all know why. The Leader of the Opposition has found some interest in the area of child protection. He has put out a media release stating his policy. It did not get much of a run so I am happy to help him out today. The policy under a Springborg government would be to appoint another 30 family services officers. End of story. In the last year alone, we put on an additional 90 officers in the Families Department. I think that the 30 additional officers is ambitious, because in one year under then Minister Lingard the opposition managed to put on an additional three officers. In the other year under Mr Lingard, it managed to put on an additional 12 officers. So in the whole term of the Borbidge government, we got an additional 15 officers. So 30 is double that. I say well done to the opposition. As I said, we put on 90 additional officers last year. As well, in the last year alone, we funded an additional 203 family support workers in the non-government sector to be our partners in helping Queensland's families, particularly in the area of child protection. Our record will stand above the opposition's any day.

Ms C. Wong Mr FLYNN: I direct a question to the Minister for Health. The shadow minister for health, the member for Maroochydore, has previously raised the issue of the difficulties encountered by Ms Christina Wong upon her deregistration for five years from the list of medical practitioners. As raised by the member for Maroochydore, the minister has been quoted as saying that proper procedures were followed in the process. However, I ask: why is a regulated—that is, involuntary—patient at Toowong Psychiatric Hospital permitted, and indeed encouraged, to practise medicine while so committed? Is this proper procedure? Is it then her responsibility for the ensuing mistakes that she is said to have made? Will the minister, in light of evidence suggesting that Ms Wong should not have practised, call for an inquiry into the inappropriate treatment and supervision of Ms Wong at Toowong hospital and the medical board's flawed supervision process? Mrs EDMOND: This is a very delicate matter. I am not sure whether Ms Wong wants her personal health status discussed in this House. I certainly have not got the approval— Mr Flynn: Ms Wong is in the gallery and is very happy to have a discussion at this time. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot speak for Ms Wong. Mrs EDMOND: I have met with and spoken to Ms Wong on several occasions where I have explained to her that her current health situation is not such that it is believed by the registration board that it is appropriate for her to treat patients. That is my advice and I will repeat that advice.

Manufacturing Sector Developments Ms STRUTHERS: I direct a question to the Minister for State Development. The past few weeks have seen a whole series of announcements about manufacturing sector developments which have brought new companies to Queensland and meant hundreds of jobs for Queenslanders. I ask the minister: can he provide more details of these developments? Mr BARTON: I really do thank the member for the question. The member is very active on my backbench committee in pursuing the issue of industrial development in this state. Particularly, in the member's electorate of Algester is the Acacia Ridge major industrial area, which is seeing a lot of this development. So I want to say that not only do we see major developments take place in this state by the big bang of an individual big project, but also frequently it comes with a whole range of smaller projects like rolling thunder coming through. The past couple of weeks have been an example of that. Sadly, we have not picked up the media coverage of that. It seems that if something goes wrong the media is only too ready to give it a page 1 story. But when we have these positive stories, we cannot seem to get a word out. I want to talk about a few of these companies. The first of them is defence and aerospace giant Raytheon, which has established its Asia-Pacific aerospace logistics centre of excellence here, creating more than 65 jobs. We expect it to be more than that. It has certainly committed to that 65 jobs. It is already talking to us about further expansions on top of that. Raytheon is one of the big three companies behind Boeing and EADS in terms of aviation and aerospace world wide. 19 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 2901

The other one that is, in fact, located in the electorate of the member for Algester is the leading steel group, Smorgon, which is to substantially expand its tube making plant at Acacia Ridge. That is a $17 million commitment that will create 72 additional jobs. I only wish that the media had covered the words that were put forward by Ray Horsburgh, the CEO of Smorgon, who came up to Queensland for that announcement, in which he made it very clear that Queensland was the absolute best in terms of the facilitation of business. That is why Smorgon was expanding the Acacia Ridge plant instead of expanding its plant near Melbourne, which has much more room to move. Ray was very fulsome in his praise of Queensland in particular and State Development for its facilitation capacity, which is why those additional jobs are being created here by the largest vertically integrated steel firm in Australia. Another one is Advance Metal Products, which is investing $15 million in a high-tech Brisbane facility that will create 80 jobs servicing the aerospace, electronics and other industries. The other one is Poolrite Equipment, which is moving back from New South Wales. That company is making a $23 million investment that will create 50 new jobs. As well, in the service sector MBF is locating its new national customer contact centre in Brisbane, creating or preserving 160 jobs. That was up for grabs. If we had not been able to get all of the new jobs in the new centre here, we would have lost existing jobs. As well, Cement Australia opened a new shared services facility in Brisbane creating 75 jobs.

Bodies Corporate Mr BELL: I direct a question to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading, who I believe has now taken over, as part of her portfolio responsibilities, matters relating to bodies corporate. It is a matter of concern in the electorate of Surfers Paradise that some bodies corporate impose interest on overdue levies at extortionist rates of interest. Rates of interest of 25 per cent to 30 per cent are common, causing great hardship to some people already experiencing financial difficulties. I ask the minister: can consideration be given to an enactment which would limit the maximum rate of interest which a body corporate may charge on levies? Ms ROSE: I thank the member for the question. There is a maximum rate, which is set out in the act. That maximum rate is 2.5 per cent per month as a simple rate, not a compounded rate. If the member has any examples of bodies corporate that are not doing the right thing, that are breaching the act and that are charging exorbitant interest rates, then I would ask him to make that information available to me and I will ensure that action is taken against them.

Electricity Supply Mr POOLE: I direct a question to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. Last week we saw widespread blackouts in North America, which caused havoc to millions of people. I ask the minister: what reassurance do we have that the blackouts seen over there will not happen right here in Queensland? Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr LUCAS: Yes, I remember 1996 when the Borbidge government could not keep the power on in Queensland. Last Friday the blackouts in the eastern states of the USA and Canada showed us how reliant we are on electricity. It is very much the lifeblood of almost everything that we do. I am here to say that I will take all steps to ensure that the people of Queensland have no need to fear a similar blackout occurring here. No power system in the world can withstand multiple simultaneous failures, as occurred in North America, but we are prepared. If we did have a big failure, our power system would isolate affected areas very quickly, limiting the number of customers affected and damaged. Our electricity companies are constantly testing their network for safe, secure and reliable supply. It is worth while having a look at the level of investment that we have made in our electricity industry in recent years. Since 1998, we have invested $1 billion in our transmission network in Queensland and $3 billion in generation. In fact, the only private sector merchant power plant in Australia in the national electricity market has been constructed in Queensland at Millmerran. That is a vote of confidence in the Queensland electricity industry. Powerlink, our transmission company, is expected to spend $160 million this financial year to continue building and upgrading the transmission network. Queensland has about 20 per cent of the population of Australia, but 2902 Questions Without Notice 19 Aug 2003 this figure represents 40 per cent of all capital expenditure on transmission across the national electricity market. That is what Powerlink is doing. Our generating capacity is about 10,000 megawatts. In January of this year we experienced record demand of 7,100 megawatts—in other words, a 40 per cent surplus capacity. There is plenty of power in Queensland. Notwithstanding that, we have load growth of an average of 4.4 per cent over the next 10 years. We are growing at a faster rate than the national electricity market. That is why we are keeping ahead of demand with projects such as Kogan Creek, approved to come on line when required. No energy minister can give a guarantee that the power will never go out, but I want to assure the people of Queensland that our state owned utilities, such as Powerlink, are working hard to make the investment in our electricity infrastructure to ensure we have a robust and reliable grid. That is why transmission projects between Millmerran and Middle Ridge on the Darling Downs, on the Gold Coast and elsewhere in Queensland are so critical. I say to the people of Queensland and to those in particular localities who are not terribly thrilled about powerlines being built there that we cannot have power without the power being transmitted to communities. There is no alternative to that. I do not want to be the minister who has allowed the power to go out because I have kowtowed to people who are concerned about their own interests when it comes to electricity. The fact of the matter is that when the electricity goes out it penalises farmers, consumers, businesses and the whole community. I want to stand up for the people of Queensland as a whole and ensure that transmission investment is made.

Ambulance Levy; Mr T. Jowett Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the government levying of the compulsory ambulance tax on the estate of deceased Gold Coast man Tom Jowett, despite the fact that Mr Jowett passed away two years ago. We are all familiar with the practice of the ALP having people vote from the grave, but why is the government taking this policy a step further and starting to tax people in the grave? Mr MACKENROTH: The community ambulance cover levy is charged on electricity accounts. It is obvious that, whilst this person may have passed away two years ago, somebody is still paying for electricity.

Mitchelton State High School Mr WILSON: Can the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing outline the involvement of the Department of Public Works, in particular Q-Build, to help Mitchelton State High School in my electorate re-open after the recent devastating fire? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question and congratulate him on being on site on 2 August as early as 8.30 in the morning to view the devastation that was caused by some lunatics who set fire to the Mitchelton school. I also congratulate officers of the Education Department and a variety of people who work for the Department of Public Works. This little exercise proves the wisdom of this government in keeping a day labour force. Some 29 individuals from the Department of Public Works and others from the fire service, the Police Service and the Education Department worked right across the weekend to ensure that Mitchelton school was back in business by Tuesday morning. The Monday was a pupil-free day. They performed a miracle. They brought phoenix from the ashes, as it were. I seek leave to have the names of the 21 people incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. QBuild Gary Saunders, Ray Lowe, Peter Argus, Matt Harris, Darryl Best, Greg Boone, Dave Holmes, John Watson, Ian Sommerville, Shane Greener, Brett Wolf, Mark Heavey, Bradley Cox, Ross Almond SGS Chris Carmody, John Carpenter, David Zimmer, Adrian Gay, Ken Wade, Neil Ferris, Mick Munro, Bruce Campbell Project Services Rob Williams, Michael Byrne SDS Vivienne Montgomery, Andrew Conroy, Greg Barnes, Kevin Heath, David Nolan 19 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 2903

Mr SCHWARTEN: The fact of the matter is that Q-Build was on site in the morning. Once the site was handed over to them by forensic specialists in the afternoon they set to work. Temporary buildings were put in place by late Sunday afternoon or early Monday morning. I congratulate Project Services on sourcing those buildings. Things such as ramps and stairs were replaced. The damage was cleared away. I particularly bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Q- Build employees who went on to that site sifted through the remains to find the personal effects of teachers and students and tried as best they could to preserve them and hand them back. I wonder what would have happened if private enterprise had been called out to respond to this situation. I wonder how long honourable members think it would have taken for this site to be brought back and whether school could have returned on Tuesday morning. The answer is no, of course. I see on the other side of the House the Liberal member who was responsible in no small way for trying to get rid of Q-Build. The Leader of the Liberal Party has a bit of a smirk on his face. We all know that his agenda was to get rid of Q-Build. I would say that it would have taken a very long time to get 150 chairs and desks to the site, which SDS was able to get on site by Sunday afternoon or early Monday morning. I would say that it would have taken more than two days to get the site cleared ready for school to return. I would say that we would not have even got the site secured on the Saturday and that there would have been security officers around that site for more than a week. This government is committed to Q-Build and all the other business units that employ people in this department, not just for this reason but also because they train some 350 apprentices. This government is the biggest single trainer of construction apprentices of any government in the world. I am delighted that, while this fire was a terrible disaster, this government—a smart government—could respond and get school going within three days. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Cunningham, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Glennie school in the electorate of Toowoomba South.

Class Sizes Mr COPELAND: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. During the recent Maryborough by-election the minister told the Courier-Mail that it would cost $183 million and require 769 more teachers to reduce the state's class size targets by just one student. How is it that the minister and the Premier now claim, as part of the Labor Party's next election promises, to be able to drop class sizes from 30 to 28 for years 4 to 10 for just $38 million? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is great to have an opportunity this morning to talk about education, because it is at the heart of our government's Smart State vision. All members will by now have received booklets on their desks that outline our government's new middle schooling strategy. This is the first time Queensland has ever had an education strategy that focuses on the crucial middle years of education. The member asks how can it be that it would take this much to reduce student numbers by one in every class and why this is something different from what we have promised. Let me be very clear. The quote the member referred to spoke about one fewer student in every class; that is, from preschool to year 12. So it is across the entire school cohort. Mr Copeland: Reducing to 29 is spreading the vegemite so thin. That's what you said. Ms BLIGH: As the Premier and I outlined when we made this announcement last week, it has been possible for us to commit ourselves to reduce class size targets in those crucial middle years of years 4 to 10 from 30 to 28 as part of the settlement of the enterprise bargaining dispute with the Queensland Teachers Union. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham. Ms BLIGH: As part of the resolution of that dispute the Queensland Teachers Union has been prepared to recommend the government's wages offer to its members. I thank it for its willingness to settle the wages question. Secondly, it has given a commitment that the teachers that were identified for class size reduction as part of the 800 teachers could be used to reduce class sizes in years 4 to 10. Our calculations indicate that, on the basis of those teachers—part of the 800 that were allocated for class size reduction—being targeted to years 4 to 10, plus the additional that we 2904 Questions Without Notice 19 Aug 2003 have indicated in our announcement, we will be in a position to have reduced the class sizes from 30 to 29 by 2005 and from 30 to 28 by 2007. This means that Queensland will have the lowest class sizes in Australia in years 4 to 10—the lowest class sizes in Australia in the middle years of education. That will benefit more than a quarter of a million Queensland students. Not only that, we are the first Queensland government to have reduced class size targets for two decades—for more than 20 years.

Hardwood Plantations Mr STRONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities. I refer the minister to the government's plan to establish a further 5,000 hectares of hardwood plantations in south-east Queensland, and I ask: how can farmers and other land- holders benefit from this scheme? Mr PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question, because this is a great new story for our primary producers in Queensland. In 1999 we embarked on the first plantings of hardwood timber in the area around Miriam Vale all the way down to Wide Bay and the Burnett. Whilst there was a little bit of resistance in those days from our producers, who were a bit sceptical about the proposed scheme, at the end of the scheme we had more people applying to be part of it than we actually had money or resources available for that scheme. Based on that success, I am pleased to announce today that the state government, in conjunction with DPI Forestry, is embarking on a further plantation of 5,000 hectares of hardwood timber. Once that 5,000 hectares is in, we will then have 10,000 hectares of government owned timber which will more than suffice to meet the requirements under the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement. What is important about this is that the government is entering into a partnership with our landowners. We are looking for landowners who have 30 hectares or more land to take part in this scheme. The good thing is that the government will pay land rentals quarterly in advance to our primary producers. That is why the scheme has been so successful. There is an ad in the newspapers entitled 'Landowners Wanted' and the response to that ad is just amazing. Most of the plantations will again be in an area from Miriam Vale all the way down to the border. I am very pleased that the honourable member for Burnett has asked this question, because much of the plantations will be in the Wide Bay-Burnett area due to his very strong representations on behalf of the landowners there. I want to mention one more thing before I sit down, and that is that a great showman from the Ekka has retired after 60 years in the business. I refer to Joey Paine of sideshow alley. He has been a fixture there for all those years. He is very well known and very well respected. Whenever I visited Joey Paine at any time during the evening, we were able to sit down and have a quiet can of VB or Fourex and talk about the good things that happened at the Ekka during the years.

Training Programs, Funding Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Training and the Arts. A number of registered training organisations as well as parents have expressed concern that because of cutbacks in funding by his department a number of areas of training are now not available. These include for one RTO in my electorate, retail, automotive, business and slaughtermen. What funding has been removed and why? Mr MATT FOLEY: I thank the honourable member for the question. In fact, the contrary is the case. There has been a significant increase in funding for training. In particular, the program which is the subject of the honourable member's concern is an area called user choice. May I draw to the attention of the House how the user choice budget has changed over the last few years. It has increased from $80 million to $102.5 million in the budget over those three years. That represents a significant increase in the amounts budgeted for this area of user choice. What has happened, however, is that we have been very clear that this public money is to be directed to strategic priorities—namely, areas of skills shortage and those disadvantaged persons in most need of training programs. In the past there has been no such prioritisation because there was a growing of the training market in the user choice area. As a consequence, a number of areas—such as car sales training, real estate training and training of boners in abattoirs—saw very large increases in the number of persons being trained in those areas while at 19 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 2905 the same time skill shortages were existing in other areas, and certain persons who were in need of assistance in the labour market were not properly being assisted. Those changes have had an impact on the role of a number of registered training organisations. However, I want to make this very clear to the registered training organisations: user choice is not a bottomless pit, it is not a slush fund; it is a public fund provided for by the taxpayers of Queensland to achieve certain strategic objectives. Those strategic objectives are the ones that I have set out in this parliament—namely, addressing skills shortages and assisting those who are most disadvantaged. I do ask the honourable member to join with the government. Indeed, I ask the opposition to join with the government. If we want to see significant increases in this area, it is about time that the Commonwealth government came to the party with a realistic offer under the Australian National Training Authority agreement. Training in this nation will be stalled unless the Commonwealth gives a significant boost. Its current offer under the Australian National Training Authority is a recipe for a multiplication of the sorts of problems that the honourable member referred to. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Kurwongbah, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from St Mary's Primary School in the electorate of Beaudesert.

Mr T. Lewis; Fitzgerald Inquiry Mrs LAVARCH: My question is directed to the Premier. Today's Australian indicates 'Sir Joh's corrupt top cop sues too'. I ask: does the Premier have a view on this possibility? Mr BEATTIE: I certainly do, and I thank the member for Kurwongbah for the question because, like me, she is committed to honesty and integrity. I refer to an article in the Australian today which says that corrupt former Police Commissioner Terry Lewis is considering claiming compensation from taxpayers. I want to make it clear today that there can be no doubt that Terry Lewis was corrupt. Evidence given to the two-year Fitzgerald inquiry pointed to Lewis's guilt. Then a jury found Lewis guilty, after a trial lasting nearly five months, of all 15 charges of corruption—the lot. In other words, the jury of 12 was unanimous in its finding that every charge of corruption against Lewis had been proved beyond all doubt. This was despite much prosecution evidence being withheld from the trial. Lewis was found to have received up to $10,000 a month from the corruption which he protected. A chartered accountant examined Lewis's lifestyle and found that in a five-year period Lewis had received $30,000 for which he could not account, but it was the damage which Lewis inflicted on his former police force and on the justice system which we should remember. It is worth recounting the words of prosecutor Bob Mulholland QC in his summing up. Mr Mulholland said that Lewis disgraced his office and provided— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Well, it is not a surprise to hear the National Party support him in this House. It always did. Mr Mulholland said that Lewis disgraced his office and provided a reason for other police officers to be tempted to betray their oaths and accept easy money from corruption. As a direct result of his criminal conduct, the overwhelming majority of honest police have been forced to endure public odium directed without discrimination to the Police Service as a whole, he said. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Let the record show the interjections from the National Party. Let the record show that it has learnt nothing from the corrupt practices of the past. As Mr Mulholland said, the public disclosure of the corrupt system with Lewis at its centre led to numerous police officers unfairly suffering personal anguish as well as public scorn. All criminals who have served their time are entitled to be rehabilitated and seek to re-enter society, but Lewis has never admitted his guilt or shown any remorse and now he reportedly has the gall to say that history will show the Fitzgerald inquiry to be a very different picture from what it has been painted to be and to talk about claiming compensation. History will not be rewritten. My government will never entertain any claim of compensation from this man. Let me make this clear, too. I want to pay tribute to Tony Fitzgerald and the legacy that Tony Fitzgerald has left this state. He is one of the greatest Queenslanders of the 20th century. He helped drag Queensland out of the mire, out of the black days and into the light. I want to pay 2906 Overseas Visit 19 Aug 2003 tribute to Tony Fitzgerald today as a very decent and honest man. We should never lose sight of Tony Fitzgerald's wonderful contribution. He is a great Queenslander.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Report Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Alert Digest Nos. 7 and 8 of 2003.

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE E Report Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): I table a report of Estimates Committee E relating to estimates of expenditure referred to it and contained in the Appropriation Bill together with additional information provided to the committee.

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE F Report Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.31 a.m.): I table the report of Estimates Committee F relating to the estimates of expenditure referred to and contained in the Appropriation Bill together with additional information provided to the committee.

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE Reports Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (11.32 a.m): I lay upon the table of the House two reports of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee. The first report attaches a report by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner, Mr Robert Needham, on his investigation into the actions of the Crime and Misconduct Commission in the Greer matter. The second report attaches a report from Mr Needham on his investigation of the CMC's actions in dealing with allegations against former magistrate Brian Murray. The committee has resolved to table both reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the basis that in all of the circumstances it is in the public interest that they be made available to the public. The reports speak for themselves. In summary, the Parliamentary Commissioner has found that the CMC investigation in the Greer matter, while taking some 13 months, was carried out with all due diligence. The investigation took longer than would normally be expected because of the reluctance of many potential witnesses to be interviewed and the fact that the CMC examined, at the request of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, all suspect transactions. In the Murray matter, the Parliamentary Commissioner found in summary that there was undue delay by the CMC which resulted from a serious error within the commission. Firstly, relevant material received by the commission was not considered for a period of three months. Secondly, when the material was assessed an inappropriate decision was made to put the file away pending receipt of further material and not act on the material received. The Parliamentary Commissioner found that the commission had a procedure in place which, if followed, would have ensured that the material was appropriately assessed. However, the procedure was not followed in this instance. The CMC has advised the committee that all recommendations in the Parliamentary Commissioners report have or will be actioned. The CMC is aware of the committee's strong view that avoidable delay is unacceptable delay, as previously advised to the House in a report tabled earlier this year. The committee is aware of significant initiatives by the CMC to address the issue of the timeliness of investigations. The issue of timeliness and the processes and systems surrounding CMC investigations is also receiving careful attention by the committee as part of its current three-year review of the CMC. I commend the reports to the House.

OVERSEAS VISIT Report Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (11.33 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House a report to the parliament oN a trip I made to Vietnam from 12 July to 26 July 2003. 19 Aug 2003 Matters of Public Interest 2907

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Foster Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.33 a.m.): Much has been said in parliament this morning about the appalling situation of the Family Services Department in Queensland and the lack of appropriate oversight by the minister of the day, the now Minister for Education. We have seen a last minute attempt by the Premier, who came in here and dragged some form of red herring across this parliament about a claim from Terry Lewis which has been made against the state of Queensland, in order to dampen down what is significant concern and to divert the media attention today away from the very serious issues surrounding the lack of administration and the maladministration of the Department of Family Services in this state, particularly by the minister, the member for South Brisbane. Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! The member for Southern Downs. The House will come to order. Mr SPRINGBORG: We remember Norm Alford. At least he had to go. When we are dealing with other people that were actually found wanting they still sit in the seats of power in this state. We heard the Premier in this place a little while ago standing up waxing lyrical about Tony Fitzgerald and what a great Queenslander he was. It was the National Party government of the day that appointed Tony Fitzgerald after great controversy surrounding allegations of corruption and allegations of police maladministration in this state. The National Party of the day had the guts to stand up and appoint him as a royal commissioner in this state, a job which he undertook and from which recommendations have systemically and significantly changed the way that this state has been administered. However, in many areas the administration of this state has been left wanting by this government. If we had taken exactly the same approach to the Fitzgerald inquiry as this government is taking with regards to allegations of child sexual abuse, there would not have been a Fitzgerald inquiry. If we had run away from it there would not have been a Fitzgerald inquiry. This government stands behind— Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr SPRINGBORG:—a veil of accountability which does not exist. It stands behind a veil of integrity which in no way surrounds it at all. It has no accountability and it has no integrity. Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The member for Southern Downs. The House will come to order. Mr Johnson: They do not like that royal commission. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. Mr SPRINGBORG: The quoting of Tony Fitzgerald and the Fitzgerald inquiry in this parliament today was an indication of exactly why we need a royal commission in Queensland to look into these issues of child sexual abuse, to look into these issues of the maladministration of the Department of Family Services by senior officers and by ministers, to get to the bottom of this issue and to have it out once and for all. Mr Johnson: They used a paedophile here to give them the numbers in the parliament. Mr SPRINGBORG: Well, we know where the government stands on matters of hypocrisy with regard to that particular issue. Quite demonstrably we need a royal commission in Queensland to get this out there. It is the only way that we will be able to get to the bottom of this now and into the future. All members opposite are doing by being complicit in a very narrow CMC inquiry is welding down the lid on the pressure cooker. It will not go away and it should not go away and the opposition in Queensland will not let it go away. In the time that this issue has been raised in the last two and a half weeks, that is the volume of people who have contacted us regarding serious concerns about the maladministration of the Department of Families in this state. In actual fact only a small amount of them will be able to be referred to and considered as a part of the terms of reference under the inquiry which the CMC has actually initiated. Many of these complaints will not be able to be considered as a part 2908 Matters of Public Interest 19 Aug 2003 of that public inquiry because they go to the core of other issues with regards to a general failure, in particular, to protect kids. They relate to matters that have been reported to the department—children being at risk of physical or sexual harm—but they are matters that cannot be publicly viewed by that particularly inquiry because the terms of reference do not cover them. These sorts of issues will not come out. Those people who have raised them with us will not have the chance to go along to a public inquiry and be able to tell their story in such a way that the public will know if there has been systemic and major maladministration in the department. We will refer many of those matters to the CMC and they may be able to be considered insofar as the CMC's ambit of misconduct is concerned but how do we know if they are going to be properly investigated? How do we know what is going to happen about anything that might arise from them? The real issue, of course, is getting this stuff out there insofar as the public inquiry is concerned. What about the departmental officers who have contacted us and who are seeking some form of indemnity to be able to tell their story? A process is required where they can go before the CMC to tell their story without fear of retaliation. There is no indemnity for them because what they have to tell us is not covered by that very restricted terms of reference. Do Labor backbenchers feel comfortable with this process? They should not, because it imposes constraints on the telling of a story that needs to be told so as to enable the state to be aware of these problems— Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The House will come to order. Members will cease interjecting across the chamber while the speaker is on his feet. Mr SPRINGBORG: We need firm recommendations that address systemic and major problems of maladministration in the Department of Families not only insofar as foster care complaints but also in relation to general child protection complaints that have not been properly handled by the department or this minister. That is what this is all about. The issue of foster care insofar as child protection is only a very small part of this problem in Queensland. The majority of foster carers in this state are great people who are dedicated to providing exemplary care for these kids. The very small proportion of complaints are those made against foster carers. However, it has been very convenient for the government and the CMC to divert this issue to an inquiry with the narrow terms of reference of looking at the issue of child protection only insofar as foster care. This is not a state of cover-ups, but it is becoming a state of cover-ups. This is no longer the Smart State; it is a state of amnesia and a state of cover-ups. This is not about being open and accountable. It is about time the Premier took his heart off his sleeve and directed his rhetoric somewhere where it matters and initiated a royal commission that will see this matter brought to a head once and for all. This issue will not and should not go away. The coalition in office will hold a royal commission to get to the bottom of this issue. We have heard from the Premier today and previously about the issue of the federal government allegedly not spending enough money on health. His government is getting an extra $3 million or $4 million through the GST this year. That is over and above what it would have received under the previous premiers conference arrangements. Why does he not put some of that into a royal commission or into caring for kids? Why does he not put some of that into ensuring there is an adequate number of child protection officers in Queensland to do the job and stand up for kids being abused physically and sexually who are crying out for care and for the assistance of the government? An opposition member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: They are the silent voices; they do not have the capacity to speak for themselves. They rely on the state to protect them and they rely on other people reporting incidents of abuse so that they can be protected. This morning the Minister for Families ridiculed my announcement that I would appoint an extra 30 child care officers over and above the number the government has provided. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Has the member read the MPS for the Department of Families? Page 1- 6 outlines what his government is doing this year. He probably has not read it. When he asked questions at the estimates committee he asked only the dorothy dixers that were given to him. Let us look at the figures. What is the total number of officers involved in child protection services 19 Aug 2003 Matters of Public Interest 2909 in Queensland? In the last budget year there were 2,222. On the government's figures, how many will be there at the end of the year? It is 2,222! Where is the government's real commitment? There is no commitment whatsoever. This is absolute hypocrisy on the part of this government. We need less propaganda and more action in child protection services. That is what people in this state want. What happened with respect to the Ombudsman's report into Brooke Brennan, which found Families, Health and other government agencies wanting? Nothing happened! Time expired.

Mr M. Johnson, Federal Member for Ryan Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (11.43 a.m.): I am in possession of a newsletter from Michael Johnson, who was Prime Minister John Howard's choice for the federal seat of Ryan. Members will recall that the Prime Minister refused to intervene in the rorted process in Ryan at the last federal election and Johnson was chosen as the candidate and won the subsequent election. He boasts the endearing slogan 'A local who delivers', but it tells half the story only. He is also a local who collects—or at least tries to. I refer to the efforts of Mr Johnson to extract $1,000 from a constituent under the guise of trying to recover the proceeds of a wager on the outcome of the preselection and winning election as the member for Ryan in 2001. I show the House a document dated 31 August 2001. I have informed the House on many occasions of the breathtaking rorting that has occurred and is still occurring in Ryan. So the first leg of the quinella was a certainty. The second leg involved winning back a very safe Liberal Party seat—not a difficult task in that environment. The victim of Mr Johnson's tactics is a Mrs Rebecca Whelan of Mount Ommaney, a member of the Liberal Party's Centenary branch, the branch at the heart of Mr Johnson's branch stacking. In August 2001, Mr Johnson and Mrs Whelan purported to enter into a wager whereby Mrs Whelan would pay Mr Johnson $1,000 if he was successful in the election of November of that year. Clearly, this was a bet on the result of the election. I am surprised that Mr Johnson, who was admitted to the Queensland Bar shortly before his election, was unaware that such a compact is illegal under Queensland law. I understand that because it is illegal the wager is unenforceable by our learned colleague Mr Johnson. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine the precarious position of poor Mrs Whelan. She joined the party of her choice, the Liberal Party. She probably has a poster of Bob Menzies tucked away somewhere in her garage and a passport size photo of the member for Robina; the Queensland Liberals cannot afford posters at the moment. She is probably secretly relieved that Julie Attwood is the local member and can solve the problems in her area. For a bit of a giggle she signed this piece of paper with Mr Johnson. That is where the matter should have ended. But what was Mr Johnson's response? On three separate occasions after the federal election—evidence that I will disclose—he responded, firstly, in the form of a letter on parliamentary letterhead dated 3 December 2001; secondly, in a note on a parliamentary 'With compliments' slip; and, thirdly, in another letter sent on 2 March 2002 on Parliament of Australia letterhead. Mr Johnson demanded $1,000 in a way that sought to impose pressure on Mrs Whelan. The final one is a beauty. It states— Dear Rebecca, Hope you're well. Hope your family had a fun Christmas. Just a little reminder about the promise you entered into with me last year. Members can imagine what impact that note had on the family's digestive system so soon after Christmas when all the Bankcard bills and the back-to-school expenses were coming in. But the question needs to be asked: why is this man trying to stand over this poor defenceless member of the Queensland Liberal Party? He is now a federal member, chosen with the full support of the Prime Minister and paid adequately. He does not need to collect this money. He is either downright greedy or else the Liberal Party in Ryan is extorting branch members in order to pay for the barristers in the Moggill preselection case that is currently being fought out in the law courts. Years ago there was a funny money operator called Tirath Khemlani, who tried to obtain money from unlikely sources to fund ambitious projects. Perhaps Mr Johnson sees himself as a modern-day Khemlani who will extort money from this source to help fund an ambitious project, in this case the election of his favoured candidate in the Moggill preselection via an expensive and protracted court case. Either way, it is a disgraceful misuse of position. There is no doubt he is the 2910 Matters of Public Interest 19 Aug 2003

Prime Minister's candidate. The Prime Minister must intervene and take action against this wayward member for seeking to impose maximum pressure on this defenceless lady. Mr Johnson simply cannot continue to be the Prime Minister's man in Ryan who both delivers and collects.

Health Funding Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (11.48 a.m.): Australia has one of the best health care systems in the world, and the Howard government is doing everything it can to make sure it does not stay that way. In saying that he wants it fairer, he actually means that he wants it inequitable. Making it 'fairer' means people who earn $80,000-plus will be entitled to benefits that a family of four on $32,000 will not get. Howard's notion of universal Medicare means it will be universally more expensive. The $4 billion he gives to private health insurance companies per year through the rebate serves only to keep the massively stretched public system where it is, and it makes sure that the private system remains prosperous and growing. Do members know that a 0.1 per cent increase in the Medicare levy would revive bulk-billing to previous levels? For goodness sake, Australians deserve a healthier deal. The Queensland government has increased health spending by $1.6 billion over the next four years. Conversely, John Howard has admitted that public hospitals will receive $1 billion less than was planned for the next five years. This is about $160 million less for Queensland. That means 61,000 Queenslanders not being treated in our hospitals. The new health care agreement is being offered by John Howard. It is his vision for Australians—longer waits in crowded wards. If we do not sign up, Queenslanders will be penalised—that is, $146,000 for each day we refuse to sign. If a person wants a cataract operation or a hip or knee replacement, forget it. It is no different in Townsville. In the federal seat of Herbert the member holds his seat by 1.62 per cent. He represents a seat where one in five families earns less than $500 per week. In most families both parents have to work to make ends meet. With significant child care shortages and a huge drop in bulk-billing, the member for Herbert should be sending a clear message to John Howard. He should be representing his electorate by fighting to save our health system, which should be a right, not a privilege. Instead, the member for Herbert has used has taxpayer funded huge propaganda budget to deceive and hoodwink his constituents by telling blatant mistruths. His strategy is running one line in Townsville and another in Canberra—that is, the party line. His track record is a series of backflips. Remember his comments on Iraq when he stated— Make no mistake, these are extraordinary and dangerous times for the world and for Australia. If the US goes in there without a mandate from the United Nations, it could well be that the influence and the power and the status of the United Nations will be damaged forever. Terrorism must not go unchallenged, but equally so, for a nation to just unilaterally decide to go in without proper reason or proper support from the UN, I think puts that nation in the same basket as the terrorists. Then he backflipped, supporting Howard. He was also duplicitous with his position on oil exploration in the Townsville trough east of the Great Barrier Reef—a populist line in Townsville, but absolutely lock, stock and barrel behind Howard 100 per cent. He was never opposed to the war in Iraq without United Nations sanction. He was never opposed to oil drilling east of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. What about his promise of funding increases to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or his promise to ABC TV local news by the end of 2002? He made local noises about a tropic health institute being established at James Cook University. It was just a joke. His latest attack on the state public health system in Queensland, and particularly in Townsville, has contributed to a sense of real frustration felt by all those committed and hardworking staff at the coalface as well as putting the fear of God into many patients who are already in pain and who believe his nonsense. His outrageous anecdotal claims without one ounce of fact, let alone evidence to support them, have been very damaging. It also means that any possible specialist contemplating a move to Townsville would be loath to do so given the climate of attack and misinformation perpetrated by the member for Herbert. On the eve of the new health care agreement, which will be a savage blow to all states and territories, the member flaunts his propaganda saying that everyone in Townsville has access to bulk-billing doctors and that his government is increasing public hospital funding in the 2003-04 federal budget. Tell that to the people of Kelso and Rasmussen. Tell that to the 27,000-plus people in my electorate who have access to only one practice that unconditionally bulk-bills. It is 19 Aug 2003 Matters of Public Interest 2911 not within walking distance. If a person does not have a car and is unemployed or one of the many families I have spoken about who earn less than $500 per week, what do they do? His statement in February—'Last week I made sure everyone in Townsville has access to bulk-billing'—would be hilarious if it were not so serious. He has come under fire from the local Division of General Practice. As Townsville is not classified as an area of work force shortage, other doctors are furious with the member for Herbert because he claimed credit for allocating provider numbers for three overseas trained doctors for a Townsville bulk-billing medical centre. These doctors, who are rightly upset, claimed that they have applied for Medicare provider numbers for overseas trained doctors and they have been refused them. The member should hang his head in shame.

Class Sizes Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.55 a.m.): Class sizes are very important in determining educational outcomes for students. Effectively addressing class size problems requires adequate resources and a firm commitment of sufficient extra teachers. In setting class size targets, it is vital to ensure that, firstly, the commitment of allocated extra teachers is dutifully adhered to and, secondly, that sufficient extra teachers are also allocated to meet the projected annual growth in student numbers. Unfortunately, the state government continually fails to adhere to these basic requirements in its attempt to address basic class size problems. It is this failure that should make our teachers, parents and students very wary of the minister's announcement last week promising extra teachers to address the middle schooling years. The minister's track record on teacher numbers to date makes her promise to cut student-teacher ratios from 1:30 to 1:28 by 2007 seem just a little bit too good to be true. For a start, her commitment of 300 extra teachers to facilitate this reduction equates to approximately 42 teachers for each year level across the entire state. Such a nominal increase across-the-board will not effectively cut class sizes by two students by the 2007 target. It is the Beattie government's financial mismanagement that is the overriding factor in the minister's poor management of promised extra teacher numbers and the provision of necessary extra teachers for growth. In Queensland we are witnessing a situation where extra teachers required for student growth are not being provided and significant gaps in the 2001 election commitment of 800 extra teachers are being plugged up through deviously manipulated budget documents. In question on notice No. 1776, asked on 28 November 2002, the minister stipulated that an increase in teacher numbers of 510 would be required to meet a predicted increase in student growth of 5,020 in the year 2004. However, when it came to allocating these 510 in the 2003-04 budget, facing a budget shortfall, the minister cut this allocation to only an extra 249—a cut in extra teachers of 261. This creates a very concerning situation for our education system. In 2004 we will have projected student growth of 5,020 but our classrooms will be 261 teachers short of the number required to meet this growth. It is an interesting exercise to compare 2004 student growth and teacher numbers with that of 2003. In 2003 there have been 290 extra teachers allocated to meet a projected student growth of 4,413. That means that Queensland classrooms in 2004 will experience student growth of around 607 more than that of 2003. But to meet this increased growth, the minister will actually allocate 41 fewer teachers. The numbers simply do not add up. The minister is failing to address the increase in student growth and, in actual fact, is going backwards. This failure to meet student growth is further impacted by the state government's failure to meet its 2001 election commitment to provide 800 extra teachers to address class sizes. The 2003-04 budget papers suddenly had 147 specialist disability teachers stipulated as representing part of the state government's 800 extra teachers election commitment appearing to have commenced work at the beginning of term one 2001. That would mean that these teachers, allegedly representing a Labor election promise, actually started work a month before the election was held. Estimates revealed that these 147 teachers are actually from industrial agreements struck in 2000 and would have been employed regardless of the election outcome. The Beattie government has realised that it simply cannot afford to meet the 800 promised teachers and has manipulated teacher numbers in the budget papers to plug up the hole with the 147 teachers who were going to start in 2001. How can teachers, parents and students possibly 2912 Matters of Public Interest 19 Aug 2003 trust this government to honour their latest commitment on class sizes when they are blatantly failing to deliver their last commitment or to meet student growth. Just a couple of months ago, during the Maryborough by-election, the minister said that Treasury does not have the money and, besides, she was not satisfied that benefits would flow from reducing class sizes. She went on to say that the reduction from 30 students to 29 means that we are spreading the vegemite just too thin. The minister asked: would we get the sort of educational outcomes to justify that investment? The minister said, 'I'm not convinced.' Parents, teachers and students should not be convinced of the minister's rhetoric, either. This minister has failed on previous election commitments. She has failed on meeting student growth and there is no doubt that she is now making desperate, hollow, new election promises on teacher numbers and everyone should be sceptical about them.

Tenancy Database Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (11.59 a.m.): In May, this parliament unanimously passed legislation to address unfair practices associated with tenancy database listings. New rules for tenancy database listings have now been put in place, coming into operation as of 1 August this year. These new rules not only protect the rights of the more than 30 per cent of Queenslanders who rent their homes—and I note that in the Kurwongbah electorate there are almost 3,000 rented homes—but also they strengthen professionalism in the residential rental property industry. The Residential Tenancy Authority—the RTA—which is charged with the responsibility of administering the new legislation has developed an information kit detailing how the amendments to the act will work. Throughout July, the RTA conducted public information sessions across Queensland giving the opportunity for the public to be aware of the new legislation. These sessions were very well attended and I congratulate the RTA, and in particular general manager Carolyn Mason, on this initiative. I have had nothing but positive feedback from those attending the Pine Rivers session. Today I wanted to draw to the attention of the House further developments in tenancy database listings and also in relation to the operation of tenancy databases. These further developments reveal that there is some good news and some bad news. On the good news side, I note that in early August the standing committee of Attorneys-General agreed to form a joint working group involving SCAG and the ministerial council for consumer affairs, the MCCA, to examine privacy issues surrounding tenancy databases. The federal Attorney-General, in announcing the formation of this joint working group, said— Today's agreements by my SCAG colleagues to participate in this umbrella working group will enable development of a competitive and national approach to tenancy databases. The working group is to be chaired by the Commonwealth Treasury and it is intended that it will report in the first half of 2004 after inviting interested persons to make submissions. This is very welcome news. As I have said on a number of occasions, although Queensland is leading the way, the most desirable outcome for both tenants and the industry to address unfair tenancy database practices is a national approach. While this is good news and a positive step forward, there is some bad news. Recently, I have had drawn to my attention the attempts of a database operator and a leasing agency to try to frustrate and circumvent the intention of the Queensland act to regulate listings on databases and provide fairness to tenants. One would think that they would want to work with us rather than try to work against us. Ms Nelson-Carr interjected. Mrs LAVARCH: It certainly does. In a recent newsletter to their members, the TICA group outlined its strategy to circumvent the legislation. Their strategy is to allow the TICA database to be downloaded by members so that it can be characterised as an internal database under section 284C of the act in the hope that it will be exempt from listing criteria regulations. They state in their newsletter— TICA does not believe that the amendments to the Act will have any major significance however we are concerned that with the restrictions imposed by the government tenants will be able to falsify a tenancy application in order to obtain the second property. 19 Aug 2003 Matters of Public Interest 2913

They go on to say—and I draw this to the attention of the House— We are at a loss to establish why the government elected to introduce such ridiculous legislation as it serves little purpose. As one member recently stated it would be fair to say that 80% of the bad ones are already on the database it's not like it was in the early days when the data was being collected. Hopefully one or all of the politicians who approved this legislation will inherit one of the best of the worst TICA has collected on its database as they are the ones who deserve them. That gives members some indication of TICA's willingness to comply with the Queensland legislation. I suppose we could not expect anything better from TICA.

Atherton Hospital; Nursing Staff Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.04 p.m.): I rise today to speak about some very special people in the Tablelands electorate. They are a group of people who I believe are being bullied, harassed, placed in understaffed and ill-equipped workplaces, and are even being driven from their jobs by their employer. Their employer is this ALP Beattie government's own Health Department. It is a truly shameful state of affairs that this has taken place under what is supposed to be the workers' party. These people, these victims of the Beattie government, are the nurses who are now or have recently been working at the Atherton Hospital. We all know how important these dedicated, skilled people are to the provision of quality health care. It is the nurses and the midwives and other hands-on staff who care for us, our friends and our relatives whenever we are hospitalised. Unfortunately, Queensland Health has not done the best of jobs so far in keeping its nurses on board. Indeed, the departure of some of the most valued and experienced nurses from the Atherton Hospital was one of the causes of community concern that led me to call a public meeting in February this year about the future of the hospital. There has been a lot of angst in the community over many years dating back to the National Party days in government in the 1990s of obvious problems in the public health system. The straw that broke the camel's back and which resulted in that meeting was the closure of the original maternity ward. But it quickly became apparent to the hundreds of community members who attended that meeting that the hospital had additional, very serious issues involving its nursing staff as well. At that meeting, a decision was made for a survey to be taken of past and present nurses asking just one question, which was— Please list three changes: (a) that would encourage you to continue working at the Atherton Hospital OR (b) that would encourage you to return to work at the Atherton Hospital. It was because of the government's code of conduct, which restricts public servants from speaking out in public, that the survey was conducted in such a way that respondents could protect their anonymity. While that was not the best possible way in which to conduct a survey, the sad fact is that most nurses are too afraid of Queensland Health's reaction to put their names to their answers. Nevertheless, as the Premier knows, Atherton is small enough for the person distributing the survey forms to ascertain that all those who took them were, in fact, appropriate people, that is, local nurses. Out of a total of 60 survey forms taken, 37 were returned—nearly two-thirds. That was a very good response. These were then analysed by a qualified psychologist. She found three major issues contributed to the loss of nurses. They were low staffing levels, poor communication and a lack of funding for adequate staff, equipment, services and facilities. This is not the kind of thing that we should be hearing about in 2003 if the Health Minister was overseeing her budget and her portfolio appropriately. This was not an in-house, carefully crafted to get the answers we want Queensland Health survey; it was simple, clear and unambiguous asking what our nurses needed to stay or, alternatively, to come back to work. It is a source of disappointment to me, and I believe to the wider community, to see reports that hospital management do not appear at all serious about addressing issues so clearly identified in this survey. Instead, they question its methodology and cite their own material as proving that everything is just fine. This survey proves that it is not fine and sticking one's head in a chunder bucket and ignoring the community's efforts to help right the situation is foolish. It is the same attitude that I expect that this government will take to some 4,000 letters of complaint relating to the Cairns Base Hospital that were reported recently. To continually ask itself, 2914 Matters of Public Interest 19 Aug 2003 as this government does, whether it is performing well might bring pleasing answers, but they are ones that are far from the truth. This is the case across Queensland and across portfolios. Indeed, one of our most respected doctors has described the survey as one way of getting an honest opinion. I can only agree with his suggestion that if Queensland Health is so certain that the survey is flawed and so confident that everything at Atherton Hospital is just hunky-dory, they should lift the gag from nursing staff and allow them to speak freely about it. We are not talking about patient details here, we are not talking about medical procedures; we are talking about how nurses are treated. The only reason that Queensland Health can have for insisting on the threat of disciplinary action, on such tight secrecy, is that it must have something to hide. The interest of the Atherton community in its hospital and its support for its nurses and medical staff was clearly evident at that public meeting and in the support for the survey. It is one that deserves close and proper attention and some dedication should be returned to those staff on whom we all rely so much—our nurses and our midwives. In the interests of a full and open debate about the conditions at Atherton Hospital, I table this survey and its findings.

Toowoomba Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.09 p.m.): If the number of visits from ministers is anything to go by, then I would say that Toowoomba has been one of Queensland's most celebrated cities of late. With the completion of a number of state government funded projects recently, Toowoomba can now boast quite a number of first-class facilities, to the benefit of everyone in the community. What a contrast to the days when the National Party took Toowoomba for granted! Recently the Premier visited Toowoomba to officially open the impressive new Toowoomba Police Station, the refurbished Police Citizens Youth Club and Mary MacKillop Catholic school at Highfields—all great additions for the Toowoomba people. Police Minister Tony McGrady and Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson also travelled to Toowoomba for the openings of the station and the PCYC. The new police station will prove to be a boost to efficiency because it provides a state-of- the-art working environment. It is part of a $20 million project. The new station has brought together a number of functions, including general duties, the District Traffic Branch, uniform inquiries, station administration, the Juvenile Aid Bureau, the Criminal Investigation Branch, the Crime Management Unit, the Dog Squad and prosecutions. As well, it provides child interview facilities, two conference rooms, electronic interview rooms, holding cells, an exhibit logging room, an archive storeroom, staff amenities, storerooms and a computer room. It also includes a new replacement 24-bed watch-house, with two secure detainee links to the adjacent Toowoomba Court House. It is a massive boost for our local police and, in turn, for the people of Toowoomba. Honourable members may recall that in one of my first speeches in this place I strenuously called for this new police station. Mr Lawlor: I remember all of your speeches. Mr SHINE: Thankyou. The project has provided a vital boost for law and order in the Toowoomba region and clearly demonstrates the commitment of the Beattie government to the safety of our community. While in Toowoomba, Mr Beattie officially opened the refurbished Police Citizens Youth Club. The state government, through the Department of Sport and Recreation, contributed $432,000 to the $800,000-odd project, which involved a new gymnastics studio, youth centre, conference room, kitchen and administration offices. The Toowoomba PCYC is one of the biggest in Queensland, with about 2,000 members. The organisation provides a great opportunity for people of all ages, but especially our youth, to develop their talents, giving them direction and a positive outlet for their talents. It is well led by Sergeant Mike Jordan. The state government's contribution to the Toowoomba PCYC redevelopment shows a real commitment to our youth. The Premier also opened the new Mary MacKillop Catholic primary school in Highfields, under the leadership of Donaugh Shirley. This school is the first Catholic school to be built in the Toowoomba diocese for 38 years. It is the first Catholic school in the Highfields area. While the first application of the school was rejected on the basis of there being too many Catholic schools in Toowoomba, the second application was successful due to Highfields' rapidly expanding population, which is expected to double by 2010. The Premier was kind enough to recognise the hard work done by then diocese director Dr Bill Sultmann. I was very pleased to assist him from 19 Aug 2003 Matters of Public Interest 2915 time to time. The state government contributed $1.2 million to the $2.2 million project. The state government is also supporting other schools in the area, with Highfields State School being allocated $800,000 in this year's budget for two new classrooms. In fact, education in the Toowoomba area has been highlighted significantly of late. The Education Minister, the Hon. Anna Bligh, travelled to Toowoomba last week to officially open Toowoomba State High School's new facilities, which include a multipurpose sporting facility, a performing arts centre, an industrial technology science centre refurbishment and a school courtyard. The state government funded Toowoomba State High School with $3 million under the Secondary Schools Renewal Program. The program gave the school the opportunity to have a facelift that would not only bring the school forward into a new era but also be tailored to the school's own needs and personality. Having attended the official opening by Anna Bligh and having visited the school on many occasions, I can say that the funding has done wonders for the school and will ensure that the students have state-of-the-art educational facilities. Under the leadership of Principal Chris Zilm, the school is one of Queensland's best. The focus on education does not end there. Employment, Training, Youth and the Arts Minister Matt Foley has also visited Toowoomba recently to officially open the state government funded $2.9 million horticultural training facility at the Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE. This impressive facility will accommodate more students and provide them with an improved working environment. It is particularly appropriate that Toowoomba, which is famous for its gardens, should have such a facility. I wish Brian Sams and his crew on the staff every success. Also visiting Toowoomba was Tom Barton, who announced the government's support for Toowoomba's Wetalla water treatment plant. The benefits for the downs will include doubling the production of Acland mine, a guaranteed water supply significantly progressing the Charlton Wellcamp industrial estate's viability, improved water quality into Gowrie Creek and ultimately the Darling system, and improved irrigation opportunities for farmers. Wetalla not only offers the opportunity to enhance the city's economic— Time expired.

Health Funding Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (12.14 p.m.): It is time for some honesty in the health debate which is less about buckpassing and more about taking responsibility. In the last federal health agreement Queensland received $1 billion extra. The next agreement provides $2.1 billion more—not less—than the last agreement. That is a 20 per cent increase over and above inflation and comes in addition to the windfall increases in GST. The Beattie Labor government has bungled the ambulance funds and the Families Department, and now Health is in crisis under its infamous Health Minister Wendy Edmond. Under the spotlight is not only how much the federal government commits in direct grants but also how much the Queensland state government will commit over the next five years. For the first time in history the state is being asked to say how much it will spend over the next five years and to match the funding of the Commonwealth. I want to see how the funds are committed to and spent properly and directed to where they are needed—not bureaucracy, not the Premier's advertising campaign and $20 million PR machine and not the secret paybacks to Treasury which make a mockery of government claims of a seven per cent increase in Health. I actually agree that there needs to be structural reform in the delivery of health services in Australia and particularly in Queensland. There is too much duplication of bureaucracy, overlapping of responsibilities and lack of continuity of care. However, there is also a lack of ministerial responsibility here in Queensland, with a Health Minister who only this morning defiantly defended the lack of available beds in the public hospital system, even though patients cannot get admitted to hospital beds during the critical time of winter pressure. Winter comes every year, yet the growing shortage of available medical beds for acutely ill patients is not keeping pace. A young Sunshine Coast woman with a chronic physical illness was recently admitted to a mental health ward because of this bed shortage. The official response was, 'That's okay.' It is not okay. Not only was this the wrong clinical placement for this young woman; it denied mental health patients acute care. The government's response is excuses, not answers. In the winter of 2003, not only did Queensland see a record number of hospitals going into bypass due to this bed shortage; we had a state health minister who also went into bypass. 2916 Matters of Public Interest 19 Aug 2003

Let us look at this issue of emergency department care. We would not have a problem in emergency departments if the Premier employed more real doctors and fewer spin doctors. The greatest growth affecting emergency departments is not from people needing a GP but from true emergency type patients. I table figures from Nambour Hospital which show, despite the Premier's spin, a 30 per cent increase in urgent and emergency patients—categories 1, 2 and 3. These people do not have stubbed toes; they need hospital beds. In fact, as a proportion of emergency patients, numbers of true emergency patients for this hospital and others are growing at a greater rate than GP patients. Yet the hospital does not have the available beds to admit these patients. According to the Health Minister this morning, they do not need them. She is wrong. Emergency departments are a state responsibility, yet Queensland public hospitals will get only an extra $2.2 million in this state's budget, while New South Wales will add more than 14 times that amount to its emergency department budget. The Queensland government is reaping an extra $400 million in GST payments, but health is not the priority for that spending. Royal Brisbane Hospital, the state's largest tertiary hospital, even went on bypass recently. Yet the emergency department under this minister has cut medical staff numbers and available beds. The great winter plan is to shuffle patients via ambulance rather than to open beds. This is unfair to patients, staff and ambulances. This takes ambulances out of the available emergency response net. This is a lose-lose situation. Let us look at the private health sector, which Labor wants to make less affordable by removing the private health insurance rebate. More than 40 per cent of admissions in Queensland hospitals are in the private sector. The number of people being admitted to Queensland public hospitals fell by 19,267 between 1999-2000 and 2000-01, while state health funding increased by $82 million. At the same time, the number of private hospital admissions increased by 73,903 patients. One has to ask how a Labor government can spend so much in delivering less to the clinical areas of services. The answer is lack of leadership in the state Health Minister's office and a lack of accountability. Time expired.

Springwood Community Cabinet Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.20 p.m.): The people of Springwood know that the Beattie government listens. They interacted with ministers, members of parliament and departmental officers at the community cabinet held on Sunday, 6 July at John Paul College. This community gathering enabled my community the opportunity to discuss issues that are important to them, and I am pleased to say they were heard. One million dollars has been earmarked for the development of extra car parking spaces at Springwood bus station. A vacant parcel of land in Baker Street has been identified to accommodate 110 car spaces in addition to the 40 car spaces provided, and I want to thank Minister Bredhauer for listening to the concerns of the community. I am delighted with the outcome. I am now working with the Logan City Council to see that the land identified can be developed as quickly as possible. The Springwood bus station forms an integral part of the government's commitment to improve public transport options for commuters in south-east Queensland. The opening of the station in September along with improved services and next year the implementation of integrated ticketing will mean that the people of Logan will have a vastly improved public transport service. Another message given at the community cabinet was that the community is fed up with hoons. Hoons in the Springwood area are feeling the force of the government's new antihooning laws with 14 cars confiscated in the Slacks Creek police division since November last year. But it is not just the Slacks Creek division that is feeling the heat. Police are determined to tackle the problem of dangerous and illegal motoring activities within the community, and the Logan Police District has confiscated 46 cars. This action has been taken under tough new legislation that is designed as a punishment and a deterrent to drivers who endanger the community. It certainly looks like it is working. In Logan no-one has come back for a second offence. Law and order is high on the government's agenda, and in Springwood it can easily be seen. The Loganholme Police Station is on track for an end-of-year finish. The community has shown strong support for the $2.5 million 24-hour police station. It is located in a prominent position, and it is a concrete demonstration of the government's commitment to policing in the Springwood electorate. I have strongly lobbied the minister for more police resources on behalf of the Springwood electorate and I am pleased that the minister has listened. The Loganholme Police 19 Aug 2003 Matters of Public Interest 2917

Station will create an extra police division. This extra police division will take the pressure off the busy Slacks Creek police division—in other words, it is all good news for the community's safety and bad news for the criminals in Springwood. 'Jobs, jobs, jobs'—that is the catchcry you can hear in Springwood, and that was the message also given at the recent community cabinet. The Springwood electorate is certainly a mover and a shaker when it comes to assisting Queensland break the unemployment cycle. With the commitment of the state government, Springwood has generated 737 jobs, and this has been done through the effort of the local community. In Springwood, since Breaking the Unemployment Cycle began in October 1998, 87 jobseekers gained paid work and experience on three community projects that received nearly half a million dollars from the Community Jobs Plan. The Community Jobs Plan program is one of the most important programs established to assist our unemployed. Springwood State High School has ensured that this program has made a significant impact on our community. The past three programs have always involved local schools, and recently the Kuraby cricket club has come on board. When I go round the schools involved in the program, students, parents, teachers and of course the principals are always taking me to the projects that have been completed by the skilful participants of the community jobs program. They fully support this program and the community is proud of the work done by participants—and so it should be. The work completed by these young people is of a high standard, and I am yet to see any project that does not reflect high-quality work—work that professional tradespeople would be proud to call their own. These projects achieve so much more than just a pleasant physical environment. The changes in the participants throughout the program can be seen by all. They develop skills, and with that comes self-confidence, self-esteem and a pride in belonging to a team that has contributed to our community. They then go out and get jobs, and that is the most important part. The success rate of this program is high, but the outcomes are so much more than jobs. The outcomes include the community receiving a fantastic facility for its members to enjoy, young people receiving skills and people feeling a part of the community. There is more good news. Ninety-nine jobseekers found work after undertaking training, Jobsearch and other assistance provided through community organisations on projects which received funding from the Community Employment Assistance Program. Money has been paid to 257 private employers who have employed 79 additional trainees and 303 additional apprentices in skill shortage industries. This is all fantastic news for Springwood. People want to come to Springwood. It is exploding with vitality and energy, and it is about to get better because $2 million is being provided by the state government for the rejuvenation of the Springwood CBD and the continuation of landscaping and suburb beautification. This project will create the 'Park Road' of Logan. It will bring together shopping precincts and create a more visually appealing area for the local community. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hundreds of people who attended over the two days— Time expired.

Child Abuse; Royal Commission Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.26 p.m.): I had the privilege, albeit very confronting and distressing, to attend two Child Protection Strategy meetings over the last month. One was a strategy summit that was held at the butter factory and another was a two-day child protection summit to determine actions that could be taken. These were organised by Bravehearts under the leadership of Hetty Johnston. I could not stay for all of the second summit, which was two days. However, during the second summit Boni Robertson reported on the violence against children and sexual abuse of children, predominantly in Aboriginal communities. She gave a poignant outline of how children are already traumatised. She highlighted that, whilst a lot of dollars are spent to counsel children and adults after they have been abused, it would be wiser and better to allocate extra resources to stop it happening in the first place. Both of those forums were attended by a wide cross-section of care providers, authorities and representatives from groups allied to child care or child protection. At both of these meetings there were resolutions passed unanimously in relation to bringing child protection to the top of the political agenda and also resoundingly calling for a royal commission into the systemic failures of the system to protect our children. 2918 Matters of Public Interest 19 Aug 2003

The second child protection meeting was held just after the Premier's announcement of a CMC referral for an investigation into foster care. Whilst Hetty Johnston and the group Bravehearts did not want to appear critical, they stated with some conviction and some justification that the CMC referral is the second best option. A royal commission is the best option. There may be political mileage in trying to blame former family services ministers, but I am not interested in that. What I am interested in is ensuring that we identify those systemic problems and address them to put a stop to the abuse of children, particularly those in the care of a department charged solely with the protection of children. It is such an ironic contradiction when we look at the results of recent media coverage and recent events. I would like to quote Bob Bottom OAM, who spoke at a child abuse forum on 6 August. He outlined in his words why we need a royal commission. He states— Since I moved to Queensland in October 1991, the Courier-Mail has published nearly 1,900 stories relating to child abuse and the Sunday Mail has published more than 450. What a state of shame! He then refers to the complaints by Ted Malone and Darryl Briskey, and the results of those investigations. He goes on to say in reference to Minister Bligh— ... when speaking to Parliament again on the Forde report on 21 July, 1999, she proclaimed: 'It is not my department that will be implementing this report, it is our Government.' Yet, on that very same day, she wrote her ... letter of reply to Darryl Briskey, saying: 'I would like to assure you that departmental officers are taking every step possible to ensure that the children are well cared for and safe in their current placements.' Again, I do not criticise Minister Bligh in isolation. The problems that have been identified with this particular family have been in existence during the period of a number of ministers. It is a systemic failure that has to be addressed. Bob Bottom's speech is very telling and very insightful, but after going through quite a number of examples he says— Only a proper judicial inquiry, or Royal Commission as called for by Hetty Johnson in particular, will allay public concern over such monumental failures. The CMC investigation is into foster care placements, but it must be wider. The actions of the department must be investigated. Foster care placements, too, must be investigated, although the vast majority are genuinely caring for children. Agencies which deal with children must be investigated. The only way the community can have confidence in the remedial action taken in this whole issue is for there to be a royal commission chaired by a retired judge based outside of Queensland who has no political party history with an extensive brief in its powers of investigation. The completion of that commission will bring satisfaction not only to the community but also to those children and adults who have been the victims of abuse or, more properly, the survivors of abuse. It is an issue that we cannot walk away from. Time expired.

Fuel, Charters Towers Electorate Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (12.29 p.m.): Today I wish to bring to the attention of the parliament the problem some of my constituents are experiencing with diesel fuel in rural areas of this state during winter. Summer diesel is inadequate at very low temperatures. As the fuel thickens, it will not fire properly and an additive is required, at a cost, to turn normal diesel into winter diesel. It can get very cold in some areas of my electorate and, unless this additive is supplied, quite often people cannot even start their vehicles until as late as 10 in the morning. In fact, we call it '10 o'clock diesel'—10 a.m. means for most of the people who live in my electorate a good part of the working day is lost if they are relying on their vehicle. It may mean children miss their school bus or people are late for work. And why? Because of the bloody- minded attitude of some fuel companies. Fuel companies supplying diesel to people in my electorate refuse to supply the fuel with the additive already included. They will supply it, at an added cost of course, for people to put it into their fuel, but this significantly increases the cost to consumers. I even know someone who missed the funeral of someone very near and dear to them because they missed a plane. Their car would not start because the fuel company refused to supply winter diesel and then the airline refused to refund that person's airfare. How heartless is that? In my area people are becoming increasingly alarmed by the potential for this problem to occur during a life-threatening situation. If a child is sick or someone is hurt in a remote area, it 19 Aug 2003 Grammar Schools and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2919 could mean the difference between life and death if someone needs to use their vehicle quickly and it will not start because it is cold and the diesel has become too thick. Fuel companies make huge profits and it would seem to me a good corporate gesture for the companies to put the additive in diesel fuel during winter. In this way they would make their customers happy and, more importantly, safer. In the long term this would be in the best interests of all concerned, including the fuel companies. I am painfully aware that fuel companies are normally only interested in profits and in their bottom line, but I believe they do have a role to play as good corporate citizens in this issue. I ask: does someone have to die before the fuel companies look favourably upon the pleas from consumers because so far all pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The Australian Institute of Petroleum advises there is no specific Commonwealth legislation for summer and winter mixes and that this matter is industry regulated, but I say this is not good enough. If the industry will not regulate itself in this case, then I think it is high time the federal government made sure there is legislation in place that will regulate them and I say to the National Party opposition in this House that it should be sticking up for people in the bush over this matter instead of supporting its mates in Canberra. It would also be a great help to the people of my electorate if they had a real federal member instead of a pretend one who, it appears, barely remembers to attend the sittings of the federal parliament. I ask honourable members from both sides of this parliament to join me in calling upon the fuel companies to act with decency and compassion towards their hard-pressed customers in regional, rural and remote areas and supply the winter mix of diesel to retailers and consumers in regional and rural Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (12.33 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Grammar Schools Act 1975, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (12.34 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to maintain public confidence in grammar schools. To achieve this objective, the bill regulates the establishment and governance of grammar schools. The bill has three primary policy objectives in relation to grammar schools: ¥ firstly, to act on recommendations from the Department of Education's public benefit test report that found the Grammar Schools Act to be anticompetitive; ¥ secondly, to provide for the protection of the grammar school name; and ¥ thirdly, to provide greater clarity in relation to the minister's powers in the event that a grammar school experiences serious financial difficulty. The bill has an additional unrelated amendment which will enable the minister to provide transport assistance to students with disabilities. There are currently eight grammar schools in Queensland constituted as statutory bodies. They were established between 1863 and 1892. Grammar schools have made an outstanding contribution to the education of young people in this state. Grammar schools share a number of distinctive characteristics: ¥ they were established primarily on the basis of community need and commUnity initiative; ¥ they are governed by boards of trustees comprising government nominees and elected donors and subscribers; 2920 Grammar Schools and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

¥ they enjoy autonomy in operational matters similar to other non-state schools; and ¥ they have no religious affiliations. The environment in which grammar schools now operate is very different to when the 1975 act was drafted. The environment is now much more competitive and higher standards of corporate governance apply. The bill seeks to achieve a better alignment between the act and this changed environment. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The Act was reviewed by a committee comprising representatives from the grammar schools and the Department of Education. The committee's unanimous recommendations were submitted to me on 8 April 2003. These recommendations were the main basis for the preparation of the Bill. The Bill addresses five main issues. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn. Establishment of Grammar Schools The Bill provides that grammar schools can in future be established in two ways. ¥ Firstly, on the initiative of the community if the Minister is satisfied that such submissions meet the establishment criteria prescribed in the Act; and ¥ Secondly, on the Minister's initiative, subject to the Minister inviting submissions from grammar schools and the public and being satisfied on essentially the same criteria to be used in relation to community-initiated submissions. The criteria are designed to enable the Minister to assess: ¥ the need and the support for a grammar school as opposed to another type of non-State school; ¥ the likely financial implications for the State; ¥ the capacity of the proposed school to be established and operated without requiring financial support from the State in excess of that given to other grammar schools at comparable stages of development; ¥ whether the establishment of the grammar school is compatible with announced government policy about education; and ¥ whether the persons in the community proposing to establish a grammar school have a sufficient understanding of the governance and legal obligations of operating such schools. In addition, all grammar schools must meet non-State school accreditation requirements prior to commencing operation. The Bill does not affect the statutory body status of grammar schools. Protection of the Grammar Name The Bill protects the "grammar" name from use by schools that are not established under the Act or specifically exempted by the Act. The name protection measure is necessary because in recent years, a number of non-State schools have sought to use the grammar name as a means of gaining competitive market advantage without having to meet the governance standards required for grammar schools constituted under the Act. The Bill provides transitional arrangements to allow the two schools currently using the grammar name but not constituted under the Act (Anglican Church Grammar School and Sunshine Coast Grammar School) to continue using the grammar name provided the names or the operators of those schools do not change. Ministerial Powers The Bill requires a board to notify the Minister on becoming aware of a matter that raises significant concerns about a school's financial viability and provides for the Minister to require information or documents on any matter relevant to the way a board is carrying out its functions. In addition, the Bill provides for the Minister to give a direction to a board if the Minister is satisfied it is necessary to ensure the school's financial viability. The Bill also enables the Minister to appoint an administrator, following consultation with the board, where a board requests such an appointment; or if the school's accreditation is in jeopardy; or if the Minister reasonably believes that a school is no longer financially viable or is in danger of becoming financially unviable. This power is designed to assist a school to trade out of its financial difficulties before it defaults on its borrowings. The administrator would have all of the board's functions and powers and the board would continue in existence during the administrator's term of office to assist the administrator if requested. Board's Powers The Bill provides for boards to have a by-law making power in relation to the election of members to the board, including by-laws about the electoral eligibility amount to be paid by donors and subscribers to be able to participate in elections for trustees. The electoral eligibility amount specified in a by-law for a particular board is subordinate to the minimum and maximum amounts specified in the regulation applicable to all boards. Existing donors and subscribers retain their current electoral rights. National Competition Policy The Bill has removed the provision in the Act requiring proponents of new grammar schools to raise $100,000 towards the establishment of the school. This was assessed in the previous Public Benefit Test as restricting competition. The latest Public Benefit Test found that the Bill does not breach National Competition Policy. 19 Aug 2003 Youth Participation in Education and Training Bill 2921

Consultation Consultation drafts of the Bill were sent to all schools using the grammar name, the main non-state school peak bodies, teacher employee organisations, the relevant non-state schools parent body and the appropriate government agencies. A focus group meeting of the main stakeholders was also held to discuss the Bill. There is broad support for the Bill. Transport assistance for students with disabilities The Government's School Transport Assistance Program annually assists around 135,000 students who are disadvantaged in some way in gaining access to school. The primary aim of school transport assistance is to facilitate access to schooling for certain eligible students. This program also assists 5,000 students with disabilities. The responsibility and decision-making in relation to transport assistance for these students has recently been shifted from the Department of Transport to the Department of Education. The amendments to the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 are required to enable this shift of responsibility. The amendments provide a flexible mechanism for transport arrangements to be made, including payment of transport costs either directly to parents or transport providers. Conclusion The Bill provides a sound framework for a continuation of the productive public-private partnership that has characterised grammar school education in the past. The changes proposed will enable this partnership to better meet the challenges of the future. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (12.36 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act about the participation of young people in education and training, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (12.37 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Last year our government asked Queenslanders to look to the future. We asked parents, students and teachers to imagine an education and training system that lets young people make exciting choices for their future—a system that is flexible so young people can combine learning in different settings to achieve their goals and a system that works for every young person regardless of what they are good at or where they live. It is an honour to introduce this historic bill today, bringing that vision for the future closer to reality. The future we see for the Smart State is one that encompasses the creation of a state of prosperity and social justice with a commitment to equality of opportunity for all young people so that they are able to share that prosperity. Education and training are at the heart of the government's Smart State vision. That means providing the very best learning opportunities possible for every young Queenslander, regardless of their economic and social circumstances. While our current excellent system is meeting the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of young Queenslanders, we know that there are at least 10,000 young people aged 15 to 17 years who are not in school, not in training and not in work. All honourable members would agree that a well educated and skilled population has become the defining characteristic of a contemporary society with high standards of living. The legislative reforms that the Youth Participation in Education and Training Bill proposes will equip young Queenslanders to lead the way into the future by giving them greater flexibility to achieve qualifications beyond year 10—in school, in TAFE or through other forms of learning such as on-the-job training. These reforms are the first major legislative changes to the structure of the education system in nearly 40 years. They will bring Queensland into line with our major OECD competitors, many of which now require young people to be in education or training until they are 17 or 18 years of 2922 Youth Participation in Education and Training Bill 19 Aug 2003 age. The Education Act of 1875 required compulsory attendance at school until 12 years of age. In 1912 this was raised to 14 years and in 1965 year 8 was moved from primary to secondary school and the compulsory school leaving age of 15 came into effect. In 1965 there were 67,000 students enrolled in state and non-state high schools. In those times young people could expect to leave school with very few qualifications and still, if they desired, generally have a job for life with, perhaps, some on-the-job training. Today there are nearly 250,000 young Queenslanders in secondary education facing a very different social and economic environment where their future depends very much on their ability to achieve high level qualifications and continue learning throughout their lives. The reforms have been the subject of widespread consultation for 18 months. The Education and Training Reforms for the Future were announced by the Government in March 2002 as a green paper in which we proposed that all young people should be 'learning or earning'. Following extensive consultation a white paper was released in November 2002. As a result, we have developed legislation that confirms, in a very tangible sense, the commitment of the government to the vision of the Smart State. It is enabling legislation, designed to provide a broad framework for the implementation of the reforms and to facilitate the development of a range of policies and practices that will provide extensive opportunities for young people to be involved in education and training. It will make it compulsory for young people to stay at school until they finish year 10 or turn 16, whichever comes first. It will then place requirements on young people to remain in education or training for a further two years. It is the first time in this country that a government has given legislative meaning to the importance of further education and training for our economic and social wellbeing. The substantive parts of the bill are proposed to commence in 2006. What we will be doing in the meantime is developing policies and guidelines, informed by the trials that commenced in second semester this year in seven areas of the state. It is also essential for the effective implementation of these reforms that appropriate and detailed policy and practice is developed in consultation with education and training practitioners. The passage of this legislation now will also enable community adjustment to the new obligations placed on parents, affecting young people already in the school system. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech. Leave granted. I would like to briefly mention some of the other key aspects of the Bill. Compulsory Schooling The compulsory schooling obligation is currently legislated in the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989. The age of compulsory attendance within the meaning of the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 must be changed to implement the requirement for young people to stay at school until they complete Year 10 or turn 16. The bill extends the current responsibilities of parents to ensure their children attend school to the compulsory participation phase and adds a range of procedural fairness mechanisms that emphasise the need to work with parents before initiating prosecution. The current penalties (5 penalty units for a first offence and 10 penalty units for subsequent offences) attached to the parents of a young person for the compulsory attendance requirement will continue and the same penalties will apply in the compulsory participation phase. The compulsory participation phase The Bill creates an obligation for parents of young people in the compulsory participation phase to ensure that the young person participates in defined education and training options or employment skills options. In addition, the Bill includes provisions about enabling young people to comply with the legislation by working in paid employment for at least 25 hours a week, enabling young people to seek an employment exemption if they want to participate by working, but cannot gain employment for the full 25 hours a week, or want to engage in unpaid employment. Also, the Bill sets out a process for gaining a dispensation from the obligation. It will be an offence for parents to fail to ensure the young person participates, unless the parent has a reasonable excuse. A "reasonable excuse" provision will be included to enable parents who do not have custody or control of their young person to avoid prosecution. Prosecution cannot occur until the parent has been issued with a warning notice about the parent's obligation, at least one meeting has been held, or attempted to be held, with the parent, and the chief executive has consented to prosecution being commenced. These protections will also be included in amendments to the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989, to apply to the compulsory schooling provisions. 19 Aug 2003 Training Reform Bill 2923

Student account The Bill sets out the legislative regime for student accounts, and the amendments to the Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002 provide a new function for the Queensland Studies Authority, as well as mandate that learning providers bank young people's results and qualifications into the student account. The Bill requires all schools, state and non-state, (and the Director-General of Education, for young people who are being home schooled without enrolment in a school of distance education) to open an account with the Queensland Studies Authority for students during the year when the student turns 16 or finishes Year 10, whichever comes first. The student account will allow students to bank credits towards a qualification if they move between education and training sectors, take time out to be involved in other activities, or wish to accelerate their learning to obtain a qualification more quickly than usual. Information from student accounts will allow for the collection of aggregated data that will enable better planning for the future as well as evaluation of the reforms. It will also provide us with the opportunity to follow up with young people who have disengaged for education or training to give them the opportunity to re-engage. The Bill includes a confidentiality provision that restricts the disclosure of personal information accessed or obtained in the course of administration of the Act. The restriction will protect the information from being misused by people who have been given access to it. The flexible arrangements Flexible arrangements are a new concept in the legislation, which in essence will provide flexibility to organise a program for a child or young person whose needs cannot be met through the ordinary educational program. Flexible arrangements must be appropriate to a student's individual needs and circumstances and should be arranged only if they are most likely to achieve the best learning outcomes for the child or young person. The Bill will amend the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 to include two separate powers, one for students enrolled in a non-state school and one for students enrolled in a state school. The power may be relevant where a child or young person's needs are simply not met by the educational programs that are able to be delivered by the school. The program need not be purely curriculum oriented but could, for example, be a life skills program. Conclusion Mr Speaker, this legislation highlights the Government's commitment to providing a foundation for the future success of young Queenslanders. National and international research has been unequivocal in showing the importance of completing at least 12 years of schooling or its equivalent if a young person is to have opportunities for further education or meaningful employment. Our state cannot progress socially or economically if 10,000 Queenslanders aged 15 to 17 years continue to remain out of work, education, or training. Equally, our education and training systems must be flexible and responsive to the needs of students who are already staying in the system. The Smart State means positioning Queensland to take its place among the best in the world. It is about encouraging innovation. It means educating and skilling people so they can compete for and create jobs in emerging fields, and revitalise traditional industries. This legislation will set a new education and training benchmark for young people in this state. It will provide a meaningful obligation for them to achieve the high level qualifications that are the currency of today's global economy so they can survive and prosper in a future society that we—today—can only imagine. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

TRAINING REFORM BILL Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (12.42 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Training and Employment Act 2000, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (12.43 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. 2924 Training Reform Bill 19 Aug 2003

Ten thousand young Queenslanders aged 15 to 17 are out of school, out of work and out of training. This is a scandal and we have to remedy it. Hence this legislation. The reforms provided for by this legislation are directed at helping these young people realise their potential through participation in school, vocational education or training, employment or a combination of these options. We want these young people earning or learning, not sitting at home watching Days of our Lives on TV. What this legislation supports is the most important training reform in this state since the creation of TAFE as a separate institution. Change is something that all great institutions must confront and the time for change in the Queensland education and training structure has arrived. It is born out of significant change in the world of work. It is no longer possible to leave school at the age of 15 and walk into a secure job, a good job with a career future. Getting a job requires skills, and skilling young Queenslanders is what these reforms are all about. From the early 1800s to the 1960s we had the gradual expansion of apprenticeships along with the establishment of vocational education and training institutions. It was not until the 1970s that the modern VET system was born, with the establishment of Technical and Further Education institutes—TAFE, as we know it today—and the introduction of national government subsidies for apprenticeships. Then in the 1980s and early 1990s we saw, for the first time, the coming together of a national vocational education and training system and the establishment of the Australian National Training Authority. This represented a significant step forward for vocational education and training in this country, working towards a common system. The 1990s heralded significant change with the introduction of national training packages and the new apprenticeship system. Nationally, the number of VET students reached a record 1.5 million in 1998. Out of this significant history, Queensland is now moving into the most exciting time for vocational education and training this state has witnessed. The community is the key to the success of these reforms. The community commitment to youth is one of the most significant reforms this legislation will foster. The involvement of our local communities is integral to the success of these reforms and ultimately the success of our young people. The community commitment is an objective of this legislation and it builds upon the groundbreaking work that has been achieved and continues to be achieved at places like the Gold Coast and Goondiwindi. In these communities, we have witnessed the difference a passionate, cooperative, active and committed community can make to a young person's life. The community commitment also builds upon the terrific work being undertaken by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum in its drive to ensure that young people are provided with 12 years of education and assisted during the critical time of transitioning from school to work. This legislation is not just about changing the education and training systems, but it is also about providing pathways that enable young people to find their potential and realise their dreams. It is summed up in this poem titled Halfway to My Dreams by Felicity, a student at the Southside Education Centre, itself an innovator in providing pathways for young people at risk— I'm walking on a path Not knowing where it leads I'm just hoping it's the trail That takes me to my dreams The road is so long and Full of cracks I don't want to go on Just to turn back Sick of all the turns And twists Wondering about the little Things I've missed On the road that might be Leading nowhere Sometimes wondering Why I should care But then I think This path might be The right one for me And so I go on Just hoping it leads me To my dreams ... The Training Reform Bill 2003 reinforces Queensland's leadership in vocational education and training and commitment to young people. It complements the Youth Participation in Education and Training Bill 2003 by providing young people with the option to gain valuable life and work 19 Aug 2003 Training Reform Bill 2925 experience through employment. The bill also provides support for a flexible, high-quality training system that will develop the skills of Queensland's work force both now and for the future. Vocational education and training are critical to many young people achieving their potential. Already we have seen Queensland lead the way in school based apprenticeships and traineeships. We recognise that traditional schooling is not the most appropriate means of learning for many young people and that their talents are more suited to hands-on practical work, often along with the ability to earn an income and develop their independence. The Training Reform Bill provides an opportunity for young people to choose the learning pathway that best meets their needs and allows them to realise their potential. Of the 270,000 young people across Australia who leave school, some 86,000 can be described as vulnerable. While we recognise that the majority of young people are successfully facing life's challenges, there are also those who for many and varied reasons are finding the pathway to a successful and fulfilling life more difficult. These reforms will put in place mechanisms and much-needed support to assist those young people in staying on track and realising their potential. With this legislation we are putting vocational education back into training, changing the title of the bill from the Training and Employment Act 2000 to the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000. In light of this, additional functions will also be given to the Training Ombudsman, the Training and Employment Board and the Training and Employment Recognition Council. This is to ensure that young people in the vocational education and training system and the workplace are better supported during their compulsory participation phase. We are committed to developing an environment in which young people are nurtured and challenged and this is reflected in the attachment to the bill Stepping forward: improving pathways for all young people. This declaration, signed by Ministers for Education, Employment, Training, Youth Affairs and Community Services around the country—state, territory and federal and from both sides of politics—complements the aim of these reforms. I had the privilege of chairing a subcommittee of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs that drew up the declaration. The Training Reform Bill will also give effect to nationally agreed standards in vocational education and training. These standards will improve consistency across the VET jurisdictions and enhance the learning experience for many of the young people who choose vocational education and training as a means of realising their potential. High-quality and responsive vocational education and training is vital for the future of Queensland. On 8 June 2001, at the ANTA Ministerial Council, all vocational education and training ministers of the states, territories and the Commonwealth endorsed the Australian Quality Training Framework Standards. Queensland had already successfully implemented the former Australian Recognition Framework in 1998 and was fundamental in the development of the Australian Quality Training Framework. Queensland has led the way to improving the quality and consistency of the national framework. However, consistent implementation of the Australian Quality Training Framework across Australian jurisdictions was not achieved. For that reason, the ANTA ministerial council agreed to the development of model clauses to underpin the Australian Quality Training Framework and form the basis of state and territory legislation. Queensland has played an integral role in the development of the model clauses, which were drafted by the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, and was very active in the development of the policies that underpin those clauses. I am pleased to say that my former colleague the Hon. Paul Braddy recognised the importance of the national training system. The Australian Quality Training Framework is therefore already effectively implemented under the auspices of the Training and Employment Act. In this regard implementation of model clauses into the act will not have a significant impact or considerably alter the processes and procedures for the vocational education and training system in Queensland. However, implementation of the model clauses in Queensland and across other states and territories will improve the implementation of a nationally consistent framework. The Training Reform Bill 2003 therefore provides for a more efficient, effective and quality driven vocational education and training system. Improvements to national consistency will provide greater business opportunities for Queensland based registered training organisations, will add to the portability of qualifications for graduates, and will help reduce administrative costs across the system. There will be national recognition of decisions relating to registered training 2926 Building Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 organisations to ensure the quality of training is maintained across all jurisdictions; as well as the national recognition of training courses and their outcomes. The bill incorporates a number of amendments that have arisen as a result of operational issues surrounding apprenticeships and traineeships. These include— ¥ Amending the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to provide improved protection for existing workers who become apprentices and trainees by ensuring continuity of employment at the end of their training contract. This will ensure existing workers continue to have access to reinstatement into their previous position, or in another position, on at least the same pay and conditions as applied immediately before undertaking the apprenticeship or traineeship. ¥ Providing the employer with the ability to suspend the training contract for one day on issues of serious misconduct, without the automatic requirement to apply for cancellation. The suspension will continue to be the subject of fair procedures and confirmation or otherwise by the Training and Employment Recognition Council. ¥ Extending the circumstances under which the Training and Employment Recognition Council can declare an employer to be a 'prohibited employer' to also include instances where it has reason to believe an employer treats an apprentice or trainee in an objectionable manner. I am confident that these amendments will ensure robust, fair and equitable apprenticeships and traineeships. Queensland's young people benefit from a strong vocational education and training system and a workplace which offers them opportunities to gain employment. The Training Reform Bill 2003 provides young people with opportunities to realise their potential and position themselves to become active citizens with a thirst for lifelong learning. The benefits experienced by young people in the Smart State will flow on to Queensland industries and throughout our communities. Queensland industry and our community need relevant and effective vocational education and training. Queenslanders need quality vocational education and training. This bill positions Queensland's vocational education and training system for the future and establishes a platform to build a strong, effective and balanced system. It provides unprecedented opportunities for not only our young people but all users of Queensland's VET system. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (12.54 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Building Act 1975. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mrs Nita Cunningham, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (12.54 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Building Amendment Bill 2003. The bill makes changes to the Building Act 1975—the act—to improve the level of safety of young children around residential outdoor swimming pools. Firstly, the bill requires a sign to be installed on sites where new swimming pools are being built to warn neighbours and passers-by that potential dangers exists to young children in the area. Secondly, the bill limits exemptions that can be given by local governments from complying with the access requirements of the pool fencing standards. Thirdly, the bill amends the current definition of 'indoor swimming pools' to require new swimming pools and spas on a building to be fenced in accordance with the legislation. Fourthly, 19 Aug 2003 Building Amendment Bill 2927 the bill inserts a new provision into the act requiring the owner of a new residential swimming pool to have a sign installed near the pool that details procedures to enable cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR, to be undertaken. It is also proposed that the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2000 will be amended to enable local governments to issue on-the-spot-fines to owners of pools that are not fenced or maintained to strengthen the local government's ability to enforce the pool fencing legislation. Finally, the bill will amend the existing provisions of the act to clarify that the owner of an existing pool as well as the owner of a newly constructed pool must ensure that a complying pool fence is in place and maintained to appropriate standards at all times while the pool is filled with water. Statistics provided by the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit have established that drowning accounts for a quarter of all paediatric injury deaths and is the most common cause of trauma death in children aged under five years in Queensland. Approximately half of the children under five who drown in Queensland do so in domestic swimming pools. The QISU also estimates that for every child drowning death there are up to 14 children rushed to hospital. Of the four admitted to hospital following immersion, there is up to a 20 per cent chance of brain damage from lack of oxygen. Between 1983 and 1991, 107 children drowned in residential swimming pools, averaging 12 drownings per year. From 1991 to 2001, following the introduction in Queensland of pool safety legislation, 73 children drowned in residential outdoor swimming pools, including above-ground pools, in-ground pools and spas, which represents 34 fewer deaths than the previous time frame. Despite this improvement, these are still worrying statistics. The death or serious injury of even one young child as a result of immersion in a residential swimming pool is unacceptable. Many of these deaths and injuries can be prevented. The statistics produced by the QISU certainly demonstrate that the 1991 legislation has been instrumental in reducing toddler deaths even though the number of residential swimming pools has doubled since that legislation was introduced. So it is imperative that the proposed changes to that legislation are in place prior to summer and the next swimming season. Studies by the QISU from 1991 to 2001 also found that 56 children aged less than five years drowned in domestic in-ground swimming pools and spas in Queensland. Of these fatalities— ¥ 13 toddler deaths occurred in unfenced pools; ¥ four had a barrier judged not to be designed or constructed with materials to function as a modern pool fence; ¥ three toddlers drowned in pools with defective fencing because of problems with the fence itself such as holes or missing panels; ¥ 11 deaths were attributed to defective house doors in three-sided pool fences where one fence side is replaced by a wall of the house; ¥ and seven deaths were attributed to defective gates in four-sided fully isolated pool fences predominantly with accessible latches or self-closing latches that failed; ¥ 26 per cent of toddlers drowned because the pool was not fenced, 50 per cent drowned because the fencing was defective and 24 per cent of the deaths were attributed to defective house doors. In addition— ¥ six toddlers had been given access to the pool yard by parents and in all of these cases this happened in three-sided fence arrangements; ¥ one child was thought to have climbed a four-sided pool fence; ¥ five toddlers drowned in situations where the pool gate had been propped or tied open to allow easy access to the pool area for older children or for maintenance; and ¥ six cases of drowning could not be classified. I will now outline the components of the bill. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The Bill will require a sign to be placed near a residential property on which an outdoor swimming pool is to be constructed to warn neighbours of a potential danger to young children. 2928 Building Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

In October 2002, following a Coroner's inquest into the tragic drowning of a young child in a residential swimming pool, the Coroner recommended that consideration be given to the introduction of a requirement for signage at properties prior to the installation of swimming pools. The purpose of the sign is to alert neighbours to the potential hazard present, particularly for small children. The Bill will insert a new provision to implement this recommendation. Details of what should be on the sign will be specified in the Standard Building Regulation 1993 and will take effect from the date of proclamation of the amendments to the Act. The Bill will limit exemptions that can be given by local governments from complying with the access requirements of the pool fencing standards. The Act currently permits local governments to grant exemptions to the pool fencing standards for a range of reasons provided the local government is satisfied that it is unlikely a young child will gain access to the pool. Investigations by my Department have established that exemptions are primarily sought for design reasons, for example, where the pool is directly accessible from the house and fencing would interfere with aesthetics. Since 1991, 28 Queensland local governments have granted exemptions relating to swimming pool fencing. Nineteen of these have granted approximately 7,200 exemptions. Many of the exemptions allowed direct access from the house to the pool via a self-closing, self-latching door. This is despite the QISU finding that 22 per cent of deaths are attributed to defective house doors which open directly onto the pool. This Bill will introduce amendments to the Act that will allow exemptions from complying with the access requirements of the pool fencing standards to be granted only in cases where it would not be practicable, because of a disability of an occupant of the building, to provide access to the pool in accordance with the pool fencing standards. In addition to this Bill, it is proposed that the Standard Building Regulation 1993 will be amended to clarify that the pool fencing standards other than the access requirements will still apply when a person with a disability has been given such an exemption. The Bill will require that once the need for the exemption no longer exists, for example, if the person with the disability no longer occupies the land, the pool fence will have to be converted back to one that complies with the standard. The Bill will amend the current definition of 'indoor swimming pools' to require a pool 'on' a building to have a complying pool fence. This provision will not apply to existing swimming pools on buildings but it will apply to pools built after the commencement of the Bill. Currently, the Act does not require indoor swimming pools to be fenced and a pool 'on' a building is defined as an 'indoor swimming pool'. For example, a pool on a deck attached to a house, or a pool on a roof of a building, meets the definition of an 'indoor swimming pool' and therefore is not covered by the current law. This is an anomaly and is used by some owners to bypass the legislation. It does not provide a safe environment for young children. This Bill will redefine the term 'indoor swimming pool' to only include swimming pools that are completely enclosed by the walls of the building. The level of safety for young children will be improved by the provision of complying fencing for pools on a building. Mr Speaker, the Bill will also insert a new provision into the Act requiring the owner of a new residential swimming pool to have a sign installed prominently near the pool that details procedures to enable cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to be undertaken. My Department undertook extensive consultation on this issue with a number of Government agencies, including Queensland Health, and community groups, including the Local Government Association of Queensland and the QISU. The Bill will amend the existing provisions of the Act to clarify that the owner of an existing pool as well as the owner of a newly constructed pool must ensure that a complying pool fence is in place and maintained to appropriate standards at all times while the pool is filled with water. Mr Speaker, the Act currently contains the penalty provisions for breaches of pool fencing requirements. However, under the current law, the Magistrates Court determines all prosecutions for non-compliant pool fencing. This process is expensive for councils and time consuming. Therefore, councils are often reluctant to pursue this course of action. It is proposed that the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2000 will be amended to enable local governments to issue on-the-spot-fines to owners of pools that are not fenced or maintained to strengthen the local government's ability to enforce the pool fencing legislation. The use of on-the-spot-fines issued as a result of an inspection program or complaints lodged will act as a deterrent against non-conforming pool fencing and ensure ongoing compliance and increase community awareness. Mr Speaker, pool fencing laws were first introduced into the Act in 1991. They have been amended on a number of occasions since then. The Act imposes a duty on an owner to fence around an outdoor swimming pool, to keep the fence in good condition and to ensure that it complies with the standard at all times. This is regardless of when the swimming pool was first built. In the absence of local laws, State legislation will apply. 19 Aug 2003 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 2929

The amendments proposed by the Bill are part of the ongoing review of the provisions to ensure they continue to achieve their objective, which is to protect young children from drowning or serious injury from immersion in a swimming pool. The review identified a number of areas of the existing law that required updating and clarification, in particular those associated with the enforcement of the pool fencing standards. The Bill clarifies the existing provisions of the Act, that an owner of an existing pool as well as the owner of a newly constructed pool must ensure that a complying pool fence is in place and maintained to appropriate standards at all times while the pool is filled with water. The Act will not require pool owners who have existing complying fences, and who have properly maintained them, to change their fences. The applicable standard of pool fencing that must be provided and maintained at all times depends on when the pool was first constructed. For a swimming pool constructed before 1991, in a council area that had a local law that required a swimming pool to be fenced (to a height not less than 900mm) and which required openings from a building to be such that they inhibited access by young children from a building to a swimming pool, the fence and openings would have to be constructed and maintained to that standard. For a swimming pool constructed before 1991, in a council area that had no local law requiring a swimming pool to be fenced, the pool must be fenced and the fence maintained to the standards applicable for existing pools in the 1991 pool fencing laws. That is, the pool fences must be constructed to a height not less than 900mm and any openings from a building being such that they inhibited access by young children from the building to the swimming pool. These requirements, in place since the commencement of the 1991 legislation, are not being changed for those pools constructed prior to 1991. For a swimming pool constructed after 1991, the fence must be constructed in accordance with the standard specified in the Standard Building Regulation 1993 in force at the time the pool was constructed, that is, a four- sided isolation fence was required. That is, there are no retrospective requirements in this Bill. Mr Speaker, as I mentioned previously, the pool fencing laws require a complying fence to be placed around an outdoor swimming pool, and to be properly maintained, regardless of when the pool was built. However, some fences are removed or demolished or are not properly maintained, exposing young children to the dangers of the swimming pool. The Bill will clarify that fencing that is demolished, removed or is allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair as to not make it practicable to repair the fence will need to be replaced with a new fence complying with the current fencing standard specified in the Standard Building Regulation 1993. To ensure that the replacement fence is properly constructed, the pool owner must ensure a building certifier has given a certificate in the approved form stating that the fence complies with the pool fencing requirements under the Act. Mr Speaker, there may be situations where a swimming pool becomes filled with water to a depth greater than 300mm as a result of actions outside the control of the pool owner. For example, during construction there may be a torrential downpour or a flood, which causes the pool to be filled with water. The Bill includes a defence provision that provides protection to a pool owner against prosecution if a pool is accidentally filled with water as a result of an action outside their control. Mr Speaker, to conclude, there has been a thorough review and extensive consultation with the building industry, the Local Government Association of Queensland and community organisations on the development of this Bill. I believe the changes introduced by the Bill will impact positively on the safety of young children around residential outdoor swimming pools. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

MINERAL RESOURCES AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (2.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amendment the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Petroleum Act 1923. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Robertson, read a first time. 2930 Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

Second Reading Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (2.31 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Late last year, the Beattie government approved the development of Australia's first comprehensive regulatory framework for the emerging and increasingly important coal seam gas industry. Coal seam gas is a fuel source for the 21st century and Queensland's current legislation does not adequately support sustainable and efficient capture and production of such a valuable resource. It is no secret that Queensland has abundant supplies of high-quality, competitively- priced coal and with that coal comes massive quantities of gas trapped in the coal seams, which offer enormous opportunities to this state. Already, 27 per cent of Queensland's gas is supplied by coal seam gas—up from four per cent only five years ago—and that can only grow with Townsville's new gas-fired power station, which will be powered by coal seam methane supplied by CH4. Such a dramatic increase of coal seam gas use in such a short period proves the worth of this government's energy policy, which aims to have 15 per cent of Queensland's energy provided from sources other than coal, and further demonstrates the importance of coal seam gas to Queensland's future. The coal seam gas regime will create greater certainty for explorers and developers to invest in coal seam gas projects as well as provide clear rules, rights and obligations for the coal and petroleum industries to work cooperatively to develop the resource. It will also provide for a new and integrated safety management regime, ensuring that coal seam gas can be produced without compromising the operational safety of existing or future coalmines. Under the regime, overlapping production leases for coal and for coal seam gas will not be permitted unless the parties have voluntarily entered into a commercial agreement addressing safety and development issues. This bill will preserve the integrity and aims of the coal seam gas regime until new legislation gives effect to the regime next year. It places an interim restriction on the grant of mining and petroleum lease applications that overlap certain petroleum and coal and oil shale tenure. All overlapping lease applications caught by this interim restriction may be progressed through administrative channels and applicants will be encouraged to provide information and conduct consultation in line with the draft legislation for the regime. When the regime is enacted, applicants who have substantially complied with its requirements will be in a good position to have their application considered for grant. This bill allows applications that would be considered overlapping lease applications to enter agreements with the underlying tenement holder to allow exemption from the hold. This potential for a commercial agreement between parties provides an option for applicants to avoid delays under the interim restriction and is consistent with the new regime, which encourages parties to reach commercial agreements to govern interaction over an area. The likelihood of such agreements being reached will depend on the commercial interests of each party and their ability and willingness to negotiate agreements that protect the interests of the underlying tenement holder while still allowing the production lease applicant to proceed with development. These provisions have been constructed to ensure the objectives and integrity of the new regime are achieved, affecting a minimal number of lease applicants. My department currently holds 13 petroleum lease applications that have not yet been granted, of which three have significant tenure overlap issues with respect to the regime and one has a very minor overlap. Any applicant whose lease application is caught by the interim restriction will still be able to exercise their rights under their authority to prospect or exploration permits. That includes production testing, which also provides a mechanism to limit the impact of delays. The impact of the coalmining lease applications on identified petroleum resources is likely to be small, given the smaller area and limited coverage of petroleum coal seam gas exploration activities. Thirty coalmining lease applications are currently outstanding and it is likely that only two applications would be held up by these amendments. These interim arrangements are necessary to protect the rights and interests of companies until the coal seam gas regime is implemented. They are integral to the overall implementation of the regime. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. 19 Aug 2003 Irvinebank State Treatment Works Repeal Bill 2931

IRVINEBANK STATE TREATMENT WORKS REPEAL BILL Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (2.36 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to repeal the Irvinebank State Treatment Works (Sale and Operation) Act 1990, and for related matters. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (2.37 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Irvinebank State Treatment Works Repeal Bill 2003 terminates agreements between the state and Mr Frank Hilla for the sale of the Irvinebank State Treatment Works and repeals the Irvinebank State Treatment Works (Sale and Operation) Act 1990. Twenty years ago, the Bjelke- Petersen government entered into an agreement with Mr Hilla to purchase the State Treatment Works at Irvinebank. Legislation was subsequently passed to facilitate the purchase and the sale agreement was finally signed in August 1991. Factors including volatility in the tin industry and the listing of the treatment works on the precursor to the Queensland heritage register raised barriers to the purchaser securing adequate finance to complete the contract. The result was that the purchaser sought to vary the terms of the sale agreement and the purchase was never completed. It should be acknowledged that Mr Hilla did comply with other terms of the sale, including operating and maintaining the treatment works until 1996, engaging in progressive restoration of the buildings, and maintaining a bulk supply of non-potable water to the town. However, since the state-funded repairs to the Ibis Dam in 1996, Mr Hilla has not restarted commercial custom milling operations. Since the sale agreement was executed in 1983, the situation in north Queensland has changed significantly. After the tin price collapse of 1985, the region's tin industry has declined to the point where production is negligible. The treatment works have not operated commercially since 1996 and it is unlikely that they will treat custom tin ores again. Moreover, the value of the works as an historical record and heritage site far outweigh any potential commercial value of the property. Continued control of Irvinebank's treatment works and the town water supply by the purchaser has become inappropriate and undesirable and the agreements between the state and the purchaser should be terminated. The reasons for this are manifold. First, it would be difficult to imagine a situation where it would be preferable for a township of some 85 people to be dependent on a single private citizen for much of their water supply. Second, the heritage value of the treatment works is of significant cultural and economic value to the community of Irvinebank, and to the wider community of north Queensland. Third, this issue has now been dragging on for some 20 years, with ramifications for both the purchaser and the community of Irvinebank. The current circumstances mean that it is too late for Mr Hilla to perform, or for the state to require performance of, the sale agreement. It is the government's intention to terminate the agreements and to bring this matter to a conclusion as soon as possible. This step has not been taken lightly. My department and I have been in contact with the purchaser and his representatives since December 2001 when I advised him of this government's intention to terminate our agreements. This bill terminates the preliminary agreement and the sale agreement between the state and the purchaser. This government does recognise Mr Hilla's ties to the community in which he has been living for the past 20 years, and the services and work he has put into the treatment works and the surrounding land, which will be of lasting benefit to the community. In recognition of this work and his ties to the area, this bill provides for a permit to occupy for Mr Hilla's residence and adjoining land for access purposes. 2932 Second-Hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill 19 Aug 2003

The bill cancels any authorities or applications held or applied for by the purchaser, including his application for a mining lease over the works site, for reasons of administrative clarity and consistency. This bill will be followed by measures to resolve issues like the town's water supply and the preservation and development of the treatment works as a record of tin processing practice dating back to the 19th century. In the absence of an express provision to terminate the sale agreement, we have been forced to introduce this legislation to bring the matter to a close. It is important to note that this bill does not remove the purchaser's right to seek compensation, excluding the cancelled applications or authorities applied for by the purchaser. This government consulted extensively on the provisions of this bill, including working with the purchaser and his family, the residents of the Irvinebank community, the Mareeba Shire Council and other departments and agencies. Finally, the bill repeals the Irvinebank State Treatment Works (Sale and Operation) Act 1990, which will be no longer relevant once the agreements have been terminated, and provides for the repeal act to expire on 31 December 2004. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

SECOND-HAND DEALERS AND PAWNBROKERS BILL Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (2.41 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to regulate the activities of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (2.42 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. At a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on 11 April 1995, the Queensland government, together with other Australian states and territories, signed an agreement with the Commonwealth to implement national competition policy (NCP) reforms. The competition policy agreement requires all state and territory governments to review and, where appropriate, reform all anticompetitive legislation. The guiding principle is that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that: ¥ the benefits of the restriction to the community, as a whole, outweigh the costs; and ¥ the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition. In accordance with the competition policy agreement, the Second-Hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984, the Pawnbrokers Act 1984 and the Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 have all been reviewed. The objective of this bill is to implement NCP recommendations for those three acts. The first act that I will speak about is the Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982. The objective of this act is to protect the funds of Queenslanders who have prepaid their funeral expenses by depositing money with funeral benefit businesses. The act does not regulate funeral directors or the industry as a whole. A funeral benefit fund is a contract between a consumer and a funeral director or third party under which the funeral director agrees to provide or contribute toward the cost of funeral services in the future. The consumer pays for the services at current prices by way of periodic payments or a lump sum. The contributions are invested on the consumer's behalf and are not accessible by either party until the funeral services have been completed. Benefits are paid only on death and must be used for funeral or burial expenses. 19 Aug 2003 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Bill 2933

The NCP report found that the benefits of the anticompetitive provisions contained in the act outweigh the costs to the community as a whole. The report did, however, recommend the act be reformed in order for it to meet its policy objectives in a more cost-effective way. The bill retains all of the existing consumer protections in the current act to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of parties to current contracts remain unchanged. With respect to new contracts the NCP recommendations provide greater consumer protection, greater choice and peace of mind when it comes to the sensitive matter of prepaying funerals. The bill will provide for a 30-day cooling off period for all new contracts, giving consumers enough time to carefully consider the terms of the contract they have entered into. This is particularly important, as the NCP report and stakeholders identified that the consumer group most likely to take out prepaid funeral benefits are older (aged 60 years or over), are on incomes that are low by community standards and are particularly vulnerable as they often enter funeral benefit contracts at a time when they are organising a funeral for a loved one and are still grieving. The NCP report also noted that unscrupulous traders often try to exploit the weak bargaining position of elderly people. To assist consumers with understanding fully what they have committed to under a prepaid funeral contract, the bill also makes it mandatory for the providers of funeral benefits to give consumers a 'client care' statement, containing details in plain English of the rights and responsibilities the consumer has under the contract. The client care statement has been drafted by the Office of Fair Trading. The current act only applies to 15 registered corporations. The bill extends the application of the act to any type of entity, whether a company or not, if they operate as a funeral benefit business. Queensland residents will be protected from shonky businesses, no matter what form they take, and to deter industry from breaching the new requirements substantial penalties have been introduced. I will now speak about the NCP reforms to the Second-Hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 and the Pawnbrokers Act 1984. Second-hand dealing and pawnbroking are related businesses in that they both involve the resale of pre-owned goods. There are currently 2,492 second-hand dealers, 54 collectors and 214 pawnbrokers licensed in Queensland. One hundred and eighty- nine of the pawnbrokers are also licensed as second-hand dealers. As a consequence of this connection, a combined NCP review was undertaken of both the acts. The objectives of the acts are to deter crime in the second-hand property market and to help protect consumers from purchasing stolen property. The Second-Hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 creates a licensing regime for the regulation of persons who engage in the business of dealing in and collecting second-hand goods. The Pawnbrokers Act 1984 establishes a licensing regime for persons engaged in the pawnbroking industry. Typically, a pawnbroker loans money against an article offered by a client as collateral. The Pawnbrokers Act 1984 requires pawnbrokers to perform certain duties and deals with the manner in which pawnbrokers handle pledged goods. The NCP review identified a number of licensing and business conduct restrictions on competition in both acts which have been addressed in this bill. The bill consolidates the two acts into a single piece of legislation and modifies the licensing requirements. The bill introduces a single licence type for both second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers and multi-site licences. The applications process has been modernised, replacing the 'fit and proper' person test with a 'suitability' test for applicants. Second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers will have the option of extending their licensing period from one to three years. The modernised licensing requirements will be far more efficient and provide much more flexibility to licensees. Other key aspects of the bill include the introduction of the optional auctioning of unredeemed pledges by pawnbrokers, which is widely supported by industry, and the option for second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers to record their transactions electronically. This bill demonstrates some of the beneficial results we have achieved by acting on recommendations from the national competition policy review. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lester, adjourned.

MANUFACTURED HOMES (RESIDENTIAL PARKS) BILL Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (2.49 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— 2934 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Bill 19 Aug 2003

That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the positioning and occupancy of manufactured homes in residential parks, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (2.50 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The major objective of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Bill is to regulate and promote fair trading practices in residential parks. The bill aims to achieve this objective through: ¥ declaring particular rights and obligations for park owners and home owners; ¥ facilitating the disclosure of information to prospective home owners about the park and the bill; ¥ introduction of a seven day cooling-off period after receipt of information documents; ¥ regulating the making, content, assignment and termination of site agreements, and the variation of site rent; ¥ facilitating participation of home owners in the affairs of the park; and ¥ providing means for resolving site agreement disputes. The other main objective of the bill is to encourage continued growth and viability of the residential park industry in the state through providing a clear regulatory framework to ensure certainty for the industry in planning for future expansion. The bill is the outcome of an extensive review of the Mobile Homes Act 1989, which will be repealed upon commencement of the new legislation. Manufactured home living in residential parks is gaining popularity as a retirement housing option, with about 10,000 people residing in 160 parks in Queensland. Some of these people live in purpose-built manufactured home parks while others live in mixed accommodation caravan parks. It is important to distinguish clearly manufactured home owners from caravan owners and renters. Manufactured homes are, in essence, permanent structures no easier or cheaper to relocate than ordinary site built houses. These homes involve investments of up to $100,000, and so it is appropriate that owners have security of tenure greater than that provided for caravan owners through the Residential Tenancies Act 1994. The existing act provides security of tenure for home owners by limiting the grounds upon which the agreement to site the mobile home and to reside in the home may be terminated. It also provides for access to the Small Claims Tribunal to determine disputes. Numerous complaints have been received over recent years that the act does not provide adequate protection for vulnerable home owners, particularly in relation to high rents, withdrawal of services, deterioration of park facilities and alleged bullying, harassment and intimidation by park owners or managers. Both home owners and park owners have been critical of determinations made by the Small Claims Tribunal, which lacks any guidelines under the act to assist in the decision-making process. The bill retains the existing rights of both park owners and home owners and provides additional protection for home owners. Under the current legislation, the use of the term 'mobile home' gives an impression of a structure that is of relatively light construction and is easy to move from one place to another. While this may have been appropriate at one time, these homes are now more substantial and sophisticated. These homes are usually permanently or securely fixed to the ground and the costs involved in moving may be quite significant. In keeping with the changing trends in the industry and to better reflect the more substantial nature of these types of homes, the bill introduces the term 'manufactured homes'. New definitions are introduced, including the definition for a 'manufactured home' which, for consistency, has been brought into line with the definitions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1994. Consistency of the definition should assist park owners of mixed accommodation caravan parks who may have people residing under two separate pieces of legislation. 19 Aug 2003 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Bill 2935

The bill sets out the basic responsibilities of both park owners and home owners. Jurisdiction for the determination of disputes under the bill will lie with the new Commercial and Consumer Tribunal rather than the Small Claims Tribunal. This will enable the development of a specialist jurisdiction and provide greater consistency of decisions. The bill introduces a home owner's information document similar to that required under the Retirement Villages Act 1999. This document must be given to prospective home owners and must contain information on the park, the park owner or manager and specified information on the key provisions of the bill. The existing legislation does not require a site agreement to be in writing or to be signed by the parties. The only requirement is for a statement of that agreement to be provided by the park owner within three months of the home owner's entry into the park. This has caused many problems in the past as people were not fully aware in the first instance of the details of the agreement they had entered into and had not had the opportunity to have the agreement examined by their legal representatives. Often when home owners became aware of any problems it was too late to vary the terms of the agreement through the Small Claims Tribunal. The bill addresses this problem by requiring the park owner to provide up-front written site agreements which must be signed by both parties. The site agreement must be written in a clear and precise way and must contain specified information. As in the existing legislation, the site agreement will continue to exist until terminated in accordance with the bill. A home owner may terminate the agreement within seven days of receiving the information documents and the park owner must refund the rent paid. If the home owner does not receive documents, they retain the right to terminate at any stage. Where the home owner has moved a home into the park, an application may be made to the tribunal for a compensation order to remove the home to another location. The bill limits other ways in which site agreements may be terminated. It has retained the existing right of the home owner to terminate the agreement by the giving of notice. It establishes the right of the parties to terminate the agreement by mutual consent and introduces a penalty if the park owner coerces the home owner to terminate the agreement. It has also retained the requirement that the park owner may terminate agreements only by application to the tribunal. At the time of making a termination order, where the termination application has been made on the grounds that the purpose of the park has been changed, the tribunal must also make a compensation order to cover the home owner's relocation expenses. The bill retains the right of the home owner to assign the site agreement with the park owner's consent and puts into place the procedure for how this should be achieved. The abandonment of manufactured homes and the personal belongings of home owners was identified as a concern for park owners and new procedures to address this concern are also introduced. The home owner's right to sell, bequeath or gift the home has been retained and when the park owner is entitled to receive a fee for the sale of a home has been clarified. Site rent and rent increases have been a major concern for home owners, many of whom are on low or fixed incomes. Some owners wanted the government to introduce rent control. However, as the parks are commercial enterprises, rent control is not considered to be a viable option. The bill specifies the methods for how rent should be paid, and for consistency this is similar to the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1994. The bill also sets out procedures for varying site rent, and this also has been modelled on the residential tenancy provisions and similar provisions in New South Wales residential park legislation. The bill provides for situations where there is a formula in the site agreement or in other cases where the park owner wants to increase the rent outside of the agreement. If the home owner believes the increase is not in accordance with the agreement or is otherwise excessive, an application may be made to the tribunal. The tribunal may make an order to reduce, set aside or confirm the increase. A series of guidelines has been included to assist the tribunal in making a determination. Although under the existing legislation park owners may make an application to the Small Claims Tribunal to increase rent outside of the agreement, many residents have complained that park owners merely inform the home owner that the rent is increased. The inference has been drawn by some residents that if they do not pay the amount the park owner will terminate their agreement. The bill recognises that park owners may have valid reasons to increase the rent outside of the agreement and the bill establishes a procedure where home owners have the opportunity to agree to the increase or, if they do not agree, for the park owner to make an application to the tribunal. Tribunal guidelines apply to these applications. 2936 Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

If the park has deteriorated or services have been withdrawn, home owners may make an application to the tribunal for a reduction in rent. This is also based on residential tenancy legislation. Where utility costs are not separately metered but the services provided are charged as a component of the rent, the home owner may seek an order from the tribunal to reduce the rent by that amount if those utilities become separately metered. Another innovation is to allow home owners to have a say where the park owner wishes to change the park rules. This is also similar to residential tenancy legislation and provides manufactured home owners the same rights as persons renting manufactured homes or caravans in parks. The bill also deals with issues such as the right of home owners to quiet enjoyment, the provision of notice boards, the maintenance of park trees and the provision of mail facilities. To address home owner concerns about improper conduct by park owners, the bill also introduces offence provisions relating to fraudulent or misleading conduct and harassment or unconscionable conduct. The bill provides for the establishment of home owner committees to deal with the park owner on day-to-day issues of running the park and any complaints or proposals raised by home owners. It also provides that the committee must place any submissions to the park owner in writing and that the park owner must respond within 21 days. The bill provides for the appointment of inspectors and deals with entry and enforcement powers. As an alternative to prosecution, the chief executive may seek an undertaking from a park owner where the chief executive reasonably believes the park owner has contravened the bill. Another innovation is the ability of a group of residents to make joint applications to the tribunal to resolve disputes arising out of the same or similar facts or circumstances. In the transitional provisions, existing relevant agreements under the current act are taken to be site agreements under the bill. This means those home owners with agreements will have the benefit of the new bill without the necessity to negotiate new agreements with the park owner. However, if a manufactured home owner does not have a written agreement the person must obtain a written agreement from the park owner. Anecdotal evidence suggests there are many home owners who do not have written agreements. If there are any disputes about the terms of the written agreement an application may be made to the tribunal to resolve these issues. Extensive consultation has been conducted at all phases of the review process and on the bill. This resulted in feedback from home owners, community groups and industry, which has been carefully considered in the process of finalising the bill. This bill will not only protect the rights of home owners but it will also enhance the reputation of the industry. I am proud to introduce the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Bill 2003 because it demonstrates that this government is committed to ensuring security of tenure and appropriate consumer protection measures for a vulnerable segment of our population who, instead of seeking public housing, have chosen to provide for their retirement by living in residential parks. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lester, adjourned.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.03 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend particular environmental legislation. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.04 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I rise to speak to the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. The Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 continues this government's commitment to nature conservation and effective environmental legislation in Queensland. The amendments will 19 Aug 2003 Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 2937 update, strengthen and clarify existing provisions in the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The bill will also provide the opportunity for third parties to seek declarations and enforcement orders to allow earlier intervention actions to conserve nature. The proposed amendments will reinforce the importance of protecting public safety, particularly children, in relation to dangerous animals in our parks and recreation areas. The amendments will also simplify statutory procedures in accordance with the agreements made by the National Environment Protection Council, ensuring consistency with mirror Commonwealth legislation. I turn firstly to the third party standing provisions which this bill will introduce into the Nature Conservation Act. These provisions enable a third party to seek a court order to enforce nominated conservation offences or a court declaration about a matter under the Nature Conservation Act. This proposal reflects current practice in natural resource planning and environmental legislation, including the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Water Act 2000. These amendments allow early intervention to conserve nature. Current remedies under the Nature Conservation Act are largely confined to prosecutions that result in penalties. Penalties do not directly protect or prevent the destruction of endangered species and their habitat. In many cases people will comply with the law if the law is made clear. Declarations will assist parties in ascertaining what their legal obligations are. For example, declarations allow people with legitimate interests to go to the courts to seek a declaration of whether their proposed conduct, for example eco-tours, will contravene the Nature Conservation Act. This security should encourage greater investment in industry that complements the need to conserve nature. Extraterritorial application of the Nature Conservation Act is required for the protection of wildlife in areas adjoining Queensland's jurisdiction, for example, waters off the Queensland coast where protection under state law is currently doubtful or deficient due to jurisdictional technicalities. These amendments will ensure the Nature Conservation Act has sufficient extraterritorial powers to protect wildlife, including Migaloo the white whale. The Nature Conservation Act provides a capacity to authorise uses of national parks which are contrary to the relevant management principles, provided they meet strict criteria. The original intent of this provision was to enable authorisation of facilities that were required for an essential public purpose. Some development proponents have attempted to broaden the scope of this provision by arguing that private enterprises in national parks are in the public interest, whether or not they deliver essential community services. Consequently an amendment is required to clarify the scope of the permitted uses to which the section applies and to reflect the original intent that such uses are restricted to facilities that are required for an essential public purpose. These are mainly in the areas of communication, safety, water and energy supply. Use of the terms 'national park' or 'conservation park' for other than such areas declared under the Nature Conservation Act is prohibited under the act in order to prevent misrepresentation of the status of property. The amendments modify this restriction in order to allow zones in marine parks to use these terms. Marine parks are established under the Marine Parks Act 1982 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The amended provision will allow, for example, the creation of a 'national park zone' in a marine park in order to clearly signify that the level of protection in that zone is equivalent to that offered by a terrestrial national park. Clearer powers to provide for people's safety, particularly children, in camping areas is undeniably an important priority for any government. Current powers under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Recreation Areas Management Act 1988 do not refer specifically to children. This government is concerned about the risk posed by dingoes on Fraser Island and crocodiles in north Queensland. These amendments will confirm the power to act for children's safety in all protected areas and recreation areas, and in regard to any kind of dangerous animal. In 1994 each state and territory, and the Commonwealth, adopted mirror legislation to establish the National Environment Protection Council. As required under this legislation, the National Environment Protection Council recently conducted a review of the operation of the legislation. The review found that it would be beneficial to simplify statutory procedures established by the legislation, and resolve uncertainty and inconsistency with other Commonwealth legislation. State and territory ministers have agreed to amend legislation to mirror the Commonwealth amendments resulting from the review. I am confident that the Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 will provide greater capacity for third party participation in nature conservation, enhanced protection for children 2938 Marine Parks Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 attending national parks and recreation areas, and clarify legal requirements to improve the effectiveness of environmental legislation in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lester, adjourned.

MARINE PARKS AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.11 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Marine Parks Act 1982. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.12 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The objective of this bill is to introduce specific amendments, drafted so as not to set a precedent for other areas, to the Marine Parks Act 1982 to permit dredging and related disposal of spoil for the proposed Bluewater development, 15 kilometres north-west of Cairns. The objective of the bill will be achieved by enacting amendments to the Marine Parks Act 1982 to enable dredging in Half Moon Creek and Half Moon Bay and related disposal of spoil with strict environmental conditions. In January 1991 the Governor in Council gave provisional approval, under the Canals Act 1958, for a canal development for the Earl Hill South project— now Bluewater—at Trinity Park. Rezoning and subdivision into canal lots were approved in 1996. Subsequent approvals were given in 1998 by the then Department of Environment under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 for dredging and the Beach Protection Act 1968 to excavate a sand bar at the mouth of Half Moon Creek. In December 2001 the zoning plan for the Trinity Inlet/Marlin Coast Marine Park was commenced. The location of the proposed dredging for the Bluewater development falls within the boundaries of the marine park. The point I wish to highlight is that the approvals necessary for this development had been issued prior to the commencement of the Trinity Inlet/Marlin Coast zoning plan in December 2001. Half Moon Creek and other adjacent areas were partly dredged in 1992 to provide access to the canals. However, further dredging at the creek mouth and annual maintenance dredging is required if the development is to have all-tide boating access. Under current legislative provisions, permits are required for dredging in the estuarine conservation zone and the general use zone of the Trinity Inlet/Marlin Coast Marine Park. In April 2003 the developer applied for a marine park permit to allow about 1,115 metres of dredging in the estuarine conservation zone and later amended this application to include about 950 metres of dredging in the general use zone to include all areas previously approved under the Canals Act 1958. On 27 June 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency refused the application because the proposal did not meet the requirements of the Marine Parks (Trinity Inlet/Marlin Coast) Zoning Plan 2001 and the Marine Parks Regulation 1990. The government subsequently considered the issue on 7 July 2003 and resolved to allow the Bluewater development as proposed by Consolidated Properties— the actual applicants being Norwood Street Project Pty Ltd and Cairns Blue Pty Ltd—to proceed. On 9 July I accompanied the Premier on a visit to the Bluewater site where we announced the government's intention to ensure that the pre-existing approvals were given effect— provided the developers applied best practice environmental management measures to minimise impact on the marine park. The creation of the marine park was never intended to frustrate or negate pre-existing approvals. The development had nearly all the permits and approvals before a new conservation zone— a marine park— was added to the equation. Bluewater was a peculiar case requiring a one-off solution. The only option to allow the development to proceed was to introduce specific amendments to marine parks legislation. However, these would be drafted so as not to set a precedent for other areas. I would like to make it clear that since the introduction of the coastal plan by this government there have been no new canal developments authorised. Indeed, there 19 Aug 2003 Revocation of State Forest 2939 have been no new canal developments authorised during this term of parliament. This is not a new canal development. I now turn to the amendments. A new section 31 has been inserted to permit a limitation on application of the regulation and zoning plan. This section allows both capital and maintenance dredging and related disposal of spoil to occur for the Bluewater development without requiring further permission under the Marine Parks Act 1982. These limitations will remain in force until the deed is cancelled or expires. Section 31 also provides a mechanism to manage maintenance dredging by entities other than the developer in the future. New permit conditions will be in place to require strict environmental management requirements, including conditions such as water quality monitoring, acid sulfate soils management to the most current standards, disposal of fine sediments onto land rather than sea and retention of marine sands within the active beach zone. Also, a deed of agreement has been signed which among other matters imposes time limits for the development, an enforceable mechanism to guarantee the provision of $835,000 of community and environmental activities, as well as providing certainty for the developer. The deed is, in essence, a contract between the government—represented by the Environmental Protection Agency—the developer and Cairns City Council. The deed was signed yesterday, 18 August 2003. The deed is a 'use it or lose it' document outlining time limits for the development to proceed. For the benefit of honourable members, I seek leave to table a copy of that deed. Leave granted. Mr WELLS: The specific environmental and community activity contributions that are required from the developer within two years include— ¥ $300,000 funding to Cairns City Council intended to achieve a net reduction in load from the Marlin Coast sewage treatment plant to Half Moon Creek; ¥ $150,000 for rehabilitation and conserving land to the north of Reed Road and the base of Earl Hill; ¥ $200,000 for walking and cycling tracks and an educational interpretive centre, a public car park and interpretive signage; ¥ $100,000 for walking and bike tracks linking Trinity Beach Road, Captain Cook Highway and Reed Road; ¥ $50,000 to support local volunteer environmental groups; ¥ $20,000 for commissioning an independent study on rehabilitation and conservation of feather palms; and ¥ $15,000 to assist in fish re-stocking. This comes to a total of $835,000 of contributions to the environment and community activities in the area. The deed also outlines a process for the amendment of current approvals and their transfer from the existing landowner, TNN Cairns Pty Ltd, to the developer, Consolidated Properties. In terms of consultation, the government received much comment from the community, interested parties and local government following the original decision of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the marine park permit. In making its decision to allow the development to proceed, the government was cognisant of the overwhelming community view that the project should proceed while still ensuring high standards of environmental management. The member for Barron River, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier and Minister for Trade in Far North Queensland, has liaised with the regional community and stakeholders and there has been targeted consultation with various representatives. The Bluewater proponents support the proposed legislation. They have been closely involved in the resolution of the issue, in particular throughout the drafting of the deed. I have tabled a copy of the deed of agreement for the information of honourable members. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lester, adjourned.

REVOCATION OF STATE FOREST Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.21 p.m.): I move— (1) That this House requests the Governor in Council to revoke the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act 1959 of those areas as set out in the Proposal tabled by me in the House on 27 May 2003, viz— 2940 Revocation of State Forest 19 Aug 2003

(a) All those parts of Curtis Island State Forest (SF27) described as Lot 11 on CP860464 and within stations V-AX on CP860403 and containing about 139.2 hectares; (b) All those parts of Expedition State Forest (SF29) described as within stations 24-32-40-24 on SP134382 and Area A on draft plan FTY1847 and containing about 130.425 hectares; (c) All that part of Mahen State Forest (SF98) described as Lot 3 on SP106733 and containing 17.29 hectares; (d) All that part of Amaroo State Forest (SF236) described as Lot 1 on SP158692 and containing 3.567 hectares; (e) All that part of Parklands State Forest (SF249) described as within stations 5-4-3-5 on SP116483 and containing 0.1199 of a hectare; (f) All those parts of Wietalaba State Forest (SF583) described as Lot 4 on SP144762 and within stations 3- 7-8-9-4-3 on SP144762 and containing 37.3257 hectares; (g) All those parts of Watalgan State Forest (SF898) described as Areas A, B and C on draft plan FTY1820 and containing about 0.668 of a hectare; (h) The whole of Mapleton State Forest (SF1239) containing an area of about 2.4 hectares. (2) That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament convey a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Environment for submission to the Governor in Council. I only support the revocation of land from the parks and forest estate for alternative uses if it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposed usage is in the broader public interest. Careful consideration has been given to each proposal and in each instance detailed consultation has occurred with affected state and local government agencies. Native title issues have also been considered in relation to the above proposals and in each case it has been determined that the action may proceed. I will now outline the background for each proposal and the offsetting arrangements that will be implemented where appropriate. Curtis Island State Forest SF27 The first proposal deals with the revocation of areas totalling about 139.2 hectares from Curtis Island State Forest, located about 20 kilometres north-west of Gladstone. As a result of a tenure renewal application some years ago involving a pastoral holding, new tourism and grazing leases were granted with the remainder of the holding becoming available for a national park, conservation park and state forest purposes. As a result of this grant, in February 2003 an area of about 7,630 hectares was added to Curtis Island State Forest. Part of the grant involved the excision from the existing state forest of an area of about 83 hectares for addition to the tourism lease and an area of about 56.2 hectares for road purposes. The 83 hectares will be the location of the dam to be built to provide the water supply to the proposed resort at Black Head on the east coast of Curtis Island. The road will link the resort to the original homestead in the centre of the island enabling visitors to the resort to experience a working cattle station as part of their stay on Curtis Island. Expedition State Forest SF29 The second proposal involves two actions relating to the revocation of areas totalling about 130.425 hectares from Expedition State Forest, located about 155 kilometres south-east of Emerald. In the first action the holder of a special lease over part of the state forest has applied to freehold an area of 129.8 hectares that contains a dwelling and associated farm infrastructure. The area proposed for excision is adjacent to the Dawson Highway with a frontage of approximately 1.6 kilometres and has been held by the current lessee since 1987. The subject area is no longer required for forestry purposes and excision of the area will have minimal impact on forestry operations on the reserve. As part of this proposal an area of about 91.5 hectares on the southern side of the Dawson Highway will be made available for addition to the state forest. The second action is the result of an application by a second lessee and applies to a different area of state forest. It involves an area of about 0.625 of a hectare required for a bore site to be excised from the leased area and included in the adjoining grazing homestead perpetual lease. The forestry values of the bore site are significantly disturbed with little scope for rehabilitation in the immediate future. Because of the small size and current use of the area, public benefit to present and future generations will not be diminished by the proposed excision action. Mahen State Forest SF98 The third proposal involves the revocation of 17.29 hectares from Mahen State Forest that is located about 40 kilometres north-east of Dalby. The Wambo Shire Council has utilised part of Mahen State Forest for recreation purposes since 1964 under a term lease agreement. Part of 19 Aug 2003 Revocation of State Forest 2941 the area proposed for excision has been utilised for many years as a cricket oval, and that part will be used for horse and motorcycle riding trails. It has now been determined that the most appropriate tenure for this area is a recreation reserve under the trusteeship of the Wambo Shire Council. The area proposed for revocation also contains small patches of remnant softwood vegetation of high conservation value, and the Wambo Shire Council has agreed to manage the land to protect those values. Amaroo State Forest SF236 The fourth proposal deals with the revocation of 3.567 hectares from Amaroo State Forest, located about 21 kilometres south-west of Blackwater. A new coalmine is being developed at Rolleston and Queensland Transport is planning to extend the rail line to service the new mine. Part of the proposed rail line crosses Amaroo State Forest at its eastern extremity, and Queensland Transport has sought to excise the affected area. Investigations have shown the proposed rail line cannot be moved further east to avoid Amaroo State Forest as there is an existing mining lease on the adjoining area, which is currently used for the south Blackwater mine stockpile and no provision currently exists to resume part of the mining lease. The affected state forest area is not considered to have significant conservation or commercial timber values. Compensation for the revoked area will enable the Environmental Protection Agency to acquire land for addition to the parks and forest estate to offset this loss. The revocation will allow the railway line to be constructed so it will be ready to serve the mine, which is scheduled for full-scale production next year. Parklands State Forest SF249 The fifth proposal involves the excision of 0.1199 of a hectare from Parklands State Forest, located just north of Nambour. The owners of freehold land which adjoins the state forest have sought to acquire this portion of the state forest for access to their property. The subject area was formerly part of a special lease for agricultural purposes, which expired in 1998 and was not renewed. The owners' house has been constructed very close to the state forest boundary. Part of the lease area provided practical access to the lessee's residence on freehold land adjoining the state forest. The area now proposed for revocation from the state forest will be included in the adjoining freehold lot to secure access to the property. The balance of the lease area will be rehabilitated to wet sclerophyll forest incorporating a fire line for protection of both the state forest and improvements on adjoining land. Wietalaba State Forest SF583 Proposal No. 6 involves the revocation of about 37.3257 hectares from Wietalaba State Forest, which is located about 28 kilometres south of Calliope. The Gladstone Area Water Board expressed an interest in acquiring this portion of the Wietalaba State Forest to accommodate the realignment of the Gladstone to Monto road forced by the raising of the Awoonga Dam and some subsequent water inundation. In conjunction with this excision, the Gladstone Area Water Board has offered an area consisting of 40.6 hectares for addition to Wietalaba State Forest to offset the area proposed for revocation. Watalgan State Forest—SF989—the seventh proposal—involves the revocation of about 0.668 of a hectare from Watalgan State Forest, which is located about 40 kilometres north-west of Bundaberg. An area of about 36 hectares was excised from Watalgan State Forest to allow Queensland Rail to realign and upgrade the north coast rail line. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines later advised that some areas were overlooked in the original excision and that a further revocation of small areas totalling about 0.668 of a hectare was required for rail and road purposes to allow the finalisation of the project. The final proposal involves the revocation of areas totalling about 2.4 hectares, being the whole of Mapleton State Forest, located about 10 kilometres west of Nambour. As the excision of the subject area was part of a longstanding exchange proposal, this area was retained as state forest when the balance of the forest was transferred to forest reserve states as part of the South- East Queensland Forest Agreement process. Part of the area proposed for excision is to be added to an adjoining freehold property and the balance is required for road purposes. The land exchange was initiated some years ago to provide dedicated access to a proposed state forest park as entry to the area was via the adjoining freehold land. The owners of the adjoining freehold property agreed to the exchange proposal. In 1991 an agreement was entered into between the landowners and the Conservator of Forests for the purpose of an exchange in 2942 Revocation of State Forest 19 Aug 2003 terms of section 371 of the Land Act 1962 under which both parties agreed that the areas proposed for exchange were of equal value. It was considered that the proposed land exchange and associated road dedication would enhance boundary definition between the state forest and the adjoining freehold land and would aid in the management and the fire protection of the state forest, now Mapleton forest reserve. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (3.31 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the Minister for Environment. This action is required to ensure a balance between protecting our natural assets and facilitating development. The government takes these matters seriously. Matters such as this are not proceeded without serious consideration and a thorough examination of all alternatives. The proposed revocation for the Amaroo State Forest is about three hectares and is required to facilitate development of the 110-kilometre, $200 million Bauhinia regional railway. The catalyst for the proposed development is the Rolleston coalmine. The railway line is expected to carry about $8 billion worth of coal from the Rolleston coalmine to Gladstone over the next 20 years. Other substantial coal and grain producers are also expected to use the line. An environmental impact statement found that no significant environmental issues were associated with the loss of this small area at the end of the state forest. I support the motion. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (3.32 p.m.): In keeping with the positive politics agenda of the coalition, I rise to support the motion moved by the Minister for Environment. To my knowledge, the revocation of state forest motion has been moved by the government to enable a number of vital infrastructure projects to proceed, such as rail sidings and the like. As we are all aware, revocation motions are occasionally a necessary part of the government spectrum. However, the revocation power should be used with great care and in consideration of our natural resources. This revocation of state forest motion is to affect eight different forest areas throughout Queensland. The varied purchases for the numerous revocations include a land exchange, the excision of a boat site, establishing a rail link, and for other road and rail purposes. In total, over 330 hectares will be revoked. I acknowledge that 330 hectares appears to be an extraordinarily large area and I hope that every Beattie backbencher raised concerns regarding the extensive area with their colleague the Minister for Environment. I expect that the Minister for Environment took those concerns into due consideration along with the scientific assessments of his department before moving such a motion. Every member of the House is aware of the importance of our natural resources. Our state forest reserves are a key jewel in Queensland's crown of natural resources. The responsibility of the government to care for and maintain our natural resources is one of the greatest responsibilities that it can have. As every member of this House is aware, the people of Queensland value their natural resource assets. They treat them with great reverence and they expect the government to do the same. In south-east Queensland there is approximately 700,000 hectares covered by the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement. I understand that 1,000 hectares of this land will not be suitable for national parks and, therefore, will be turned into conservation park or public open space. The government's intention in relation to the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement has been made quite clear. However, there are a number of significant concerns in relation to this initiative. The government's record in maintaining public land is not good. Quite frankly, we would like to see a better job done. Maintenance funding for public lands has remained virtually stagnant for the term of the Beattie government. Fire management has simply not occurred and much state land has now been reduced to being an unkempt bushfire hazard. Everybody says that another Canberra bushfire could not happen here. That is what the ACT government said. Feral animals and pests have been permitted to overrun some state lands to the detriment of neighbours and other land-holders. Feral pigs, dogs and cats have succeeded in destroying endangered flora and fauna and unbalancing Queensland's delicate ecosystem. In conclusion, I would like to restate that a revocation motion should be used with great care and consideration. Revoking the protected status of our state's natural assets is not a power that should be used without great care. However, when used for the purposes of facilitating vital state infrastructure, these motions are occasionally a necessary part of the government spectrum. It is for these reasons that the coalition is offering support to the motion. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.36 p.m.): I rise to speak to the revocation motion and in particular those two areas in my electorate to which it relates. The Curtis Island area of state forest—or part of that forest area lease agreement—has been subject to quite extensive study by a firm that used to be called Monte Christo but which is now called Queensland Resort Enterprises. I became a member of the Calliope council in 1988 and its plans and application 19 Aug 2003 Revocation of State Forest 2943 came to the council not long after that because a son wanted to see his father's wishes fulfilled. So over that long period, this application has gone through the genesis of being a resort that was inappropriate for the location to being remodelled to become a more suitable resort for the environment in which it is proposed to be located. The developers initially agreed to accept access to Black Head via Hobble Gully and that was after an investigation by the Department of Environment and others as to the location on the island that could best cope with the type of access that was proposed. Recently, the developers tried to have that changed to Southend. To the minister's credit, that was refused and they were required again to gain access through Hobble Gully, which environmentally is the best option. I note that the revocation will also allow for trails to link the original Monte Christo homestead to the Black Head resort development. I am sure that that will be an experience for many people that is well worth the time to take, because the Monte Christo homestead has grazed animals in some quite interesting situations. The other matter that I wanted to put on the record was my support to the Department of Environment for its assistance to the Calliope Shire Council and also its insistence in its capacity as an environment protector to ensure that things like lighting at the resort were appropriate, because there is a turtle rookery at the base of Black Head. I think that the government and the council have to remain very strong to ensure that appropriate lighting occurs and no inappropriate activities occur on that beach where the rookery has been established for a long time. Again, I commend the minister, because the department has been strident in protecting those values. With regard to the Wietalaba State Forest, the Gladstone Area Water Board has been, in conjunction with government, instrumental in increasing the size of Awoonga Dam to better allow the water board to ensure security of supply of domestic, commercial and industrial water. I assume that this increase in area would be the extension of the dam area as far as inundation is concerned. Also, the road relocation and surfacing has allowed Boyne Valley residents to commute into Gladstone and to the coast on a fully sealed road. I put on the record that the extension of the state forest as a result of the water board's extension of the dam has had an impact on the Boyne Valley community. It has lost a lot of historic families and a lot of community support. We are looking forward to the fact that the development and surfacing of the road and the change in the direction of the community in the Boyne Valley will introduce some new commercial enterprises and re-enliven that community in the long term. I support the revocations. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (3.41 p.m.): As the minister and shadow minister said in agreeing on the key principle of this revocation, any revocation of state forest deserves to be treated seriously. This step has been approached with two key principles in mind: the preservation of a natural asset and the changing demands of a growing and evolving Queensland community. The Wietalaba State Forest revocation is near Calliope, covers about 37 hectares and will facilitate the expansion of the Awoonga Dam and realignment of an existing road. The Gladstone Area Water Board will surrender some environmentally sensitive land as part of the compensation package. The Mahen State Forest is located about 40 kilometres north of Dalby. The area in question is about 17 hectares that the Wambo shire has sought as recreation reserve. The shire has had a long-term interest in this proposal. It will offer the local community a range of recreational pursuits, including horse riding and motorcycling. The Curtis Island State Forest is located about 20 kilometres north-west of Gladstone. This revocation of about 140 hectares will facilitate the expansion of a tourism lease and a road following the surrender of a substantial area of land for national park purposes by the tourism leaseholder. This land dealing finalises a significant gain for conservation and the tourism industry with the development of the Monte Christo, or Queensland Resort Enterprises, project and is clearly a case of positive strategic and forward looking management by this government. The final area I wish to refer to is an area of about 2.5 hectares near Mapleton in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. This parcel of state forest is to be revoked for road purposes and will provide access to freehold blocks that have had access problems for a long time. It will also improve access to the Mapleton forest reserve that is part of the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement area and will improve management arrangements, including fire protection. It is clear from the steps that have been taken here that where something has been taken away—that is, a natural asset—some other benefit has been given to the community. I commend these revocations to the House. I can assure the House that these proposals have been fully investigated and are in the public interest. 2944 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 19 Aug 2003

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (3.42 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable members for Keppel, Gladstone, Stafford and Mansfield for their support for these adjustments and I commend them to honourable members. Motion agreed to.

TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL RECOGNITION (QUEENSLAND) BILL Second Reading Resumed from 4 June (see p. 2548). Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.43 p.m.): When I first saw the title of this bill I thought it was perhaps a bill for New Zealanders to be able to recognise that it is only about one year in five that they win the Bledisloe Cup and one year in 10 that they win the netball, but I see that it goes a bit deeper than that. This is an important bill. Since the establishment of mutual recognition between Australia and New Zealand, generally speaking overall trade between the two nations has increased by around nine per cent. I think that shows that when we get rid of barriers to trade in the area of goods and services we enable people to be competitive, to open up their markets and to forge ahead, rather than have an isolated, insular attitude. Mutual recognition between the two nations has extended not simply to goods and services but also to occupations. Despite being two nations separated by the creek, as the New Zealanders call it, people in particular professions and trades have been able to ply those trades in either nation. This bill recognises that there has been a mutual recognition agreement between the states of Australia. That was put in place in the early 1990s. That also allowed a freeing up of recognition of standards relating to goods and services or particularly to occupations. That really extended the principles of Federation, whereby we took away the customs entry points, the charging of taxes and so on between states and freed up everything in Australia so that we were able to have free trade between the states. This bill enables the Queensland government, along with all other Australian jurisdictions, and New Zealand to recognise that we are a signatory to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement, which does promote freedom of trade in goods and services between Australia and New Zealand. Participation in this arrangement is underpinned by legislation in each separate jurisdiction. The objective of the bill we are debating today is to ensure Queensland is able to have continued participation in the arrangement. The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement was signed by the Prime Minister, premiers and chief ministers at a COAG meeting in June 1996. Australia implemented the arrangement pursuant to section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth parliament to make laws with respect to matters referred to it by the parliament of a state or territory. It was New South Wales that referred the power to the Commonwealth to legislate for trans-Tasman mutual recognition. As a result, parliaments in other states subsequently adopted that Commonwealth law. The TTMRA commenced on 1 May 1998. This legislation basically hinges on that date, as a five-year review was set to take place. That review by the Commonwealth has not been completed, but it is important that Queensland passes this legislation to ensure continuity of the arrangement. In March 1999 the Queensland parliament adopted the Commonwealth act through the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1999. We are here today basically continuing on with that and recognising all of the principles that were in the first act that was put in place for five years. The TTMRA implements the following principles regarding freedom of trade in goods and services and is subject to a number of specific exemptions. There is a system of permanent and temporary exemptions. Basically, the principles are that, firstly, goods which may lawfully be sold in Australia can lawfully be sold in New Zealand, irrespective of different jurisdictional specific standards applying to goods in either jurisdiction, and vice versa; and, secondly, a person who is registered to practise an occupation in New Zealand may practise an equivalent occupation in Australia and vice versa. The arrangement is an extension of the mutual recognition agreement in Australia which came into being in the early 1990s. It extends the benefits of the MRA as they have existed in Australia to the market in goods and services between Australia and New Zealand. 19 Aug 2003 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 2945

The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1999 contained an expiry clause which provided that the act would expire five years from the date of proclamation of the Commonwealth legislation. Therefore, our act expired on 30 April 2003. The basis of this bill is to ensure continuity following that expiration and to provide some retrospectivity to ensure everything is covered. The Queensland act was scheduled to expire to coincide with the five-year review of both the MRA and the TTMRA. The Productivity Commission is currently reviewing both of those, and its report is scheduled for completion in September this year. The COAG committee on regulatory reform will then examine the Productivity Commission's findings and prepare recommendations for COAG by the end of the year. It is desirable that Queensland continues to be a participating jurisdiction. It is proposed to re-enact the Queensland act to make application of the new act retrospective to the date of expiry of the original Queensland act. It is not proposed to include an expiry provision in the new Queensland act. Rather, it will simply state that the review should take place within five years. I think there is a number of things to be noted. Continuity will be provided in the treatment of goods and occupations that are affected by the TTMRA. That is important. Consistency will be ensured with the five yearly review in tandem with the Australian MRA. Queensland, as a participating jurisdiction, will be involved in reviews of both the TTMRA and MRA every five years simultaneously with the Commonwealth. The continuation of Queensland's participation in the TTMRA will not impose any additional costs on government. The bill is consistent with fundamental legislative principles. There is the matter of the retrospective application of the bill, but I believe that is necessary in these circumstances and we will not be opposing that in any shape or form. With respect to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the bill preserves and safeguards with respect to the reference of power to the Commonwealth the safeguards that were contained in the original Queensland act. The reference to power of the Commonwealth to enact legislation implementing the TTMRA does not extend to the amendments to the Commonwealth act made after the original enactment. Whilst the reference to power does not enable the Governor-General to make regulations for the purpose of amending schedules to the Commonwealth act, the exercise of power is subject to the consent of participating jurisdictions. Under the Queensland legislation, the Governor has power to make a gazette notice endorsing a regulation to be made under the Commonwealth act. To ensure that the Queensland parliament may scrutinise a regulation to be made under the Commonwealth act, the Queensland legislation states that the Governor may make a particular gazette notice only by the express authority of an act. There are a number of important exclusions and exemptions from the TTMRA which will be maintained in this bill. Laws relating to customs and tariffs, intellectual property, taxation and other specific international conventions are excluded from the TTMRA. Laws relating to public health and safety matters, such as firearms, fireworks, gaming machines and indecent or pornographic material are permanently exempt from the TTMRA. I mentioned that there were permanent and temporary exemptions. These temporary exemptions involve laws such as those dealing with hazardous substances, industrial chemicals and dangerous goods subject to temporary exemption from the TTMRA. Finally, some laws regarding occupations such as those dealing with medical practitioners are also exempt from the TTMRA. There were also some special exemptions involved in the original legislation and principles. Some exemptions needed to have a decision made in relation to them. A number still have more work to be done. So basically the status quo of the permanent and temporary exemptions will remain in place, and these special exemptions will also stay in place. Exemptions related to things like therapeutic goods, where more work needs to be done. The Productivity Commission probably will not have that finished until about 2006. So there is a special exemption until then. The exemptions on motor vehicles are extended to 2006. New Zealand has about three different standards for motor vehicles, so more work needs to be done on getting some commonality on standards. Similarly, with gas appliances New Zealand has voluntary standards. With radio communications there is a need to identify frequencies that can be aligned. If that cannot occur, some form of exemption is needed. Consumer product safety—for example, child car safety restraints—has not been resolved. They are some examples of some of the special exemptions where resolution has not yet been made as to a common standard and a standard that can be agreed to by both jurisdictions. In conclusion, this legislation is required to ensure that 2946 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 19 Aug 2003

Queensland continues as a participating party in the TTMRA and provides the continuity that we need in goods and services occupations. The opposition will be supporting this bill. Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (3.55 p.m.), in reply: I thank the shadow minister for his words and for his indication of support for this bill. I know the shadow minister is also aware that it is my intention in the committee stage to move a number of amendments, which I have already circulated and have provided to him, that deal with the retrospectivity of this particular piece of legislation and the government's desire to make sure that we protect any act that has taken place from the period of time when the existing legislation had expired in terms of its five-year expiry date up to such time as this new bill becomes an act in hopefully the near future if we are of a mind to pass it here this afternoon. It was important that we validated any such actions that were taken during this period of a number of months between the expiration of the existing legislation and the take-up of the new legislation. I certainly thank the shadow minister for his indication of support of this bill. As he said, it is most important that we do have that high level of close cooperation between the two nations on either side of the Tasman, or the ditch. Obviously there is a great deal of competition between those two nations, as we saw on Saturday night. Notwithstanding that, they are genuinely our cousins on the other side of the Tasman, and this piece of legislation has stood the test of time very well in terms of our ability to enhance in the most positive possible way freedom of trade between our two nations and also the recognition of qualifications—barriers which certainly do not need to be there between the nations of New Zealand and Australia. I make the point that, at a time when there is some tension between the federal government and the state government, this is another example of where, with goodwill, national governments of whatever political persuasion and state governments can work together in a very positive way to make sure that we look after the interests of our citizens and our constituents as well as looking after the trade issues of this nation along with that of our neighbour and genuine cousins in New Zealand—no matter how much we like to take the mickey out of each other at various times. I would like very openly to thank the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee for its cooperation with regard to this bill. I know that at times, particularly when retrospectivity is involved, there could be some sensitivities about this, particularly the amendments that I intend to move very shortly in the committee stage. I am also quietly confident that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee will understand that, while it has not been able to get across those in a very thorough way up to date, they are very desirable amendments. In fact, they came about as a result of the very good work of one of the members of my committee in terms of legislation and policy. The member for Kurwongbah raised the fact that there may be some potential issues with regard to validation of acts from when the existing act had expired and the new one was to commence. That was proven to be absolutely correct when I sought legal advice from Crown Law about that. I am sure the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee will also understand the need to put these amendments through to validate those actions in the interests of the people who would otherwise potentially be affected by it. I thank the parliament for its time and commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) in charge of the bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr BARTON (4.00 p.m.): I know that the shadow minister has indicated that he also wishes to speak to this clause, but so that we can have a thorough debate on this I have an amendment to clause 2. I move amendment No. 1— 1 Clause 2— At page 6, line 6, 'section 12'— omit, insert— 'sections 10A to 10C and 12'. Mr HORAN: I will simply bring up clauses 2, 5 and 10 because they have been mentioned in the Alert Digest. I think it is important that we go through them and make sure that any particular issues brought up by the committee can be addressed. 19 Aug 2003 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 2947

The minister referred to the fact that the key concern that the government had was the retrospectivity, which the minister mentioned in his concluding remarks on the previous debate. I also indicated that we see the very real need for retrospectivity in this particular case. It is important for practical reasons and I think, from what I can see of the amendments, to note that what the amendments are doing is tightening up those retrospectivity arrangements to ensure that everything is properly covered and that those people who may have done some particular trade in goods or services or occupations in that particular time—in that time between the expiry of the previous legislation and the implementation of this new legislation—will be adequately covered by these particular clauses. I wanted to make that comment. Clauses 2 and 10 really are the ones that refer to retrospectivity. The minister may have something else to say on that. We support the retrospectivity. We do not have a problem with it in this particular case. Mr BARTON: I think I have potentially already covered that issue, but it was important that we absolutely cover the set of circumstances because of the need for retrospectivity to be put into place from the end of April until such time as this bill becomes an act. Very clearly, we did wait as long as possible. In the normal course of events it would have been better had the existing act been replaced by a new act prior to, or effectively from, 1 May this year—the old act having expired on 30 April this year. We were all waiting for that Productivity Commission review that has taken place. That had not been completed. By the time we realised that it was not going to be we did move as quickly as we could. Again it is very important that we not only provide for retrospectivity in a technical way for this legislation, but that we also validate any acts that have been taken during that period of time that have been taken in good faith by people with every expectation that the existing set of circumstances were in place after 30 April up until now. This is one of the amendments that goes to the heart of making sure that we not only provide effective retrospectivity, but that we do it in a way that does not disadvantage anybody on the way through. That is why I make the point that I am quietly confident that the Scrutiny of Legislation committee, even though in the normal course of events it would have been better if they had had this previously, is in a position to see that we are doing this for all of the correct reasons—to make sure that we protect the interests of any person who may otherwise have been disadvantaged. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 and 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr BARTON (4.06 p.m.): So that we can make sure that we have everything in front of us for the discussion on this clause, I move amendment No. 2— 2 Clause 10— At page 8, after line 13— insert— '(3) However, if the thing was done because of the expiry, this section is subject to section 10A. ' 10A Saving of acts done due to expiry '(1) The adoption of the Commonwealth Act under section 5 during the expiry period does not apply to an act done by a local registration authority during the expiry period if the act— (a) was done because of the expiry; and (b) was valid when done; and (c) would, except for the expiry, be invalid if the Commonwealth Act were applied to it. Example— If the lodgement of a notice was refused because of the expiry, the adoption of the Commonwealth Act under section 5 does not apply to that refusal so as to make it invalid. '(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the adoption of the Commonwealth Act under section 5 during the expiry period does not apply to the extent of requiring the counting of any period for the purposes of part 3 of the Commonwealth Act during the expiry period. Example if notice given before expiry period— If a notice was lodged under part 3 of the Commonwealth Act before the expiry period and a local registration authority did not deal with the notice during the expiry period, no part of the expiry period is counted in deciding the period that has passed since the notice was lodged. The counting of the period recommences on the enactment of this Act. 2948 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 19 Aug 2003

Example if notice given during expiry period— If a notice was purportedly lodged under part 3 of the Commonwealth Act during the expiry period and a local registration authority did not deal with the notice because of the expiry, no part of the expiry period is counted in deciding the period that has passed since the notice was lodged. The counting of the period commences on the enactment of this Act. '(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the counting of a period by a local registration authority for the purposes of part 3 of the Commonwealth Act, if the local registration authority counted the period despite the expiry. '(4) In this section, a reference to the doing of an act includes a reference to the making of an omission. '(5) In this section— "expiry" means the expiry of the previous Act. "expiry period" means the period between the expiry and the commencement of this section. "local registration authority" means a local registration authority as defined under the Commonwealth Act in relation to Queensland. ' 10B Limitation of liability '(1) A person is not liable for any loss or damage arising from anything to which section 10(2) applies if the person would not have been liable for the loss or damage if the previous Act had not expired before the thing was done or purported to be done. '(2) A person is not liable for any loss or damage arising out of any act of a local registration authority during the expiry period to the extent the act is done— (a) on the basis that the previous Act had expired; or (b) on the basis that the previous Act had not expired or as if the previous Act had not expired; or (c) on the basis that the Commonwealth Act would again be adopted for Queensland, whether or not for the expiry period. '(3) In this section— "expiry period" means the period between the expiry of the previous Act and the commencement of this section. "local registration authority" means a local registration authority as defined under the Commonwealth Act in relation to Queensland. "person" includes the State and a local registration authority. ' 10C Transitional regulation-making power '(1) A regulation (a "transitional regulation") may make provision about a matter for which— (a) it is necessary to make provision— (i) to allow or facilitate the doing of anything to achieve the transition from the operation of the previous Act to the operation of this Act; or (ii) without limiting subparagraph (i), to provide for anything done or not done between the expiry of the previous Act and the enactment of this Act; and (b) this Act does not make provision or sufficient provision. '(2) A transitional regulation may have retrospective operation to a day not earlier than 1 May 2003. '(3) A transitional regulation must declare it is a transitional regulation. '(4) This section and any transitional regulation expire 1 year after the commencement of this section.'. Again I make the point that this is one of those clauses that I have already spoken about in my response, and also in speaking to my first amendment, that goes to the heart of retrospectivity and protecting people's interests. Mr HORAN: We are satisfied with this clause. In a similar way to clause 2, it is making sure that retrospectivity properly covers every possible occupational transfer, sales, goods and services and so forth. We are fully satisfied with it. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Barton, by leave, read a third time. 19 Aug 2003 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2949

SUGAR INDUSTRY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Resumption of Committee Resumed from 27 May 2003 (see p. 2136) Clauses 1 to 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr ROWELL (4.11 p.m.): Clause 22 relates to transfer and dissolution. New section 352 will provide that— On the transfer day— (a) BSES's assets and liabilities are transferred to, and become the assets and liabilities of, the replacement corporation; and (b) BSES is dissolved. The BSES is also involved with plant breeding. I believe an important issue in the future will concern plant variety rights and other practices that could be attributed to the BSES. What if at some stage somebody says, 'While I was part of the BSES I developed a certain variety or did something else that was quite important in terms of cane growing, but it has not necessarily gone across with the BSES'? I seek a guarantee from the minister that all of the assets relating to BSES as a statutory body, including plant variety rights, methods and other things that were important to the organisation and the people it served—the growers and the government—will be transferred across with the BSES. Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for his concern, which is a genuine one, in terms of intellectual property issues. Let me assure the honourable member that the existing intellectual property is currently owned by the statutory BSES. Post transfer, this intellectual property will be owned by the replacement BSES entity, which will be industry owned and controlled. I can give the honourable member a categorical assurance that his concerns will not be fulfilled, in that under the arrangements currently in place with the BSES all of those things are fully owned by the BSES and, as such, will still remain under the control of the new BSES entity. I have had discussions on this with industry. It is quite comfortable with the way things are going. I can understand why the honourable member has raised this issue; there have been issues concerning intellectual property in other areas. Let me reassure the honourable member that that will not be the case in the transfer of the assets with the BSES. Mr ROWELL: Although cane production boards do not arise under this clause, I indicate that I would hope the same situation will apply to them, too. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is correct; the same issues apply to the CPBs as well. Mr MALONE: I turn to proposed section 357, headed 'Employees'. Obviously, the BSES has some longstanding and valuable employees. I note that the proposed section reinforces their continued employment and the continuation of their entitlements. Can the minister assure us that that will be the case and that there are no irregularities in the proposed act that will disadvantage any of the BSES employees in the transfer of ownership? Mr PALASZCZUK: All employees of the BSES will transfer to the new entity with all of their entitlements maintained. There will be no redundancies as a result of the transfer of the BSES. There are 214 permanent employees, the majority of whom are members of the superannuation funds that are provided by BSES, and they will retain their membership and entitlements. Seasonally employed cane testers—around 80 positions—also hold Q-Super funds. If employed by the BSES at the time of transfer, these people will retain the provision for employer contributions to these funds. The 27 employees of the CPBs are similarly expected to maintain employment within the industry. I can give the honourable member those assurances as well. I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 22— At page 18, line 12, 'on or before 30 June 2003'— omit, insert— 'declared by gazette notice'. The amendment to new section 351 changes the date of incorporation of the BSES. It omits the requirement in line 12 on page 18 for the transfer to have occurred on or prior to 30 June 2003. We all know that that date has now passed. Instead, this amendment requires the transfer day for the BSES to be declared by gazette. As the current term of the BSES board expires on 23 2950 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

September 2003, I would expect the BSES to propose a transfer day on or before that date, and the sooner the better. Mr ROWELL: The industry had a clear indication that it was to finish on 30 June 2003. I hope that the late passage of this legislation means that no agreements struck by the organisation will be affected. Originally it was intended to have this legislation completed—and I believe we could have done so—well before 30 June 2003. Can we have a guarantee from the minister that this will not create any impediments? Mr PALASZCZUK: My understanding is that there have been no impediments. The same situation as existed prior to 30 June exists today. As far as I am concerned, it is a case of better late than never. Amendment agreed to. Clause 22, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr PALASZCZUK (4.20 p.m.): Subsection (4) is to be amended so that it provides for the chief executive to consider a number of things when making a decision under subsection (3) rather than under subsection (4) as is currently drafted with regard to approved plant varieties. This amendment in clause 31 is only there to address a drafting error. I formally move amendment No. 2 circulated in my name— 2 Clause 31— At page 30, line 12, 'subsection (4)'— omit, insert— 'subsection (3)'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY POWERS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 April (see p. 1354). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.23 p.m.): Unfortunately, in view of the current world political environment, this legislation is a very important piece of legislation for Queensland and the wider community. It is legislation that we all sincerely hope will never have to be called upon, but realistically we must prepare for the worst case scenario. I know we do not receive any notice of the worst case scenario in the environment that currently exists with the scum who are perpetrating crimes on the world at the moment. This legislation amends the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 to provide powers to deal with chemical, biological and radiological emergencies. There has already been considerable work done by the responsible state agencies in preparing a response to the possibility of chemical, biological or radiological incidents. Naturally, recent world events have made preparedness for such events even more critical. The likelihood of such events has been heightened by the emergence of world terrorism, but of course in today's society, which depends more and more on the substances covered by this legislation, the possibility of actions involving them must also be provided for. Whilst the necessary response plans within the State Counter Disaster Plan have now been endorsed—back in February—the Solicitor-General has identified that the existing legislative regime may not be sufficient to authorise the types of action necessary to respond to incidents of the type covered by this bill. Specifically, existing provisions do not enable persons to be detained by emergency personnel to require them to undertake forcible decontamination and/or treatment in order to contain the spread of a CBR substance or its effect. 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2951

This amending bill enables a police officer of assistant commissioner rank or above to be a CBR emergency coordinator and to declare a CBR emergency if he or she is satisfied that something involving a CBR substance has occurred and is likely to pose a serious risk to the life or health of individuals. Once such an emergency is declared, the CBRE coordinator may delegate his or her powers to control the emergency in question. Police officers will be given the power to detain persons, seize property and establish identity while they and fire officers, health officers and ambulance officers will be able to give directions to restrict movement. Veterinary officers will also be able to give directions about animals. Medical officers and ambulance personnel will also be able to examine and treat persons, and all classes of officers have the power to destroy property that has been seized by police officers. The arrangements in relation to a declared emergency are that the coordinator must properly inform the Minister for Police, who must end the emergency as soon as he or she is satisfied that it is no longer required. The state of CBR emergency will expire in 24 hours unless it is extended by the minister or the Premier, who can extend it for up to seven days after the event. It will automatically expire unless extended by regulation for up to 14 days at a time. I might ask the minister to elaborate further on this in his summary. Considering the recent changes in the world of scientific investigation, especially in our police forces throughout the world, the make-up of a substance can be detected very quickly. But in the case of multiple substances, this could need to be extended further. I ask the minister to elaborate further on that in his summary. I know it is a contentious issue, but it is one that could quite easily arise. The power to delegate powers can only be exercised for up to 48 hours unless it is extended on application to a Supreme Court judge. Again, this comes back to how critical this situation can be. This can involve two or three agencies, and we are talking here about the powers of the Police Minister and also the powers of the Premier with perhaps input from the judicial system. However, included in the safeguards provided by this legislation is the provision that judicial review by a Supreme Court judge is needed for any detention beyond the 48 hours. I point out that this legislation has very significant impacts upon the personal rights and freedoms of citizens. Obviously, the principles behind the need for this bill are something that the opposition supports, but we have a number of specific practical concerns about the implications of this bill. This country has never been subjected to this type of legislation before and we had hoped that we would never, ever need this type of legislation to be enacted in this state. But as I said at the start of my speech, we do not know what is around the corner in this changing world we live in. I just hope and pray that the minister, the Premier, future ministers and future premiers never have to enact this legislation in Queensland and, for that matter, that we never see it enacted anywhere else in Australia. But the precautions have to be taken and I know that we have to keep up our guard. I find it intriguing that the explanatory notes to this legislation state that the management of a CBR emergency will not have any direct financial implications. With all due respect, I believe that those are weasel words. We talk about the disaster in New York, we talk about the disaster in Bali and the recent one in Jakarta. There certainly have to be financial implications. I ask the minister if he could elaborate further on that in his reply. What does he mean by 'direct financial implications'? Why is this comment confined to the management of such an incident? Let me assure the House that the management of such an incident is likely to have an enormous financial impact upon the state and upon individuals. I will start firstly with a practical issue: compensation. I ask the minister: will there be compensation payable to a citizen who is impacted by the action of officers responding to such an incident? If property is seized and destroyed, a fundamental question surely is: is there to be compensation? If not, what processes are to be available to the general public to recover from such an incident that cannot be without cause of some type or other? As the minister knows, insurance policies will not cover acts of terrorism. I note that this legislation protects the person acting in accordance with the legislation and in good faith from liability—and rightly so. But what about the liability of the state? That is an issue that is causing me and the other members of the opposition some concern. I was also bemused to note that the consultation that has taken place has been with the relevant government departments and there is a conspicuous absence of any consultation with the public. This legislation is important for the protection of Queensland citizens, so I would have thought that members of the public should have been consulted in the formulation of this bill. What about the army of bureaucrats who are employed in the infamous Community Engagement 2952 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

Division of the Premier's Department? What is it engaging with the community on? It sure as hell does not seem to me to be consulting with the community on the likely impact of this legislation. I presume that it must be that division's task to identify the raft of new taxes that the government is promoting to save its financial hide. It is probably the parlous financial state of the government that has also made sure that there is no mention of funding to train or equip the people who are to be vested with these enormous powers. There are also other enormous financial implications that are ignored by this legislation. We are giving power for people and property to be treated and decontaminated. The question is: where and how? Can the minister assure us that sufficient resources are available to respond to such an emergency? With the present performance of our health system, I do not believe that they are. I can go on. We have witnessed some catastrophic events on the international stage over the past couple of years. Consequently, it is a pressing issue for the Queensland Police Service and other emergency services in this state to provide some very sophisticated training to bring personnel up to date with directing people if one of these events that I hope will never happen does occur. I will play devil's advocate and put a proposition to the minister. Say there was a scare in the police station at Mount Isa where we have quite a number of police officers but only a certain number of those personnel are trained and they are not on duty at the time. As I see it, there may need to be some sort of training procedure put in place right across the emergency services—police, ambulance and fire—so that those people can address the issue in question. I know that in many other countries of the world people are prepared for these sorts of disasters, but here in Australia we hope that they will never happen. It is important to know that our police, our fire and rescue people, and our ambulance personnel are adequately trained and understand what can happen in this type of situation. The same goes for the assumption of skill in communications. I again ask the minister: if a serious terrorist attack involving biological agents was to occur tomorrow in a heavily populated area, have the various services to which these powers are being given the appropriate equipment and communication facilities? Are they adequate? Could the minister tell this House what communications are to be used between health authorities and the police, ambulance and vets in those areas of the state that the minister and I are familiar with but many other people are not familiar with? There is no way that existing emergency services staff or police officers are properly trained in relation to these types of emergencies. I know that they would do their very best and we have excellent staff, but they must be trained and equipped appropriately. No mention is made of these matters in the bill; in fact, the reverse is true. I repeat that if the minister believes that there is no financial implication related to these extended powers, a practical issue is the need for approval of the CBRE by an officer of assistant commissioner rank or above. Whilst I appreciate that the intention is to make sure that a suitably experienced officer should make such a determination, just how practical is this requirement, particularly in areas of the state where no such officer is located and where communications are at best suspect? I ask the minister to specifically address these issues in his reply. I reiterate that, although the provisions of this bill are necessary and are supported by the coalition, we have genuine concerns about compensation, consultation and the financial implications necessary to ensure that the officers who are being given these enormous powers are properly trained and equipped. I look forward to the minister's response to the issues that I have raised. Whilst we have one of the best equipped and best trained police services in the world, we want to make absolutely certain that we keep them in that top echelon at all times and that they are trained to be able to address these issues. Last Sunday night I watched television coverage in relation to the training of police officers in New South Wales to deal with terrorist attacks. The minister might like to inform us if that type of training is also under way here in Queensland. I know that we have specialist groups which specialise in this field, but I believe that all of our emergency services personnel should be adequately trained to be able to work if such an unfortunate scenario should ever arise. I know that this bill is unique to Queensland; it is unique to Australia. At the same time, we have to be at the forefront. We have to have counter-terrorism practices in place. As I said, the opposition supports this legislation. At the same time, I would be anxious to see if the minister could give us a summary on some of those issues that I raised. I look forward to the minister's reply. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.38 p.m.): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill. With sadness I 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2953 agree that there is a need for a bill that provides new powers regarding the response to what will probably be an act of terrorism. When we talk about public safety with regard to CBR incidents today it is about much more than spills or accidents. Unfortunately, today we must plan for deliberate acts involving substances that pose serious risk to life or health—substances that if not contained can spread and leave a path of destruction. Many of us attend events that are in either a confined space, such as a sporting oval, or a not-so-confined space, such as parklands. The common thread is that all have a very large number of people in attendance. If a dangerous substance is leaked into an area containing a large number of people, it is important that actions are taken quickly to detain those affected, to decontaminate the site, to medically treat those in need and, if required, to destroy property. This is the type of legislation one hopes is never enacted. It is quite like insurance. People take out policies hoping that they never use them. But we need to be ready to take on an incident of this type. Both New South Wales and Victoria have recently enacted legislation providing police with emergency powers in the event of chemical, biological or radiological contamination. It is not just Queensland that needs to be ready; it is all of Australia. If an emergency of this type ever occurred, I can see how the names and addresses of those involved would be of vital importance to authorities. Also, I am sure that their loved ones and others would be anxious to know what was taking place. Communication would have to be performed at its best in this type of situation. This is a very important bill that has severe implications for public safety and requires safeguards. I am pleased to see that the bill does include sufficient safeguards. Firstly, when it comes to the destruction of property there are safeguards whereby those who have been financially disadvantaged may be compensated. Secondly, there are stringent conditions relating to who may use the powers, under what conditions the powers may be exercised and the obligations on persons exercising the powers. Only a police officer of the rank of assistant commissioner or above may declare a CBR emergency. A CBR emergency can be declared only if the following criteria are evident: an incident must have occurred involving a substance that is likely to be a CBR substance; the CBR substance or the effect of the substance must pose a serious risk to the lives or health of individuals; the CBR substance or the effect of the substance may spread if not contained and be a risk to those not already affected by the substance; a significant coordinated effort by emergency services personnel is required to adequately respond to the incident; and using powers under the existing laws would not enable emergency services personnel to effectively deal with this type of incident. Another safeguard is the provision that it is only lawful to detain persons in a CBR emergency for more than 48 hours if a Supreme Court judge approves. The Commissioner for Police must undertake to obtain judicial sanction for the lawful exercise of the detention power beyond the first 48 hours of a CBR emergency. Any person who is detained may also apply to the Supreme Court at any time for release through a nominated legal representative. The bill also ensures that the CBR emergency coordinator notifies people of their right to apply for release and how to apply. They must inform the person of their right to consult a lawyer and of the fact that detention beyond the first 48 hours requires the approval of a Supreme Court judge. The person's next of kin or someone else nominated by the person must also be notified of the person's detention and their rights. If a CBR emergency is declared, the Minister for Police or the Premier must be informed. They have the power to extend the CBR emergency beyond the first 24 hours up to a period of seven days from the time the emergency was first declared by the CBR emergency coordinator. A report must be given to parliament on any CBR emergency. In February 2001, when I was elected, I never dreamt that I would be standing in this place talking about terrorism acts in Australia. September 11, the Bali bombing and other violent world events have rocked our world and changed our lifestyle forever. This bill has powers, subject to a range of safeguards and accountability measures. It gives the public confidence that Queensland is well prepared for any emergency. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (4.43 p.m.): I rise to support the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill. We acknowledge that, with the new range of threats that now face us, it is necessary to have the appropriate safeguards and coordination between appropriate agencies. This is about coordinating that response. It is about ensuring that 2954 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 the right legislative framework is in place to support the response of our emergency services, because a number of government agencies are involved in providing that support. It is interesting to note that two years ago during debate on the Health estimates, when I raised an issue to do with radiation safety and possible implications with terrorism, the Health Minister laughed it off and treated the question flippantly. That was extremely disappointing. With recent terrorism, the issue was very current in the media. At that time, when I raised issues to do with the appropriate regulation and monitoring of radioactive substances, the minister made some quip like, 'What do you want? Police officers chasing people with smoke detectors?' Obviously the minister was not aware at that time of moves within her own department and other departments to coordinate the appropriate response from agencies. This legislation is part of that response, though I note on the record that I still have some concerns about the monitoring of existing regulations and control of some of those radioactive substances, which comes under the control of the Queensland Health Department. I did just mention the unfortunately flippant response of the Health Minister a couple of years ago on that issue, but my concern is that staff operating in this area need to have the resources to ensure that this legislation and the Health Department's legislation are appropriately enforced. The legislation that is before this parliament is very much about the coordinated response. There are also the issues of what happens outside of an immediate crisis. What happens with regard to the tracking and tracing of a radioactive substance? What happens with regard to how people who are licensed to hold these substances are monitored in terms of tracking and the transport of those particular substances? We cannot just assume that these things will automatically fall into line. There must be accountability measures. There must be some independent way of auditing and ensuring that these substances really are under appropriate control, that they are stored in places that have the highest level of security and that appropriate tracking is undertaken. Unfortunately, as we have seen, sometimes access to legal sources can be abused by those who seek to wreak terror in our community. People will look for weaknesses in that process. I do have concerns about the lack of staffing available within that particular section of Queensland Health. It is not a criticism of the staff who are tasked to undertake the implementation of legislation; it is a criticism of the lack of staffing in what has become an increasingly critical area, not just from the point of view of delivery of good health care services but also from the point of view of ensuring that the appropriate security regime has been put in place and is being complied with by people who have legal access to radioactive substances. There have also been concerns raised with me by some of the opponents of the Stereotech development. I think some of the concerns raised have been extremely valid. People have raised concerns about security issues with transport and about what emergency plans are in place to ensure the local emergency departments in that particular area are able to respond to a particular breach of that facility. They have also raised issues to do with the insurance measures to ensure that citizens have some redress in the event of some adverse event. I do not believe that those issues have been adequately dealt with by this government, be it under legislation or by administrative arrangement. We know that in appropriate circumstances there is safe use of radioactive materials. Obviously it is part of our life. It is part of our medical health system in delivering good diagnostic procedures. But there has to be very stringent monitoring of those elements in the work force and in transit, whether they are in public or private control, to ensure those who have bad intents do not get access to them in such a way that they are able to use them for terror or to breach security in our community. I wanted to put those issues on the record. I do support the legislation before the House. My colleague the honourable member for Gregory has some questions with regard to the specifics of the legislation. We obviously want to see a safer Queensland and an appropriate regulatory regime that supports that and supports our emergency services. We want to see a regime that ensures, outside of those immediate times of crisis, that there is the appropriate monitoring of facilities that have the potential to be abused by those who have wrongful or negligent intent. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (4.49 p.m.): Good government is all about prioritising and preparedness for the future. In the case of this bill—the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill—it is putting into place legislation which we all hope and pray will never be required. In Australia we have emergency powers and disaster management plans to deal with the effects of severe natural disasters—fire, flood, storm, 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2955 earthquakes and cyclones. We have highly trained, very brave men and women who accomplish amazing feats when lives and property are threatened. For as long as I can remember, I have felt safe and protected in our country. We are a peaceful nation supposedly removed from the trouble spots in the world. However, our sense of security has now been shattered. We do not have to look far from our shores to see very troubled nations. In the late eighties I spent two weeks on beautiful Bougainville. Within four months the fragile peace there was shattered and war had broken out. Many of the beautiful, friendly people I had met lost their lives. I visited Port Moresby last year and travelled with police escort. The world has many angry trouble spots. In recent weeks our focus has returned to Bali, where over 80 Australians lost their lives so tragically. The horror of those scenes where people had not travelled to a war zone but to a place of peace and happiness for a holiday shattered forever our naive belief that we are immune from terrorism. It is important that the people of Queensland understand that our government is prepared for and has measures in place to deal with any emergency involving chemical, biological and radiological substances, be it due to accidental circumstances or an act of terrorism. Very different handling is required of this type of emergency. The recent outbreak of SARS has demonstrated how a virus is able to be spread if unchecked in its early stages. This legislation has been carefully drafted to offer protection while responding to the effect circumstances may have on an individual or, in a catastrophic outbreak, a large number of people. The response to such disasters may involve personnel from police, health and emergency services and in certain cases the assistance of the defence forces, which of course are under Commonwealth jurisdiction. To make an emergency declaration involving chemical, biological or radiological substances first of all requires an action by an assistant commissioner or above. He must believe that serious risk exists and that containment of the substance or outbreak is vital. Emergency powers may then be exercised by appropriate officers of police, health, ambulance, fire or, in the case of animals, a veterinary officer. Medical examinations, treatment, decontamination, the power to seize and destroy property and require identification details of individuals—the health and safety of the wider population is paramount and may entail the denial of rights of certain individuals if circumstances require such measures. Once an emergency has been declared, the Minister for Police must be informed and then assume responsibility for either ending or extending the emergency in consultation with the Premier. A period of 24 hours initially may extend to seven days if that is required to protect life or health or even up to 14 days. However, once this period is extended beyond 48 hours, approval must be sought of a Supreme Court judge. An additional safeguard requires the Public Interest Monitor to supervise applications for an extension of detention powers and, finally, matters are required to be reported to parliament. This legislation strikes a balance but is essentially designed to protect the greater public good. It offers a framework of emergency powers as an insurance against what we all hope will never be required. I thank our minister for his conscientious stewardship of public safety. To those who have drafted this legislation, thank you for ensuring our state is prepared for any incident caused by anyone with evil intent or a catastrophic event. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (4.55 p.m.): I am pleased this afternoon to speak to the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2003. It is indeed a sad day, as many speakers have said, that we need to bring legislation like this into the parliament. However, that is the way of the world. Unfortunately, acts of terrorism are occurring on our doorstep, and we have to make sure that we have the appropriate legislation in place to protect our people and to ensure that any spread of disease or any harm that may come to any of our citizens with any of these spills, deliberate or otherwise, is contained and managed in a very professional way. These spills can occur by accident, of course, and that also needs to be managed in a sensible way. We have just seen what happened in America recently with its loss of power. I know that situation was not a chemical spill, but it could easily have been. Australia could find itself in a similar situation, particularly on our highways where accidents can occur. I think it is most telling that we need this legislation in place for acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world today. The legislation provides some quite strong powers for particular authorities. It enables emergency responders to detain persons and require them to undergo forcible decontamination and/or treatment in order to contain the spread of any substance. That is important. I do not 2956 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 doubt some people may think their civil liberties are being reduced in some manner or form. However, the reality is that sometimes we have to do the best we can for our community, and this has to be done. At many airports now there are showers nearby where planes fuel up. I have my own plane that I fly around in, and at fuel depots they have decontamination showers. So that sort of thing is already in place. No doubt if people had a chemical spill somewhere it would not be hard to set up some shower arrangement where they can walk through and decontaminate themselves. That is fairly important. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr HOBBS: They probably do have a sign like that. It would be very handy in my case sometimes. It is interesting to note that, firstly, in the legislation there is a requirement for a report of an emergency to be given to parliament within six months of the emergency ending regardless of how long the emergency lasts. Secondly, if the emergency lasts for more than seven days, the regulation of the extended period of the emergency is open to disallowance by the parliament. As we all know, disallowance is a bit of a joke in a lot of ways. However, it does give a legislative process to it and it does allow open and free debate in the parliament. I suppose that is the only reasonable process we can go through in the democratic society that we have. At least it allows general debate on the issues. I do not know whether the government could have done any better, but that seems to me to be not a bad way to go about it. I was interested to read that under the existing liability provisions of the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 police officers and persons acting in accordance with police directions are afforded protection from liability for things done or omitted under the act in good faith and without negligence. The bill extends this provision to provide the same protection to non-police emergency responders in an emergency. I often wondered that if we can do this and give this protection to professional or voluntary workers, why we cannot do it in a broader sense for a lot of other public liability problems that we are facing across-the-board? I think that we probably can, quite frankly, and I suspect that maybe the lawyers out there are opposed to that. Obviously this is a very sensible move. We cannot afford to have situations where public liability actions will in fact occur as a result of some genuine need to try and decontaminate people. So I think that this is only reasonable, but I do make that observation—that is, why it cannot also be done for other pieces of legislation. I also noted from the minister's second reading speech that safeguards will apply to the seizure and destruction of property. These are aimed at preserving life, but measures were put in place to ensure that members of the public would be able to apply for compensation for financial loss. I presume what the minister is referring to is when property is seized at the time and somehow it is damaged. That is what is being compensated for. Is that the case? Would it be for loss of income as well? It says that safeguards are applied to the seizure and destruction of property. It has to be property itself. So if in some manner or form that property was not able to provide an income, is income included in that compensation clause as well? As the member for Gregory has said, we on this side of the House do support this bill. It is unfortunate that legislation such as this has to exist. Maybe it is just a progression of things and a safeguard for us to have. On that basis, we support the bill. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.02 p.m.): I rise to support the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2003. This bill is designed to give our emergency services the powers they require to ensure that our community remains safe in the horrific event of a chemical, biological or radiological attack. It is vital that emergency services have powers to decontaminate people and property subjected to a CBR substance and, where necessary, to provide medical treatment to persons affected by a substance so that they may, as quickly as possible, continue to go about their normal lives. Therefore, in order to ensure that a CBR substance is not inadvertently spread to uninfected members of the community, the bill provides a power to police to detain potential victims of a substance until they may be decontaminated, medically assessed and treated. This power may be used only in consultation with a very senior medical practitioner from Queensland Health or a very senior member of the fire service in the case of chemical contamination. This is a well balanced piece of legislation. The bill not only provides powers but also provides safeguards to members of our community who may be subjected to its provisions. There is an obligation on the CBRE coordinator, who is an assistant commissioner of police, to inform any 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2957 detained person that he or she may apply to a Supreme Court judge for an order ending the person's detention and how the person may apply, that the person has a right to consult a lawyer of their choice and that the person may be detained only beyond the first 48 hours of the CBR emergency. The commissioner must apply to a Supreme Court judge for approval for the CBRE coordinator to continue to exercise the detention power. The CBRE coordinator must also inform the detained person's next of kin or someone else nominated by the person that the detained person is detained under this power, where the person is detained, the things mentioned to the detainee and how to obtain information about the relevant person, including who to contact to obtain the information. Additionally, the CBRE coordinator must also make any reasonably necessary arrangements in the interests of the person's welfare, which includes the provision of food and clothing. The power to obtain the name and address of a person detained under the bill is subject to limitations on its use. A police officer may exercise the power to record details of individuals detained and property seized from the person or to contact the person only because of something relating to the CBR substance involved in the CBR emergency that may put the person's life or health or the life or health of someone else at risk. Any information given under this provision may be used only for a purpose mentioned above, or for the Coroners Court or for an investigation into an offence directly related to the emergency. Any detention powers used under the bill are only lawful if, after 48 hours of detention, a Supreme Court judge approves the continued exercise of the power. To ensure this provision operates as intended, the Commissioner for Police must apply to a Supreme Court judge for an order approving the continued exercise of the detention power. However, an application of this nature may be made only after the Minister for Police and the Premier are satisfied it is necessary to continue a detention. The bill also goes further in the interests of safeguards by allowing a detained person's lawyer or a person nominated by the detained person to apply at any time to a Supreme Court judge for an order ending the relevant person's detention. I also mention that any property seized under this bill and not destroyed by necessity must be made available for return to the person lawfully entitled to possess it. However, property not claimed by a person within 60 days after the CBR emergency ends is taken to have been forfeited to the state and may be disposed of. Clearly, police cannot keep property for an indefinite period and 60 days is an appropriate time to allow a person to claim it. Notably, any person who is required to assist in a CBR emergency and thus is absent from his or her normal employment will not be subjected to dismissal from that employment. The government will protect the jobs of those people, who should be hailed as heroes, nor will they suffer any break in their service from their place of employment in terms of long service leave or lose any financial entitlements, including their normal weekly pay. Should a person who is not an emergency services employee suffer an injury as a result of the assistance they offer, they will be covered in a similar manner to a WorkCover agreement. Obviously emergency services personnel are already covered by WorkCover. Likewise, where non-government property is used or damaged during a CBR emergency, provision exists for the government to compensate any person for that loss. The stringent measures detailed above are designed to ensure the health of those affected by a CBR substance and the safety of the community in containing that substance. There are strict contingencies placed on using these powers, but it is necessary that these powers are in place so that emergency services can act quickly and cohesively to protect the health and safety of both individuals and the wider community. As I said earlier, this is an essential bill which must be passed by this parliament and justifiably deserves bipartisan support. It will become another lawful and justified weapon in our arsenal to combat terrorist attacks. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (5.07 p.m.): It is with real pleasure that I rise to speak to this very important bill and support the comments of the previous speaker—that is, that it is an important bill and needs the support of all the House. I am pleased that the opposition is able to support this bill because, as I said, it is very important. Unfortunately, it is the case that from time to time we have to provide for the safety of our citizens. Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times that we are in a situation where we need to do that. Since 9/11—the American situation where the World Trade Centre was destroyed and the lives of many thousands of people were lost in that horrific bomb blast caused by two planes colliding with the twin towers—the innocence of the world has been taken away in terms of what 2958 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 can happen in a civilised society. The shame of it all is that we have moved from a civilised society almost back to a stage where we are almost uncivilised in terms of what can be done to kill innocent human beings. We have to be ready for any threat that we may perceive on our soil, and this bill will go some way towards allowing that to happen. As the shadow spokesman for emergency services, I have to assure members that it is a step in the right direction. We need to coordinate and facilitate cooperation between the departments that will empower this legislation and make it happen. In recent times we have heard plenty about weapons of mass destruction and the rogue state of North Korea. The background to all of that was the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Its huge nuclear arsenal could be hijacked, sold off or otherwise used to catastrophic effect somewhere in the world. We have probably been fairly fortunate to date that most of the terrorist attacks have involved either conventional, or non-nuclear, explosives. I dread the thought that a terrorist organisation or an individual might gain access to a portable nuclear device. Hopefully, this bill will move us some way towards mitigating the impact in such circumstances. I am not sure that we can ever be fully prepared to respond to such an event. I do not need to speak to this bill clause by clause; others have already done so. I rise to support the bill and to highlight to the minister the fact that there is very strong support from this side of the House for this legislation. As I said, we are moving into an age where we have lost our innocence. I mourn for the Australians who lost their lives in Bali. The terrorist Amrozi faces death by firing squad. Hopefully, the others involved will be caught and tried on those charges. I strongly believe, as others do, that there are, unfortunately, plenty more to take his place. All of the incidents to date have been external to Australia, but one would be foolish to think that at some time and place in Australia something similar will not be attempted or successfully carried out. It is with a sense of sadness that I support this bill. As I said previously, it is unfortunate that we have to legislate along these lines to protect ourselves against idiots and terrorists. Indeed, there is probably more that we can do. We certainly need to be looking at this issue very closely. I support the Prime Minister's attempt to put together a coalition of interested parties and his recent discussions with the Chinese leadership on formulating a strong coalition of like-minded people who are horrified at the thought of rogue states and individuals preying on innocent people simply because of a perceived threat to their religion or way of life. We live in a vexing time. Probably never before in the history of this planet have so many people lived so comfortably whilst so many others are disadvantaged. This breeds a mentality whereby some people who perceive themselves as being disadvantaged try to even the odds by taking extreme measures. We need also to be conscious of the fact that the fervour with which they pursue their causes is heightened and enhanced by their religious beliefs. I support anybody's right to follow their beliefs and I would fight and die for that right. However, there are times when this moves beyond the reality of living in a civilised world. The real test of being civilised is being able to understand and accept that we are all different, that we all believe different things and are still able to love, live, play and work with people of different beliefs. Unfortunately, that philosophy does not cross all boundaries and we are faced, as I said, with the current situation whereby we need the piece of legislation before the House. This is a reality of life. Sadly, I support the legislation. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (5.14 p.m.): The bill introduced by the Minister for Police is yet another significant milestone in the long list of achievements of the Beattie government. Underpinning all of these achievements is a genuine commitment to maintaining and enhancing the safety of the Queensland community. Some sceptics criticised the road hoon legislation passed by the House last year. It has been an outstanding success, gradually ridding the roads of hoons who pose a serious danger to the public at large. Others criticised the automatic six-month suspension of a drivers licence when drivers are travelling at ridiculous speeds on our roads. It, too, has captured in its web people who have no respect for the safety of their fellow members of the community. I would imagine that with respect to this bill there will be some who choose to bury their head in the sand and criticise the need for it. I certainly hope that bipartisan support can be achieved for this bill, because this issue—the basic safety of our community—is one that needs to be above politics. International events in recent times have changed the world as we know it and mean that we now must be fully prepared for eventualities that we never thought possible in lovely Queensland. Although none of us would ever want to see the need for the powers of this bill to be invoked, they must be there should the need ever arise. Can any of us truly say that we 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2959 are free from the horror of terrorism in this country? Those who wish to strike fear into the hearts of families think little of crossing oceans and national borders to do so. Terrorism is simply murder. Those who commit acts of terrorism are cowards and murderers. They use the cover of false identities to commit vile acts cloaked in a conspiracy of silence prior to their commission. Then they attempt to evade justice. However, as we have witnessed, justice is unrelenting in its search for these perpetrators of evil. Sooner or later they are captured and brought before the courts to answer for their crimes against humanity. We have all witnessed television news reports of the murders committed in Bali and the apprehension of those responsible. I was disgusted by the arrogance displayed by these murderers. These criminals showed no remorse but instead scoffed at us. It goes without saying that criminals who commit acts of terrorism are extremely dangerous people. We must be ever vigilant of terrorism and be prepared to deal with the results of acts committed by terrorists. This initiative of the Beattie government is aimed at protecting the community of Queensland. It is not aimed at providing our emergency services with needless powers. Anyone who perpetuates the myth that any of these powers are unwarranted really needs to face up to reality and the consequences of terrorism. Certainly, this government will not be complacent in its endeavours to provide a safer Queensland. The bill provides a coordinated response to chemical, biological and radiological incidents no matter how they occur. Under the operational command of an assistant commissioner of police, all emergency services will be coordinated to provide a positive response to any CBR emergency. They will work together as one to ensure our safety. Should the need arise, emergency service personnel from the Commonwealth and other states and territories may be asked to assist. Assistance provided by these fellow Australians will also be under the operational control of an assistant commissioner of police and they will be granted, where necessary, the right to exercise the powers contained within this bill. Operational coordination and control of a CBR emergency has been placed in the hands of the Queensland Police Service, for obvious reasons. A fundamental responsibility that parliament places on the Police Service is the protection of life and property. Our police are trained and have the necessary resources to coordinate major emergency situations. They have faced many significant emergencies in the past and their professionalism has shone through. Clearly, though, while an assistant commissioner of police will have operational control of a CBR emergency, the Commissioner of Police will still maintain overall control of the Police Service, including the assistant commissioner who becomes the CBR emergency coordinator. All honourable members will agree that the Commissioner of Police is a person of outstanding integrity who is selflessly devoted to serving the best interests of this state. However, the role of the commissioner will be focused more on whole-of-government planning under the auspices of the central control group. This will involve amongst others the chief executive officers of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Emergency Services and Queensland Health. Obviously, in any major CBR incident the Premier, the Minister for Police and other senior government ministers will be continually briefed and will become involved in the decision-making process in the best interests of the Queensland community. All members will appreciate that the development of this legislation has not been taken lightly by the Beattie government. It has been well planned and drafted and the Minister for Police is to be congratulated on the efforts he has put into this essential piece of balanced legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.19 p.m.): I rise to speak to this bill, recognising that our community world wide as well as locally in Australia has changed significantly over the past decade or so. Wrongly, we have accepted such things as terrorist attacks in Ireland, in parts of the Middle East and Europe. However, it really came home to us as a developed country when the US was bombed on September 11. This House was sitting at the time. We found it difficult to accept what had happened, even though there were live crosses and we were seeing things happening as they occurred. Since then we have had the Bali bombing, which has been closer to home, and we have seen many innocent Australians killed at the hands of somebody wanting to make some sort of a statement. In speaking to this bill, however, there are a couple of issues that I wish to seek the minister's clarification on. In my electorate and across Queensland there are powers for emergency services already attributed to police officers and to emergency response teams, whether they be natural disasters, chemical or other man-made disasters. There is currently an opportunity for the 2960 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 appropriately skilled professionals to rally to that situation and address that situation. When I was in local government I was part of that team. That included looking into quite extreme situations on a contingency basis and putting plans in place to be able to manage mass deaths and the fugitive gases that could escape from some of the plants that operate in the electorate. Whilst I understand the logic behind this CBR emergency bill, because we have seen a worldwide rise in terrorist activity—and please God, we do not want to see that occur in Australia—I want the minister to clarify whether it is the intention for this Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill to take the place in some instances of the current processes in place for chemical emergencies. I ask that question because we do have chemical response teams in the Gladstone electorate as we have cyanide plants and the like. I have to commend the plants. They have been very safe so far. There has not been the need for any full turnout of any sort of teams. Because of the intrusiveness of these powers—and I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker that the best result for this bill would be bipartisan support for it—I need clarification as to whether the intention is to allow the powers conferred in this bill to be used in some of the situations to which we currently have responses and, from my understanding, quite adequate responses. If these powers are to be called upon only in terrorist-type situations—those extreme situations that are difficult to contain—I do not believe many people would have any concerns about it at all. The bill confers powers on police officers—the power to detain. This is to detain, I expect, without charge in order to be able to control a situation. There are also powers to give directions, and they are attributed to quite a number of professional officers. There is also the power to give a person directions about animals, and that is conferred on veterinary officers. There is also the power to decontaminate, and that is conferred on health officers, fire officers and, as far as animals are concerned, veterinary officers. I can remember we had the scares after 11 September when a number of powdered substances turned up in the mail. The footage on the TV showed that that decontamination process is quite intrusive. It really intrudes on a person's privacy. Therefore, those powers should be called upon only when they are absolutely necessary. The bill also confers the power on health officers and ambulance officers to medically examine and treat. There is also the power to seize property—that is police officers—and currently that is allowed only in terms of crime or suspected crime. There is also the power to destroy seized property, and that is attributed to quite a number of people who currently do not have that power and, lastly, the power to require names and addresses, which is allocated to the police and one that is accepted by the community. Speakers have said that the high threshold for the definition of an approval of a CBR is an assistant commissioner. But given the intrusiveness of some of these processes—and I am not in any way trying to be offensive to assistant commissioners—it is not the highest rank for approval. That is why I believe the community needs to know that this bill is intending to address what we hope will not happen but which could be an emerging problem rather than allowing people to sit back and use this new power in situations where we have managed quite adequately in the past. One of the groups that may be concerned about this Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill is Greenpeace. Whether or not members agree with their philosophy and the methods they use to prove a point, the fact is they often go into areas where structural procedures are occurring and they board ships. That may be seen by some to be inappropriate. When this legislation is passed it could be argued that they have the potential to create a chemical, biological or radiological emergency—and I particularly emphasise the chemical in my electorate. However, in the past these types of situations have been managed quite appropriately and adequately by police utilising their current powers. I seek clarification from the minister as to where he sees these situations—situations which are currently handled quite adequately utilising existing powers—being slotted into this CBRE bill. I acknowledge that there are some safeguards and there are obligations to extend the CBR emergency beyond seven days. There is another issue on which I want clarification from the minister. I acknowledge that the minister will be required to report to parliament when the use of these powers is called upon. I seek clarification from him as to whether there will be a threshold at which time the use of these powers will be reviewed to see if they have been used appropriately. Secondly, I ask whether there will be a review of the legislation as far as its adequacy is concerned in a period of, say, five years. 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2961

Nobody in our community wants to see terrorism occur in our communities. We do not want that legacy passed on to our children. This bill will not stop it, unfortunately; it will just deal with the results of potential terrorist activity. However, I do believe that, provided the safeguards are there, situations should be managed as they currently are but that these powers will remain as special powers set aside for those terrorist type situations. I believe the community will be assured by that, but I seek the minister's clarification. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (5.27 p.m.): The thought of a chemical, biological or radiological incident occurring either by accident or intentionally as a result of an act of terrorism is abhorrent to every member of this House and the community. Nevertheless, it is the duty of all governments to ensure that we are fully prepared should it unfortunately ever eventuate. The Beattie government is undertaking, through this bill, to resource our emergency services with the strong powers necessary to deal with a CBR emergency. The key premise behind these laws is that the safety of the community must always be our paramount concern. As members would agree, whenever this government provides essential powers to its emergency services they are always balanced with appropriate safeguards to ensure that minimum disruption is caused to the lives of Queenslanders. This government recognises the rights of citizens to live their lives uninterrupted within the boundaries of our laws. This bill is no exception. It is an extremely well balanced piece of legislation which provides the necessary powers to emergency services whilst ensuring the rights of the community are protected. I congratulate the minister, the Hon. Tony McGrady, on its introduction. Hopefully, the type of attack or incident that we are discussing—chemical, biological or radiological—would be a highly unusual circumstance in Queensland. Unfortunately, we have no guarantees, given the events of Bali and New York. This bill sets out a system to deal with these problems in the most effective way. Sometimes a person's right to move about freely in the community may be subordinate to the overarching need for authorities to ensure that the person's health and that of others is protected. Given this, specific stringent checks and balances are in place to ensure the fairness of this bill to all people while protecting the general community. I intend to address those safeguards that complement this bill so well. Parliament recognises that the powers contained in this bill can be exercised only if a CBR substance is involved and that the exercise of emergency services under this bill is required for only as long as it is necessary to ensure that the CBR substances do not pose a serious risk to the life or health of individuals. Parliament's intention is further reflected by stipulating prerequisites in clause 12 that must exist prior to the declaration of a CBRE emergency being made. Clearly, no-one wants the powers provided in this bill to be used needlessly. Therefore, only a very senior police officer of at least the rank of assistant commissioner may make a declaration. Prior to an assistant commissioner making a declaration, he or she must first be satisfied that something has happened in which a CBR substance is likely to have been involved, is involved, or is likely to be involved and that the substance poses a serious risk to the life or health of individuals. In addition, the assistant commissioner must believe that the substance may spread if not contained and a significant coordinated effort by emergency services is necessary to adequately respond to the incident. As well, the assistant commissioner must be satisfied that using powers available to an incident coordinator in an emergency situation or to someone else under another act would not enable emergency responders to effectively deal with the incident. When a CBR emergency declaration is made, the bill requires the assistant commissioner who made the declaration to promptly inform the Minister for Police or the Premier of the declaration. Members will note that, in the absence of the Minister for Police or the Premier, provision is made to inform the next most senior minister of the declaration. Clearly, as a matter of practice in an emergency of this nature, the Police Commissioner would immediately inform the Minister for Police who would, in turn, inform the Premier. Nevertheless, this legislative requirement is a necessary step in the safeguard processes built into the bill. The requirement to inform the Minister for Police allows for a further overview of the declaration by the minister who may, if not satisfied that the declaration is necessary, end it immediately. As an added safeguard, the declaration of CBR emergency ends automatically 24 hours after the declaration is made unless it is ended sooner by the Minister for Police or is extended by a joint decision of the Premier and the Minister for Police. Even in the case where a CBR emergency declaration is extended due to necessity, the bill requires that it must be ended immediately if the Minister for Police is satisfied it is no longer necessary in order to protect the life or health of individuals. 2962 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

Should a declaration of a CBR emergency need to continue due to the gravity of an incident, the bill requires that the minister and the Premier jointly decide that the extension is necessary. This is a major concession in terms of safeguards placed in the bill. As a member of the minister's ministerial committee, I welcome this additional safeguard. Having two senior government members make the decision will go a long way to assuring the community that the powers in this bill will not be unnecessarily invoked or extended. To enhance that assurance, this government has agreed that any extension made by the minister and the Premier will last for only a maximum of seven days before a further detailed consideration is given to extending the operation of the declaration. Should a CBR incident be so severe that it is necessary to extend a declaration beyond the seven days, it may be done only by regulation made with the consent of the Governor in Council. I am totally satisfied that any extension made to a CBR emergency declaration will receive balanced consideration in the interests of each and every resident of this state. Should it be necessary for a CBR emergency to be declared, this House will agree that the responsibility for coordinating and controlling the emergency services needs to be placed in the hands of one very senior government officer. Whilst I do not envy the responsibility that we impose on that officer, it is necessary that one person be in command of the situation so that the emergency services response may be properly coordinated. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: It's a huge responsibility. Ms KEECH: It is. It is a very serious responsibility, as the member for Pumicestone reminds the House. Traditionally, it is our Police Service that controls and coordinates responses to emergencies. Therefore, the government acknowledges the expertise of the Queensland Police Service in this respect by stipulating in this bill that an assistant commissioner of police will be responsible for the overall management and control of emergency responders responding to the emergency. In doing so, the Beattie government provides legislative authority to an assistant commissioner of police to authorise the exercise of powers available to emergency responders. The assistant commissioner, in consideration of all aspects of a CBR incident, may allow emergency services to use powers provided to them unrestricted or subject to conditions that he or she decides necessary. It is the fundamental role of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority to decontaminate persons who have been subjected to a chemical substance. Likewise, it is the fundamental role of the Ambulance Service to provide initial treatment to affected persons and transport them to a hospital for further intensive care. Parliament has traditionally restricted the use of force against the person to police officers who are highly trained to apply only the appropriate amount of force reasonably necessary against an individual in given situations. Usually, this use of force is for the personal safety of the person themselves, the police or the general community. In keeping with that, should force be needed to carry out a function of an emergency service, it shall continue to be the role of police officers to exercise that power in order to assist their brother and sister organisations. In conclusion, the in-depth and well-balanced consideration that has resulted in the preparation of this bill is a compliment to the Minister for Police. Also, I thank the members opposite for their bipartisan support. All members of this House should congratulate the Beattie government on this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.38 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2003 and recognise that the objective of the bill is to amend the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986. It is an indisputable fact that after September 11 no-one views the world in quite the same way as they did on 10 September. Perhaps the leniency and the lack of concern with which we as human beings have viewed the atrocities in countries at war because they have not touched our shores may have contributed to the horrendous acts that have been perpetrated in the past couple of years. Perhaps the world has not come down hard enough on the perpetrators of such acts. Unfortunately, there are people who think nothing of taking the lives of innocents and the tightened security around prominent individuals and infrastructure has seen civilians die through the perpetrators of terror targeting what is commonly called a soft target. For most of us, that is inconceivable. We would like to think that our thinking processes and our respect for life are embraced by every country, every race and every religion. Unfortunately, that is not so. We must never forget that while we believe that these acts are senseless, barbaric and cowardly those who participate in them believe that they are martyrs and are serving a very 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2963 real cause. There is no room for complacency and this bill addresses the issue by amending the Public Safety Preservation Act. In saying that, it is essential that an individual's rights and freedoms are respected whilst ensuring people's safety. If we must be subject to terrorism, it may at times be necessary to err on the side of caution. It is to be hoped that we never have to call on the powers outlined in this bill. With the trend toward soft targets, we must be realistic that, as a country which has not been subjected to the types of terrorism that many countries are currently experiencing, we have not had our defences tested and may well be seen as a possible soft target. That does not mean that we should terrorise the public through legislation which may be seen as overreacting. Australia and Queensland, being some of the largest and least populated areas—those populations are also widely spaced—do need to recognise the many varied forms that may be used in any terrorism attack. They may not necessarily be in the form of an explosion but may be more devastating in the long term. Chemical, biological and radiological attacks are very effective forms of creating fear, and it would not take very long for anybody sitting around a table to come up with ways to cripple cities, power grids and so on. This creation of fear and uncertainty in communities is the object of terrorism; that is, to paralyse our governments and our industries. In such an event enormous drains would be made on our police force and our emergency services personnel. It must be recognised that at such times everybody must play a role which involves eternal vigilance, not just those who have taken on the roles of our protectors. Each and every one of us has a grave responsibility. The bill relates to powers which do not currently exist in the Public Safety Preservation Act and includes the power to detain a person or people who may be contaminated by chemical, biological or radiological substances. This detainment is to ensure that they are decontaminated and the process is thorough enough so that no-one else will be infected once they go back into the community. People will be able to be detained for medical treatment. The destruction of property that may be contaminated is also allowed for. However, these actions need to be safeguarded very carefully to ensure that heavy-handed actions do not take place under the guise of possible CBR contamination. I am pleased to note that the bill states that the public will be able to access compensation for financial loss but that this compensation must reflect the true value of replacing that property. I and any reasonable person would expect that the isolation of persons contaminated would be conducted in a manner of reasonable cooperation but recognise that some people may have difficulty in accepting being detained under any circumstances at all. I ask the minister to assure all Queenslanders that they would not be detained for any longer than necessary or held on suspicion while perhaps some evidence which may not already be in the possession of the police is gathered. It is essential that the public understands that these powers will be used only as a last resort and are intended to ensure that CBRs do not pose a serious risk to the lives or health of those not affected by contamination. In essence, this bill allows for the detaining, examination and treatment of persons. It also allows for the seizure and destruction of property if required. Some people may see this bill as a threat to their civil liberties, but I believe and hope that most would recognise that the bill's prime purpose is the protection of all. I also realise that there may be a few in our communities who might agree with and be sympathetic to the views of radical extremists and be tempted to engage in terrorist acts, which are nothing short of cold-blooded murder. I doubt there is anyone who would not be willing to have the gravest penalty issued to address their actions. This is an area which could be manipulated in an adverse manner, but the protection of all in the event of a possible threat is paramount. The minister has addressed an extremely difficult issue. When anyone's liberty is affected, many groups go up in arms and say that it is an infringement of their rights. But we can no longer pretend that the terror that goes on in the world excludes us. It now includes us and we must be prepared for it. I support the bill and commend it to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (5.43 p.m.): The objective of the bill is to secure the life and health of individuals at risk and to contain chemical, biological and radiological emergencies by amending the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 and consequently the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the State Counter-Disaster Organisation Act 1975. I recently received information from the Minister for Emergency Services that Queensland is one of the more prepared states in relation to handling chemical, biological and radiological 2964 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 events. This legislation puts the finishing touches to the operation of the procedures adopted to deal with such emergencies. Last year the state of Queensland multi-agency response plan to chemical, biological and radiological incidents was endorsed by the Police Commissioner, Bob Atkinson, and by the directors-general of the departments of Emergency Services, Michael Kinnane, and Health, Rob Stable. The multi-agency CBR plan is contained within the state counterdisaster plan as a threat- specific plan and is supported by the state's chemical hazmat plan, the biological disaster plan and the radiological disaster plan. Operational practices and procedures for these plans are the responsibility of the respective lead agencies, the departments of Emergency Services and Health. The overarching or umbrella legislation will be provided by this amending legislation. Much multi-agency work has occurred over the past two years to improve the level of joint preparedness in Queensland to deal with a possible chemical, biological or radiological emergency. I believe that the joint exercises conducted by these agencies honed the skills of our emergency services personnel to such an extent that when it was suspected that the SARS epidemic may strike Queensland our staff were well prepared to combat this deadly disease. If the threat had been from the release of a virulent biological disease, these agencies would have been in the front line, defending the general population from the unwanted, menacing spread of disease. I was particularly impressed by the numerous readiness exercises, including Exercise August Moon, a counterterrorist exercise including police, emergency services and Australian Defence Force personnel. The Queensland Ambulance Service has established the Major Events and Mass Casualty Planning Unit, which has been reviewing and developing procedures for ambulance support to CBR and other terrorist incidents. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and the Chemical Hazards and Emergency Management Unit have increased the state's ability to detect and analyse substances. There has been an increase in sample retrieval capability provided to fire responders and additional detection and monitoring equipment purchased for use at an accident site. Protocols are continuing to be developed within Queensland Health to enable efficient off-site analysis. The Queensland Ambulance Service is also increasing its training for paramedics and clinicians in the specific requirements of a CBR response. Response to a CBR event will of course involve a large number of personnel, and it is possible that some uninformed members of the community may take offence at being told to do or not do certain things. We need to provide protection for our responders if these people later seek redress for any unintentional consequences of a direction. Under the existing liability provision of the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986, police officers and persons acting in accordance with police directions are afforded protection from liability for things done or omitted to be done under the act in good faith and without negligence. It may be mistakenly argued that the CBR emergency powers are serious infringements of civil liberties. The powers sought are considered essential in order to effectively respond to a CBR emergency and protect the safety of the general public. The civil liberties of individuals are considered sufficiently protected by the number of stringent safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the CBR emergency powers. When there was a bomb scare and subsequent evacuation at the Centenary State High School earlier this year, I and most others in the electorate were concerned for the safety of the students and not for the perpetrator. The Police Service effectively and efficiently dealt with the problem, and I know that the students' parents join me in congratulating all of the officers involved. There is in my view an appropriate balance between upholding individual rights and protecting the broader community within this legislation—from accidental chemical spills through to terrorist acts resulting in the release of biological or radiological agents that have the capacity to spread and cause significant casualties. That is the range of events that this bill will assist to protect the general community against. It is reasonable to believe that the police or emergency services responders will need to detain people and require them to undergo forcible decontamination and/or treatment in order to contain the spread of a CBR substance or its effect. There will always be someone who deliberately fails to acknowledge their actions and wishes to jeopardise containment processes. These people should be subject to legal restraints for the protection of our society. 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2965

The bill extends this provision to provide the same protection to non-police emergency responders in a CBR emergency. Given the nature and potential size of a CBR emergency, this immunity for our ambos, chemical experts, firefighters and health workers is considered to be justifiable in the circumstances. Following a CBR event, there may be a need to rebuild a community—not necessarily the bricks and mortar but the human psyche and community spirit. In either case, the Queensland disaster management system would also coordinate a whole-of- government response during the recovery from such incidents. I commend the Minister for Police and all the other officers from the various departments for their diligence and efforts in this matter. The implementation of specific legislative provisions to clarify and enhance the powers of emergency responders to effectively manage a CBR emergency should be supported by everyone in this House. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (5.50 p.m.): There is no doubt the world has been subjected to a new form of warfare and because of that it has been necessary to introduce legislation such as the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill. While many of us have a great deal of concern about the powers that have been introduced with this bill, it is probably very necessary that we have these powers, because, as I see it, the world is not like it was. There are no clear battlelines drawn any longer, as we saw on September 11 and during the Bali bombing. The fear generated by those particular incidents and the terrorism which is going on throughout the world today are something which we in Australia have been so fortunate not to have been a part of, although some citizens from Australia, particularly in the Bali instance, were. It is essential that we have some form of extra capacity to deal with this situation. Something we have to be very much aware of when looking at the agricultural industries is the massive amounts of nitrogen being shipped around the countryside. I know during my days of clearing trees that a very effective explosive was a mixture of nitram and some diesel mixed in the right quantities and added to a small plug of gelignite. It would set the whole thing off. Imagine a 20- tonne semi load of nitrogen travelling around the countryside heading to a destination where people were aware of what its potential was—that is, it could cause a massive explosion for a very low cost. It is fortunate, as I said, that we have not experienced this level of confrontation from terrorists on Australian soil. However, with the level of travel that goes on in the world today it is quite possible that somebody could come into the country with a particular barrow to push which could be disastrous to certain communities. Another issue I want to raise is that of the economic impact that could come about to our agricultural industries. We need very strong surveillance. I know during the period of foot-and- mouth disease there were contingency plans in place to deal with the disease. I have been speaking to people in the federal government about this. If, for instance, we had an introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in an area such as Lakefield National Park, where there are something like 50,000 pigs and 3,000 to 4,000 head of cattle, we could have a disastrous situation where foot and mouth could spread throughout the cape and further down throughout the Wet Tropics area where these pigs and pests are very prevalent. We have a program called North Watch. It is a very good program, but unfortunately a higher level of surveillance would be necessary if somebody had an intention or an idea to economically impact rural industries. It could impact the consumption of a range of meats in Australia, for example. There are pests such as pigs and wild dogs, as I said, particularly pigs, that carry FMD and also BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—through to wild animals and cattle that are in these national parks. That is something that has to be looked at very closely in the future. While it may not be all that likely for this to happen, the prospects are definitely there. We saw a scare with anthrax, where posting it through the mail was a very considerable concern in New York at the time just after the September 11 incident. We also have another disease called Japanese encephalitis, which is carried by pigs. While we try to carry out surveillance and isolate groups of animals from time to time where this disease has been brought in from the northern areas, the introduction of that disease could be disastrous as far as our animal industries are concerned. We need to be very careful in monitoring these types of situations because there is no extent that these people will not go to in the event that they are determined to wreck our industries and have an economic impact on Australian soil. It is quite evident that wherever we have high levels of population there might be a higher impact, but I think there are definite prospects of longer-term results which could be very difficult and very costly for us to deal with if we are not very careful and carry out absolute surveillance of our shorelines. This, of course, involves coastal surveillance. Maybe we need a better form of 2966 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 coastguard surveillance. Maybe we need to be even more stringent in the surveillance of ships which go up and down our coastlines. We have a very big area to protect, and while we use aircraft and so on this is always a prospect for people who want to bring some form of impact to our shores. As I said, this can be in the form of massive explosions, economic disasters or a radiological event. There are enormous prospects available to them. It is quite important to be very much aware of what can go on. Then there is a range of plant diseases. We have seen just recently in the banana industry a very successful operation in getting rid of black sigatoka, a fungal disease that transmits quite easily under certain conditions. The industry throughout north Queensland had been very successful in eradicating that disease. It was the first time in the world that it had ever happened. If we had somebody with an intention to bring further economic impact to our industries, this is just another form. The list goes on and on. Australia over a period of time has prided itself on being a clean, green area as far as our food production is concerned. I can go on with a whole range of pests and diseases that could be introduced that would be very disastrous to the economy and this land of ours. As I have said, there are enormous options for people who are determined to bring about economic disaster, economic chaos and fear to people through a whole range of methods that are very diverse and very perverse. I notice that proposed new section 24 describes the powers available to CBRE veterinary officers—namely, the decontamination power, the property destruction power and the power to give directions about animals. As I have said, the list of things that are available to these people is endless. We have to be very observant and we have to be very careful because the costs of doing that can be prohibitive. At the end of the day, if we do not do that we could be subject to a range of attacks that probably a lot of us never dreamed of, but they could be very effective and cause a great deal of concern for the future of this country. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (5.59 p.m.): Before I begin to address specific issues associated with this bill, first I would like to pay tribute to the fine work carried out by our emergency services here in Queensland. I am sure all members of this House would agree that our emergency services are of a standard equivalent to, if not greater than, any other provider across the world. The high level of dedication and professionalism of our people within the state police, fire, ambulance, SES and health services is appreciated daily by members of the community whose lives are saved or protected by these workers. We owe these people a debt of gratitude. I am certain all members of this House will join me in praising their professionalism and the dedication they display in the work they undertake. They are our finest. These professionals who serve us so well can only do so properly in major chemical, biological and radiological incidents when parliament grants them the power necessary to carry out their duties. As such it is the responsibility of all members of this House to support this bill and ensure it is passed. The provisions of the bill have been well drafted by the Minister for Police on behalf of the Beattie government. It is a balanced bill that provides sufficient emergency powers along with appropriate safeguards for the people of Queensland. I do not intend to address the safeguards in the bill as my colleagues within the government have done so and will continue to do so. I wish to devote my time in addressing this House to focusing on the necessary and essential powers provided to our emergency services by this bill. Should a CBR emergency be inflicted upon us the powers are clear. When a police officer who is a member of the Senior Executive Service, that is an officer of at least the rank of assistant commissioner, is satisfied that something has happened in which a CBR substance is likely to be involved, that the substance poses a serious risk to the life or health of individuals, that the substance may spread if not contained, that a significant coordinating effort by emergency responders is necessary to adequately respond to the incident and that using powers available to an incident coordinator in an emergency situation or to someone else under the act would not enable emergency responders to effectively deal with the incident, that senior executive officer may declare a CBR emergency. On the making of the declaration the senior officer becomes responsible for the overall management and control of emergency services responding to the CBR emergency. Clearly the officer must be expected to be relieved should the incident continue for any lengthy period. The bill caters for this contingency by allowing the officer to be relieved by an officer of equal or more senior rank. The relevant assistant commissioner of police will be provided with existing powers under the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 passed by a previous parliament to deal with emergency situations at that time. In addition to these powers, the assistant commissioner would be granted additional and necessary powers by this parliament. 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2967

Under the current Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 an incident coordinator, and in this case an assistant commissioner, is entitled to direct the owner or the person for the time being in charge or in control of any resource to surrender it and place it under his or her control; to take control of any resource such as excavation equipment; to direct any person who is capable of operating that resource to operate; to direct the evacuation and exclusion of any person from any premises; to close any public place to members of the public including roads or hospitals where persons are being treated as a result of a particular emergency; to enter any premises; to search any premises and anything found on those premises; to remove anything from those premises and to direct any person to assist him or her in a manner specified by him or her. Clearly in 1986 the parliament did not have to consider the potentiality of acts of terrorism on Queensland soil. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. Today we live in a greatly changed world and must be even more vigilant to potential threats. Therefore, the Beattie government has been realistic and extended the powers of an assistant commissioner and those working with him or her to include detention powers where a person may be infected by a CBR substance. Generally speaking this will occur only for the time needed to cleanse a person of a chemical or radiological substance. However, in the case of an act of terrorism involving a biological substance it may be necessary to detain a person for medical assessment and treatment so that the biological substance is not spread throughout the general community. One would hope that no reasonable person would object to this power should there be a chance of infecting their family or friends. It also includes the power to seize property that might be infected by a CBR substance. Available to them also would be the power to destroy property which might be infected by a CBR substance. As well there is the power to obtain the name and address of a person who might have been subjected to a CBR substance and the power to request the names of close relatives and friends from that person so that they may be advised of the person's whereabouts and legal rights under this bill. Also included is the power to direct a person to go to a stated place, to stay at or in a stated place, or not to enter a stated place. This bill gives emergency service providers the powers necessary to contain an incident and prevent harmful substances from spreading in the interests of the safety of the whole community. We must be able to ensure that people knowingly or unwittingly cannot increase the spread of a chemical, biological or radiological substance or contaminant. This bill refers to a team effort—the same team effort that is currently undertaken by members of our emergency services. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (6.05 p.m.): This is obviously one of the most important bills that has come before this House for a long time. One of the reasons is that the world is changing, unfortunately. What we are seeing are people or organisations or groups that are going about war in a totally different way. The FBI in the United States was supposed to be the great organisation that would make sure that nothing untoward happened. Yet this great organisation was in fact warned time and time again that there would be a terrorist attack. In fact, those people learning to fly aircraft who subsequently took part in what happened on September 11 said that they did not really want to learn how to land and they did not really want to learn how to take off; they just needed to know how to fly. The aircraft training organisations alerted the FBI. Alas, they did virtually nothing about it. I think they pinched one of them for not having a passport in order. Big organisations do not necessarily help in solving and preventing horrendous crimes. Big organisations become political, and if members of such an organisation suggest that something might happen, jealousy comes into play down the line. That is what happened in relation to that chap O'Neill. He was ultimately bushed, only to be got himself in the World Trade Centre disaster. We have to make sure that, however good our legislation is, it works. That is not a brickbat directed at the parliament, the minister or anyone else. But the United States had the FBI, and it did not work. How on earth could anyone imagine four aircraft in one day being successfully hijacked? There was one that did not quite reach the mark, but they still lost an aircraft with all the passengers on board. Even that was quite effective. These people all got through the aircraft security systems. That means that, with all of the organisation in the world, if people are not paying attention the system can be beaten. That is what we are dealing with. I worry greatly that in spite of this legislation—and I am not in any way questioning it—complacency will set in, particularly if we have a lull for a while and 2968 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 nothing happens. People soon forget. One only needs to consider that people are starting to buy blocks of land which were flooded a few years ago. Australia has had its scare with Bali. I hope there are no other scares, but I cannot say from the floor of this House that there will not be. We have to somehow bring in legislation that is workable, because no longer are the tanks and the military expertise the be-all and end-all. The Israelis cannot deal with terrorist attacks, and they are pretty smart. I do not know how anybody can, because how do we know when it is happening or where it is happening or who is behind it? These are the difficulties that are ahead of us. However, through this legislation at least we are trying to prevent a problem. Obviously, preventing a problem is better than trying to fix up the consequences afterwards. It worries me greatly to think of what else could be attacked. Soon, bombing might become unfashionable and we might start seeing attacks on our water supply. The United States and Canada are currently arguing about whose fault the recent blackout was. I am led to believe that was caused by a lightning strike. That will give terrorists some food for thought. It would be very easy to cripple a nation by hacking into the computers that control the electricity supply. It might be very easy to cripple a water supply. It might also be possible to cripple people through the use of chemicals, gases and so on. I will not go into the other aspects of the bill, which have already been covered by other honourable members. I simply say this to the parliament: each and every one of us has to be vigilant. Those in charge have to make this legislation work. They have to be vigilant, their bosses have to be vigilant, our ministers have to be vigilant and our opposition has to be vigilant. Even then we probably will not solve the problem totally, but at least we will be doing our best. I wish the legislation well and, quite frankly, I wish us all well. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.11 p.m.): Our great state needs to be prepared to deal with potential acts of terrorism and other critical incidents. Terrorism as we know it has manifested itself in the form of hijacked aircraft slamming into buildings in New York and also the massive bombs in Bali that killed many innocent Australians. But terrorism can also come in the form of the release of chemical, biological and radiological agents. Such acts of terrorism could cause widespread devastation to our people, perhaps having even more sinister effects than a bomb. Any act of terrorism is possible in the world today and we have to be prepared for the worst. In the preparation of the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill, consultation was undertaken with all relevant government agencies, including the Department of Health, the DPI, the Department of Transport, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chief Justice, the Public Interest Monitor and the Crown Solicitor. Proposed section 12 outlines circumstances in which a chemical, biological and radiological emergency may be declared. A state police officer who must hold the rank of at least assistant commissioner may declare an emergency if he or she is satisfied that something has happened. For example, an incident has occurred in which a CBR substance is involved and the substance poses a serious risk to the life or even the health of people; the substance may spread if it is not contained; a significant and coordinated effort is necessary by emergency responders to respond to the incident; and, finally, where the various powers available to an incident coordinator in an emergency situation or to someone else pursuant to other legislation would not enable emergency responders to effectively deal with the incident. If a CBR emergency is declared, it is very serious. The chemical, biological and radiological emergency coordinator must make a written record of the time and date the emergency was declared and inform the minister promptly. If the minister cannot be contacted, the Premier must be contacted to inform him of the emergency. It is important to note that the CBRE coordinator is responsible for the overall management and control of emergency responders responding to the emergency. Ambulance officers, fire officers, police officers and veterinary officers may be authorised to exercise powers under the bill in relation to the declaration of a CBR emergency. For example, a CBRE ambulance officer may exercise the treatment power. A fire officer may exercise the decontamination power and the property destruction power. A CBRE police officer may exercise the detention power, the property seizure power and the identity power. CBRE health officers may exercise the decontamination power and the treatment power amongst others. Proposed section 29 outlines powers in relation to medical examinations and treatment and section 30 outlines the powers of a CBRE ambulance officer or a CBRE health officer if a person refuses to undergo treatment. Section 43 outlines the reporting mechanism of the minister to this parliament. Within six months after the end of an emergency the minister must table a report in 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2969 the Legislative Assembly that includes details such as the nature of the emergency, the emergency powers relied on and other matters. The report may also include anything else that the minister considers appropriate. Modern terrorists are modern-day criminals. These terrorist acts are criminal acts. They have no regard for humanity, no regard for people and no regard for the destruction they cause. They certainly have no regard for the law. They are, in my view, lunatics and nutters on death and destruction missions. It is better for our state to be prepared and to be ready to deal with such terrorist acts than to be wise in hindsight. Hopefully, the 'retrospectroscope' will not be needed in Queensland with this legislation. I congratulate the minister and officers of the Public Service who have worked so diligently on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (6.15 p.m.): It is my great pleasure to rise in support of the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2003. I, too, would like to join my colleagues in commending the minister for the introduction of this legislation and also the public servants who have worked tirelessly on what is a fairly complex and difficult area. I have had the privilege of working with other colleagues and with the minister on his backbench ministerial police committee. That is one forum where it is often possible to have some early awareness of important initiatives such as this and to have input. I express my appreciation to the minister for the way in which he runs his backbench committee. The World Trade Centre catastrophe in 2001 and the Bali bombing in 2002 brought the world to an entirely new level of awareness of international terrorism. In previous decades terrorists have hijacked aircraft from time to time, mostly in the northern hemisphere and predominantly in Europe. However, never before outside of a declared wartime situation have people in Australia felt like they have been potentially at risk from international terrorism. Since the World Trade Centre and the Bali bombing we have become aware of the ever-present possibility of it happening on our own shores. This legislation gives effect to one of the five key policy objectives of the Beattie Labor government, and that is building safe communities. That objective is achieved through a range of initiatives by this government, the most recent being the anti-hooning legislation referred to by my colleague the member for Redlands earlier. At a far larger and significant level, but with the same policy objective, this CBR legislation seeks to make the community in Queensland a far safer place. Prior to this legislation, the government did have some powers in relation to emergency situations in the public domain. Since 1986 there has been the Public Safety Preservation Act. That, along with other related legislation, has provided emergency powers to enable the protection of property and the lives of people in emergency situations in Queensland. However, since the new rise of international terrorism in Australia it has been necessary to bring forward this sort of legislation, which exceeds initiatives taken in the year 2000 when the Beattie government developed a document titled the State of Queensland multi-agency response plan to chemical, biological and radiological incidents. This legislation is a step beyond that and is based upon the excellent work done in that document. There are five key criteria used to identify when this legislation is activated. Firstly, an incident has to occur in which a chemical, biological or radiological substance is involved; secondly, the CBR substance must pose a serious risk to the life or health of individuals; thirdly, it must be found that the CBR substance may spread if not immediately contained; fourthly, a significant coordinated effort by emergency responders is necessary to adequately respond to the incident; and, fifthly, using powers available under existing laws would not enable emergency responders to effectively deal with the incident. That is one of the key elements of this legislation that significantly advances the position from the current legislation, because this is legislation of absolute last resort. There are a range of powers that are conferred under relevant authorities pursuant to this legislation. Those powers involve the power to detain people; to give people directions in order to restrict movement; to give people directions about the conduct, the safety and use of animals; to decontaminate individuals; to medically examine and treat members of the public; to seize property; to destroy seized property; and also to require members of the public to give their names and addresses. Those powers are allocated to different emergency services officers, whether they be medical officers, ambulance officers or police officers. That is the constellation of powers that is available to be used under this exceptional legislation. 2970 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

Because it is exceptional legislation it is important to balance that with the concerns relating to people's civil liberties and also the seizure of their property with safeguards and accountabilities. They are also to be found in the legislation. One of the key accountabilities is the threshold trigger that is required before this legislation comes into operation, and that is that there must be an incident involving a CBR matter that has already occurred. It is not activated by the prospect of an incident occurring in the future but that an incident has already occurred. Secondly, as I said earlier, it must be a case where the existing powers available to the police or other emergency services workers are not sufficient to deal with the CBR emergency. A further safeguard is that the overall coordinator of the CBR emergency must be an officer at the rank of assistant commissioner or above. Further, there is a very close definition of the CBR emergency powers to minimise the extent to which the normal rights and privileges that are enjoyed by Queenslanders are impinged upon. The legislation also requires that the CBR emergency be ended as soon as the exercise of the emergency powers is no longer necessary to protect life or health at serious risk because of the CBR substance involved. Another safeguard is that the emergency powers may be used only for so long as is necessary to ensure that the CBR substance does not pose a serious risk to life or health of individuals. There further must be a written record kept of all property seized and, importantly, there are a range of judicial procedures to apply scrutiny to the exercise of these powers. That is associated with powers in the Public Interest Monitor to appear before the Supreme Court in cases of detention and powers being exercised against a member of the public and, further, that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the use of these emergency powers by requiring the Minister for Police to report to parliament on any CBR emergency. In addition to those safeguards, the legislation sets up a regime whereby the exercise of the power in the first place can apply only for 24 hours and then it can be extended for only seven days. Any extension beyond seven days can be only by regulation through the parliament, which can have operation for 14 days at most. Then it can be extended only by the parliament. This is very sound legislation and it is my pleasure to commend it to the House. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (6.24 p.m.), in reply: First of all I place on record my thanks to the opposition and, in particular, the shadow minister for police and corrective services for the support which he and the opposition have given to this legislation. I also want to place on record my thanks to all those speakers who have participated in this debate. It is quite amazing that we had almost 18 speakers today and this evening and there has not been one single interjection. I think that says something for the quality of the debate and also the importance of this issue. I also want to record in Hansard the work and the contribution which my ministerial colleague Mike Reynolds wanted to make to this debate. He was adamant that when the debate came on he wanted to make his contribution—and rightly so, too. But, of course, he has not come back from sick leave. I want recorded the work that he did do in ensuring that this legislation went through cabinet initially and then through the other channels. I also want to stress that this is not just about the Queensland Police Service; it is also about the Department of Emergency Services and a number of other government agencies. The parliament—certainly in my opinion—has risen to great heights today as individual members have seen fit to express their concerns about the world as it is today and, of course, the terrible traumas which people of the four corners of the world have suffered in recent times. I think this forum here—the parliament of Queensland—is the ideal forum for people to express their concerns. I want to congratulate all the speakers for the way in which they have made their contributions. I was in New York just before 11 September with the Police Commissioner and we saw the skyline of New York and then saw it a few weeks later when two of the major parts of that skyline had disappeared because of the actions of terrorists. I think the shadow minister referred to them as scum. I do not think you could get a better description of these people. Then we had the situation closer to home where a number of Australians lost their lives. We cannot let terrorists change our way of life. At all times we have to be vigilant. I want to stress to the people in this chamber today and the people of Queensland that there is no area which has been identified in this state as a possible threat from terrorists or from terrorism. Obviously we are keeping a very close watch on events around the world, but all the information we have is that no icon in this state has been identified by people as being a major target for terrorists. 19 Aug 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 2971

A couple of members referred to training, and I will come back to those responses in a moment. The Queensland Police Service and, of course, the emergency services in Queensland are already amongst the highest trained in the Commonwealth and, indeed, around the world. A lot of this training was gained as a result of the CHOGM conference, which took place at Coolum. As we all know, some 53 leaders of nations from the British Commonwealth, including the Queen, and at the same time Bill Clinton, the former American President, were all in our state. Yet time after time you would switch on the television or read the newspapers or listen to the radio and there was turmoil around the world and people were saying—experienced political commentators—that we will never, ever be able to have a political conference again. Yet here in Queensland we had one of the largest political gatherings, certainly in the history of this state—as large as anything the world has ever seen—and at the end of the day there was one single arrest. The person who was arrested made it perfectly clear that he wanted to be arrested. So that did not just happen. The terrorists did not decide to take the week off, or the criminals did not decide to take the week off. The reason we had the success was the training of our police and also our emergency services personnel. To some extent, the debate in the parliament of this bill and the eventual vote on it is the end of a lot of hard work by a large number of people. I just want to place on record my personal thanks and the thanks of the government to acting Inspector Greg Thomas for the work that he did; to Anthony Reilly from the Department of Premier and Cabinet; also, Fiona McKersie and Steven O'Reilly from Emergency Services; and, of course, Scott Singleton and other members of my own personal staff for the major contribution that they made in having this legislation, which has the support of both sides of parliament, before this place. The opposition asked a number of questions. In my opinion they were sensible and good questions and I believe that they deserve some answers. The shadow minister referred to multiple substances and asked: can substances be detected quickly and will the general public be briefed? Members will appreciate that there will be instances when a CBR substance cannot be identified quickly. Obviously, every endeavour will be made to have a substance analysed as a matter of great urgency by the forensic laboratories. We will make determinations on the release of information to the public in accordance with the bill and in the interests of the security of the state. It is not a matter of trying to hide anything; it is a matter of people being given the task of making these decisions. There is no way that we would attempt to do anything without informing the public. The shadow minister also questioned the financial implications of this legislation. Of course, the minimal financial implications raised by the member for Gregory relate to the passage of this legislation rather than the management of the CBR emergency. With respect to establishment costs for things such as protective equipment, the state has made arrangements with the federal government through COAG for funding. Protective equipment has already been purchased or has been ordered. With respect to an actual CBR emergency, depending on the size of that emergency, the financial implications could be substantial. However, let me make it perfectly clear tonight—and the member can come back on my words if he has to later on—the government will not shirk from those responsibilities and issues of finance will be secondary to the welfare of the people of this state. If money is required, as we said in relation to CHOGM, money will be found—and the Treasurer is nodding agreement to that. With respect to compensation to members of the public for loss of income, personal injury or damage to property, I want to draw members' attention to clauses nine, 10 and 11 of the bill. A person cannot be dismissed from employment because they were unfortunate enough to become a victim of a CBR emergency. Compensation for personal injury will apply to persons acting under a resource direction or a help direction in the same manner as if they were an employee under WorkCover. Under this bill, a victim will not generally be compensated for injury on the same basis as would occur in a situation of a natural disaster. However, that obviously does not prevent the government from providing financial assistance to people on a case-by-case basis. A person can make an application for an ex gratia payment from the government within three months of a CBR emergency ending where property is used, damaged or destroyed because of that emergency. The shadow minister also asked questions about the liability of the state. Liability does not attach to the state, the minister or an official because of anything done or omitted to be done under this act in good faith or without negligence. Clearly, a CBR emergency can arise from an act of terrorism or by negligence of an individual who, for instance, may be transporting a 2972 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 chemical substance. The state cannot be held accountable for acts of terrorism or acts of negligence from an individual. Civil action can be taken against the individual. The shadow minister also questioned the consultation within the community about this legislation. Given the emergency issues that we face in this new global environment, there has been a pressing need to pass this legislation without delay. I am sure that no member would object to us putting forward these new provisions to ensure that we are adequately prepared for any emergency. There has not been a great deal of consultation with the community because, quite honestly, we were not prepared, as we were preparing this legislation, to signal what we intended to do to people who were trying to destroy our way of life. I have touched on the other issue that was raised by the shadow minister, namely, training. I repeat: a CBR emergency can be declared by a police officer only of the rank of assistant commissioner or above. The member for Gladstone implied that that is not a very high position. Let me say that there are 12 assistant commissioners in this state. There are only two people higher in rank than the assistant commissioner. That is the deputy commissioner and the commissioner himself. So I would not suggest that an assistant commissioner was a low-ranked police officer. Really, an assistant commissioner is way up there at the top. Following a declaration, operational aspects of a CBR emergency will be coordinated by the CBR coordinator, who is also a police officer of the rank of assistant commissioner or above that rank. As I said a moment ago, there are only two people ranked above that position. All assistant commissioners will be fully trained, as will chief superintendents, superintendents and inspectors. In fact, all police officers will receive the necessary training so that they can perform their role in such an emergency. Training for the purposes of interdepartmental coordination will be undertaken between the emergency services to ensure that any response needed is the best available in the Commonwealth. Again, the shadow minister asked a question about assistant commissioners. As I said a moment ago, there are 12 assistant commissioners throughout the state, one of whom is on call 24 hours a day performing the role of executive duty officer. The executive duty officer has the ability to declare a CBR emergency in the role of the CBRE coordinator and the declaration can be made by telephone. So people do not have to physically be in the place where the emergency has been declared to be able to do that. It must be borne in mind that, as I said before, the assistant commissioner is the third ranking senior officer in the Police Service. On making a CBR emergency declaration, the assistant commissioner must immediately notify me, the Premier, or in the absence of both of us, the senior minister within the government. The member for Gladstone asked questions about pre-existing powers. These powers supplement—and I use the word 'supplement'—existing powers. They do not supersede them. The powers are not only for terrorist situations but also can be used in any extreme CBR emergency. Under this bill, the power can be used only when existing powers under any other legislation are insufficient. Therefore, if the powers under the State Counter-Disaster Organisation Act or the Public Safety Preservation Act are sufficient, a CBR emergency declaration will simply not be made. The member for Gladstone again asked whether we will review this legislation in, say, five years time. As a matter of course the government will review the adequacy of this legislation should, God forbid, a CBR emergency occur. Members should also note that new section 43 requires that I table a report in this House within six months of the end of a CBR emergency. That means that every time the powers are used the process will be open to parliamentary scrutiny. The member for Nanango said that Queenslanders should not be detained for a time any longer than necessary. The legislation specifically requires that a person cannot be detained any longer than necessary. I draw the attention of members to section 33, which requires a Supreme Court judge to approve detention beyond 48 hours of the CBR emergency. New section 9 stipulates that it is parliament's intention that the powers be exercised for only as long as is necessary. Evidence will be retained only for the purposes of prosecuting a person for any offence arising out of a CBR emergency, as would happen in any criminal investigation. In conclusion, I again thank all members who participated in this debate. The opposition has indicated that it is happy to support this bill which, again, I am grateful for. I thank all members for the contributions they have made. Motion agreed to. 19 Aug 2003 Land Tax Amendment Bill 2973

Committee Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr JOHNSON (6.42 p.m.): The minister summarised the position very precisely when he made reference to the fact that this is about protecting people in the community. There are always ramifications to a disaster like this. I draw the attention of the minister to section (2) of clause 11, which states that the claimant or another person authorised by the claimant for the purpose may apply in writing to the minister for compensation for financial loss. I know that this is an issue that could arise and no doubt will arise in time. I hope that it does not. I give the example of people not being able to live in a residence again or of the need for a residence to be destroyed. The minister well knows that acts of terrorism are not covered by insurance. The same situation would apply to a workplace facility. That could involve numerous businesses. That comes back to the issue of unemployment and loss of revenue. Is there a working relationship with the federal authorities with regard to this? What would be the best case scenario? Mr McGRADY: Compensation of this nature is currently available under the Public Safety Preservation Act. Of course, nothing has been or will be changed as a result of this. The shadow minister also questioned the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. Whilst the federal, state and territory governments can spar from time to time, on matters such as this we are as one. Before the CHOGM conference was held here we negotiated quite successfully with the Commonwealth government. The same thing would apply here. I think we are the first state to bring in this legislation. This is all about the Commonwealth and the states working together. As I mentioned in my reply to the second reading debate, the Commonwealth has already indicated that if money is required or we need to purchase any additional equipment it would be supporting us. I will not take this opportunity to bag the federal government because it does not deserve it. We are working as a team. We are talking here about the safety of the nation. It does not matter one iota whether someone is a Queenslander, a New South Welshman or someone who lives in the Northern Territory. This is the nation we are talking about. That is what this legislation is all about. As a state we have a responsibility to have this legislation before us. In my opinion the opposition has been very generous tonight. It has accepted the predicament that the world is in and it has supported us. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 19, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

LAND TAX AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 4 June (see p. 2546). Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (6.47 p.m.): At the outset I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Land Tax Amendment Bill. We do so because over the past couple of years the amount of land tax collected in Queensland has risen quite sharply and we need to bring it back to more reasonable levels. In the previous three or four budgets the Treasury budgeted for land tax collections in the order of $230 million. In the 2001-02 budget it budgeted for about $230 million. Actual collections for that year rose sharply to around $278 million—a quite rapid increase of 20 per cent. In this most recent budget collections are forecast to increase by about 36 per cent to $314 million. That is as a result of sharp increases in valuations over that period of time. Without this bill the increase 2974 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 would in fact be in the order of 40 per cent or 41 per cent—quite a steep rise on the previous amount budgeted for. What the Treasurer is doing is legislating to increase the thresholds for both individuals and entities, whether they be companies, trustees or corporations, and we think that is a good move. There could be an argument that it still does not go far enough, but we will not argue along those lines tonight. We think the bill is worth supporting because it releases many thousands of individuals from the burden of land tax because of the rise in valuations, and we will support the bill. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (6.50 p.m.): I was delighted to be sitting in this chamber to hear the opposition spokesperson support our Land Tax Amendment Bill. Normally what we see in this chamber is people opposite arguing that somehow or another we ought to provide more services but we ought not be collecting taxes to do so. It is true that there has been a substantial increase in land tax because of increases in valuations. Something like $340 million is budgeted for in this budget. I was at a party last Christmas with some friends of mine and we got into a very heated debate about the fact that they were paying substantial land tax. They were indicating that it was a dreadful imposition. It is interesting in that regard to see an article that appeared in today's Financial Review. The Australian Taxation Office is saying that rental expenses rose eight per cent to $13.2 billion last financial year on rental returns of $12.6 billion. What does someone do with extra land they might have outside of a principal place of residence—it is rented. People such as those so-called business acquaintances of mine do very well in this situation because it is fascinating to see that they claim more back than they ever pay. The Australian tax office should make sure, as I argued, that we have land tax. It is important if we are to provide services such as child protection, education and health. Here we have the minister looking at the bottom end of town. We have something like 11,400 residents who will not be paying tax as a result of this legislation. Because of the increase in the minimum tax from $100 to $350, people will now have to have outside their principal place of residence a land value in excess of $275,000. I am delighted that the member for Robina is supporting these changes to land tax. Therefore, I will not start playing politics with members opposite. I welcome their support for the bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (6.54 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the legislation. It is a budget bill, and I appreciate the opposition's support for it. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.55 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

CORRECTIVE SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 25 March (see p. 724). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.30 p.m.): This legislation, the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003, before the House is principally a refinement of the Corrective Service Act 2000. The bill proposes a number of amendments which have become apparent in the administration of the current act and also involve the codification of many of the existing management practices that have been in operation for some time but are specifically defined and elaborated upon in this bill to ensure that there is no opportunity for loopholes to be explored by those that may have an interest in trying to overturn existing policies and practices. 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2975

From the outset I would like to indicate that the opposition proposes to support this legislation. One of the major provisions of this amendment is to allow the chief executive to classify remand prisoners as maximum security prisoners. If, because of the circumstances of the crime with which the prisoner is charged or because of other circumstances, the chief executive has reason to believe that there is a high risk of escape or a danger to the life or wellbeing of other prisoners, an order can now be made for prisoners to be accommodated in a high security facility. This amendment also clarifies that a person who is already serving imprisonment as a consequence of other charges is not to be considered a remand prisoner because of subsequent charges. Another matter which has been clarified by this legislation is the obligation of a prisoner released back to the community under a conditional release order. This amendment makes it clear that a conditional release is just that—it is conditional. If the conditions are broken or a person is charged with an offence, the chief executive may suspend or cancel a conditional release and issue a warrant for the return of the person to custody so that they serve out the remainder of their sentence. Where a prisoner is participating in a post-prison community based release order and the chief executive or a corrective services board have reason to believe that a prisoner poses an unacceptable risk to the community or is preparing to leave the state without lawful authority, then the release order may be suspended or cancelled. In the minister's second reading speech he pointed out that the community's protection must take precedence over procedural fairness in relation to the prisoner. Even though prisoners are on a work release order, they are still prisoners and remain in the custody of the chief executive. I think this is a very fair comment. The important thing to remember here is that in trying to make the system better, we are trying to make it more flexible. We got that precisely in the briefing we had with the minister's people. I believe that the real issue here is about placing more trust and more confidence in prisoners. I think it is a part of the rehabilitation program and it is probably a part of a corrective services program where we can get people to see that they can be treated fairly and get back into the system sooner rather than later. If an order suspending or cancelling the order is given and the prisoner is returned to custody, procedural fairness provisions are then extended to the prisoner. This bill also seeks to amend section 33 of the act which deals with the testing of samples taken from prisoners to detect illegal substances. This amendment also provides a similar provision to the drink-driving requirements in that a refusal to provide a sample will lead to a deemed positive sample. This legislation also proposes to amend section 77 of the act and clarifies that only relevant sentencing remarks and reports are considered for determining if a prisoner's discharge or release represents an unacceptable risk to the community. Obviously remarks made some time ago or relating to less serious offences are not likely to be relevant in considering recent serious offences. Another fairly topical issue that is addressed by this legislation is the creation of a specific offence to deal with persons who aid, abet, employ, harbour or maintain someone who that person knows or ought to reasonably know is an escaped prisoner. The maximum penalty under this provision will be 100 penalty units or two years imprisonment. Members know the hard work that the police do in trying to put these convicted felons behind bars, but there are people out there aiding and abetting this criminal element. This is a pretty light sentence and I think that the minister or the chief executive in time might say that if it is not tough enough, they might toughen it up more. I think the minister would agree with me that these people who aid and abet these types of people are criminals themselves. I will seek the minister's assurance that this provision will appropriately address the previous circumstances where family members have been apparently involved in aiding persons to escape custody. Another matter that is clarified by this legislation is a specific provision to permit a Corrective Services officer to use reasonable force to restrain a prisoner who is attempting to harm themselves. This provision also exempts the Corrective Services officer from having to issue the usual warnings before using force in these circumstances because obviously precious seconds may count in saving a life or preventing somebody being seriously injured. This bill also clarifies some existing practices in relation to the administration of visitors to the corrective services facilities. If a person is refused access or has access suspended to a facility, the chief executive may order that the refusal also applies to any other corrective services facilities. 2976 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

There are a number of other amendments contained in the bill which are minor amendments which, like many of the others to which I have referred, simply clarify the existing procedural arrangements. To ensure that these arrangements are clear I would like to thank the minister for providing me with the opportunity to discuss this legislation with officers from his department. I thank them for their very comprehensive and professional presentation of the matters covered by this legislation. I must also report to the minister that I was a little perplexed, however, when one of his officers assured me that the Department of Corrective Services was running an open door policy, but I was hastily advised that this policy related to community consultation rather than guests of the department of these facilities. In conclusion, I wish to indicate that the opposition supports this piece of legislation, but in doing so I have to say that this is an area that I believe is very important in bringing people to realise that breaking the law is the wrong thing. It is also about the fairness of the corrective system. Since I have had shadow responsibility for corrective services—and the minister is more knowledgeable than I am on this—I have become aware of the number of people who are trying to outsmart the law or break the law Certainly, as I just addressed in this legislation this evening, I can assure government members that the opposition will support the government in any way at all if laws have to be increased or stiffened to counter this element. At the end of the day if family members or friends or other criminal elements are going to aid and abet and help these people avoid or get out of corrective institutions, it is something that cannot be condoned by the majority of the good, law-abiding citizens of this state or the Police Service in this state, whose members at most times put their lives at risk or in great danger to apprehend many of these people in question. I believe a lot of people take for granted the work of prison officers and the police who apprehend criminals. I put on record that all honourable members salute our Corrective Services officers. Their task is not an easy one, given some of the people they have to deal with. Although a lot of good people find themselves in the prison system, at the same time there are some scum in our prison system whom I believe should never be released. We owe a great debt to the people who keep those people in custody, and we must make certain that they are working in a safe environment. The opposition supports this legislation and looks forward to making certain that this system works better in the future. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (8.40 p.m.): I speak in support of the amendments proposed under the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Beattie Labor government's priorities. The government is delivering an improved and more integrated criminal justice system, taking initiatives to improve the exchange of information between government agencies, improving time efficiency and avoiding duplication, and ensuring that commonsense prevails with regard to the management of offenders who are at risk of jeopardising the safety of the Queensland public. The government is implementing a number of strategies to improve overall service delivery and efficiency. The integrated justice information strategy seeks to plan and implement justice solutions that share information and increase collaboration between law enforcement agencies. The integrated offender management strategy will provide a consistent and integrated approach to the management of offenders across all areas of correctional service delivery. It will do this by developing a model of offender management with a focus on preventing further offending. Eventually, the integrated offender management strategy will be able to exchange information with systems in other departments as part of the integrated justice information system initiative. The proposed amendments found in this bill are consistent with these government initiatives and will, for example, enable police and Corrective Services officers to work collaboratively in the apprehension of a prisoner who is unlawfully at large; allow a report about an offender's traffic history to be obtained; and clarify the overlap between the role of the court considering whether to grant bail and a decision-maker's role in considering whether to suspend a release order when an offender is charged with fresh offences. This will also help to streamline the whole criminal justice process, enabling greater and more prompt sharing of information with respect to managing offenders in the criminal justice system. The proposed amendments strive to use allocated resources more effectively and to avoid unnecessary duplication. This will be achieved through clarification of the security classification of a sentenced prisoner who is also on remand. This will mean that if a prisoner is already classified prior to being charged with a new offence, the security classification may be maintained, and resources do not need to be unnecessarily consumed by maintaining the prisoner at a high 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2977 security classification. The amendments will enable a remand prisoner to be classified maximum security when considered necessary and will provide that inspectors need not be appointed to investigate an incident if the incident is being investigated by an officer of a law enforcement agency. The proposed amendments introduce some commonsense measures to minimise the chance of offenders reoffending when they are facing fresh charges in the criminal justice system. Rather than having to wait for a criminal charge to be dealt with in the courts, the department, through the passing of this bill, will have the advantage of a number of precautionary measures designed to enhance the safety of the community. For example, a conditional release order may be amended, suspended or cancelled if there is a reasonable belief that the prisoner has contravened the order or has been charged with the commission of a further offence. The suspension or cancellation of the order will allow for the prisoner to be returned to prison if there is concern for the safety of the community at large. When a prisoner is returned to custody following a decision to suspend the order, the prisoner will be given the opportunity to show cause why the decision should be changed. The department will have the discretion to suspend a post-prison community based release order for a period of 28 days if a prisoner is charged with committing an offence, is reasonably believed to pose an unacceptable risk of committing an offence or is preparing to leave the state without the appropriate approval. The community's right to safety should always prevail if unacceptable risks emerge. Following the prisoner's return to prison, the community corrections board that granted the release order would consider what further action should be taken. This action could include a continuation of the suspension, cancellation of the order or the prisoner's return to the community. There are similar provisions that a community corrections board can exercise to protect the community by amending, suspending or cancelling a prisoner's post-prison community based release orders. The introduction of the offence of aiding, abetting, employing, harbouring or maintaining a prisoner who is unlawfully at large will mean that escapees will have fewer places to hide. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment to deter those who consider supporting prisoners on the run. I support the amendments in the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003, because they will promote the whole-of-government commitment to crime prevention and improved community safety. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.45 p.m.): In speaking to the Corrective Services Amendment Bill, let me say that I believe the majority of people in the community want to feel safe and know that people who commit crimes are dealt with quickly and in a just manner, but in a way that ensures that they pay for the crimes they have committed. People in the community are still telling me that they feel young people who commit crimes are being punished insufficiently. I am not sure that there will ever be a real solution to the frustration felt by the community when it perceives that people who commit crime are punished insufficiently. This bill, in part, addresses a number of those concerns. However, there are several other issues in respect of which I seek clarification from the minister. I believe this bill will be welcomed by the community in that it allows the chief executive officer, in appropriate cases, to classify prisoners who are on remand as maximum security prisoners. One has only to turn on the news on any night of the week to witness some of the horrendous actions taken by one human being against another. Only this week we saw as a result of mistaken identity they called it, a father with a very small child being brutally attacked. The perpetrators have stated that they did not realise this man was carrying a baby. Claiming that we did not know something is not a justifiable defence. The sorts of prisoners who without discrimination are prepared to inflict serious harm on another human being deserve to be, even while on remand, dealt with as maximum security prisoners. I believe many in our community would welcome that. One of the things that the majority of residents do not realise, and this is something I am thankful for, is the mentality and personality type of a lot—not all—of the people who are currently serving custodial sentences. Life inside a prison wall is markedly different from life outside. While they have their own code of ethics, particularly in relation to child sex offenders and the like, the fact is that many of us, me included, would struggle to understand the mentality, type of activity and personality of hardcore prisoners and, in certain circumstances, the people who visit them. They live in a completely different world altogether. This bill will give power to Corrective Services facilities to refuse access to those facilities by persons who are deemed to be inappropriate. When I first read that, I was reminded of when 2978 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 strip-searching was first brought in in Queensland, and in particular the case of a woman whose husband was in prison—and I happen to know these people personally. Her husband had confessed to a crime that he had committed many years ago because he had had a change in faith and a change in life. He felt that to be honest to himself and his new beliefs he needed to fess up to an activity that occurred 20 years earlier and pay the penalty, and he did. At one stage the wife was confronted with a demand that she be strip-searched. She refused to do that and was not allowed entry in to see this person. It may have been that they had a blitz on at the time. However, this particular bill recognises those people who pose a risk to the community in that they are quite prepared—and, in some cases, overtly intend—to assist an incarcerated person to escape or to create some other sort of mischief. I believe that that provision will be welcomed by members of the community. The minister's second reading speech says that in terms of community safety the most significant amendment to the act achieved by this bill relates to the suspension or cancellation of a post-prison community based release order where a prisoner poses an unacceptable risk of committing an offence or is preparing to leave Queensland without lawful authority. That initiative is welcome and in this bill the minister himself states that it is the most significant amendment. One hundred per cent of the community in general would have assumed that the power to return a person to prison when they were either on parole or on an early release order already existed and for many of us the fact that this is a new initiative is rather concerning to say the least. There are, however, a couple of issues on which I wish to seek clarification from the minister. The explanatory notes to the Corrective Services Act in 2000 stated— For a number of years it has been recognised that the current system of prisoner remission is a flawed concept. This was because it failed to take account of the community risk factor which could be presented by the unsupervised discharge of some types of prisoners. I believe that that has been demonstrated by many instances of recurring offences by prisoners who are released and the outcry that the community subsequently makes when it is revealed that that prisoner was released on parole or other similar early release. It is essential that, in determining whether a prisoner should be released early—and there would be many in the community who would say that they should not, that they should serve 100 per cent of their sentence—the community risk factor be taken into account. Some prisoners have been released recently, and I am not sure how this bill will affect them. The Attorney-General's bill that has recently been passed will ameliorate the circumstances to some extent of prisoners who were convicted of violent sexual offences or sexual offences against children by actively stating that they are intending to reoffend. Minister Welford, the Attorney-General, introduced legislation to say that if prisoners, once they had completed their sentence, were deemed to be a risk to the community or likely to reoffend they could be retained for an indefinite period. Many people have welcomed that legislation. However, if releasing prisoners for a broad cross-section of offences is to be allowed, community risk must be taken into account. I would have to express concern that the post-prison community based release orders may be able to be achieved after a prisoner has served only half of their sentence. A number of years ago—in 1996—I made comments about parole and the fact that people in the community had been saying prisoners should serve their entire prison sentence. The parole board asked to meet and we met up in the annexe. It explained to me in some detail the benefits of parole and the effect that it can have on influencing behaviour in the prisons. At the time my response was that if prisoners misbehave the threat could be to extend their prison sentence rather than offer the carrot of early release. Parole and similar systems have been used for many years to positively influence prisoners' conduct. However, I would express concern that these post- prison community based release orders will be available to certain prisoners after serving only half of their sentence. I would seek clarification from the minister as to the types of offences that these post-prison community based release orders, which is a mouthful in itself, will apply to. It states that those serving over two years for an offence committed on or after 1 July will be eligible or those sentenced to any term of imprisonment for an offence committed before 1 July. That is very indistinct in my mind. I say to the minister on the record that we would welcome clarification as to the type of offences that are going to be considered here. If it is going to be violent offences then, very importantly, the risk to the community must be assessed. The other issue that I wish to raise as a concern with the minister is that the bill allows that a prisoner who has been detained in an institution for a period fixed by a judge under part 3 of the 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2979

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 in Queensland, which allows for indeterminate detention of convicted sex offenders, must have been detained for half of the fixed period before becoming eligible to apply for a PPCBR order. The clarification I seek from the minister is this. I am assuming that those people are held in institutions, for example mental health institutions or similar controlled facilities. In determining the eligibility of that prisoner for release—and in itself it is difficult to determine because it says 'indeterminate detention' and then the criteria will be after they have served half of the fixed period, which appears to me to be a contradiction—maybe the minister can clarify whether victim impact statements will be taken into account in determining whether that person should even be considered for release from an institution. There is very little being said in much of this legislation about the impact on victims. It talks about community impact, but it does not talk about seeking and gaining victim impact statements and the decision makers—the corrections board—being exposed to victim impact statements. I would seek the minister's comment on that. Victims are very important because they are the ones directly affected by the release of the perpetrator. The other issue that I wish to raise is in relation to the material that the chief executive must consider in relation to these early releases. Again, I raise the issue of victim impact statements. Clause 9 of the bill seeks to amend section 77 of the Corrective Services Act by inserting the word 'relevant' to subsections 77(f) to (h). The effect of this is that, in deciding whether a prisoner's discharge or release poses an unacceptable risk to the community, the chief executive must consider, but is not limited to considering, as well as the other considerations noted above any relevant remarks made by the sentencing court, any relevant medical or psychological report relating to the prisoner, or any relevant behavioural report relating to the prisoner. I would again seek the minister's response to whether victim impact statements will be regarded as relevant reports. They are intrinsically linked to the behaviour of the prisoner, the actions of the prisoner and the attitude of the prisoner in the committing of that crime. They should also be very relevant documents in terms of early release of that prisoner and their potential risk to the community. I would therefore seek the minister's response to those matters prior to the conclusion of the second reading debate. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (8.59 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the amendments proposed in the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003. I will confine my remarks to exploring how the amendments will assist in enhancing community safety. Protection from harm is one of the fundamental rights that each of us expects to be able to enjoy. One of the Beattie Labor government's top five priorities is building safer and more supportive communities. The government is committed to this by addressing the social and economic causes of crime; promoting individual, family and community vitality that respects diversity; minimising the risks and impact of emergencies and disasters; and improving personal and public safety. The Corrective Services Act 2000 provides important legislative support for the priorities of the government. According to the act, the purpose of corrective services is community safety and crime prevention through the humane containment, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders. Although the bill contains several provisions that are intended to resolve some operational problems that have arisen since the act commenced on 1 July 2001, there are a number of provisions that are designed specifically to enhance and strengthen those that impact on community safety. I would like to talk specifically about four of those. Firstly, I would like to speak about the remand of prisoners. Section 12 of the act requires the chief executive of the Department of Corrective Services to classify prisoners as maximum, high, medium, low or open security in accordance with their category of risk. The act requires specifically that a prisoner on remand be classified as high security. Currently, there is no power for the chief executive to classify a remand prisoner as maximum security even though the prisoner may be a very high risk to others or be a very high escape risk. Under section 47 of the act, a maximum security order may be made only—and I repeat only—if the prisoner is classified as maximum security. As prisoners on remand can be classified only as high security, they cannot be placed on maximum security orders. This situation is unacceptable as it places the safety of staff and potentially the community at risk. Clause 5 of the bill seeks to rectify this situation by amending section 12 of the act to allow the chief executive the discretion to classify a remand prisoner as maximum security after considering all relevant factors. Whilst some may question whether it is appropriate for non- convicted prisoners to be placed in a maximum security unit, the government considers the need 2980 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 to ensure overall community safety as paramount. In any event, it should be noted that placement in a maximum security unit is not imposed as a punishment and that any prisoner so accommodated is entitled under the act to seek a review of his maximum security order and to receive regular medical examinations. These provisions ensure that the needs and entitlements of prisoners are not neglected or overlooked while they are accommodated in such a unit. The second issue that I wish to address is that of conditional release. Section 76 of the act provides for the chief executive to grant conditional release to a prisoner in certain circumstances. One of the factors a chief executive is required to consider before granting such release is whether the prisoner's release would pose an unacceptable risk to the community. The chief executive may impose conditions on the prisoner's release to secure the prisoner's good conduct or to stop the prisoner committing an offence. Section 80 provides for the automatic cancellation of a conditional release order if the prisoner concerned during the term of the order commits an offence for which the prisoner is sentenced to an unsuspended term of imprisonment. However, there is no legislative deterrent against the breach of a condition of a conditional release order. To ensure community safety, it is necessary for the chief executive to be able to amend, suspend or cancel an order and return a prisoner to custody where there is a reasonable belief that the prisoner has breached the conditions of the order or has been charged with the commission of an offence. The amendments also incorporate procedural fairness provisions to ensure that a prisoner is not treated unfairly. Thus the amendments strike the appropriate balance between the need to ensure community protection without denying a prisoner's entitlement to natural justice. The third point that I wish to address is that of accessing the traffic histories of offenders. A court will sometimes sentence a person convicted of a traffic offence by placing the offender on a community based order. Departmental officers request approximately 30 traffic histories each week from Queensland Transport to present to courts dealing with the revocation of community based orders given to traffic offenders. There is now doubt as to whether this practice can continue given the provisions of section 77 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. If this traffic history information is not readily available, there is a danger to public safety through a delay of breach proceedings. Further, without all relevant information, courts are reluctant to complete the sentencing process, which results in the unsatisfactory processing of traffic matters. Clause 31 of the bill rectifies this problem by inserting a new section 244A into the act. It provides that the chief executive may obtain a report from the transport chief executive about an offender's traffic history. As the explanatory notes to the bill point out, the wording of the provision is similar to that used in section 244 of the act, enabling the chief executive to obtain criminal histories of offenders from the Commissioner of Police. Furthermore, the bill's amendment of section 245 of the act will enable courts to be provided with information from an offender's traffic history. Thus the amendment will facilitate increased community safety by ensuring that the courts are provided with all the relevant information that is necessary to deal with offenders. The next point that I would like to address is that of exceptional circumstances parole and child sex offenders. Members would be aware that the majority of the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 commenced on 1 May 2003. The Sexual Offenders (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 is designed to improve police intelligence about the movements of child sex offenders and thus contributes to enhanced community safety, particularly for children. Among other legislation, the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 amends the Corrective Services Act 2000 to extend the power of community corrections boards to inform the Police Commissioner of the release of a child sex offender on a post-prison community based release order and to require such an offender to report to a nominated police station until the end of the offender's sentence. Under section 133 of the Corrective Services Act 2000, a prisoner may apply to be released on exceptional circumstances parole. Instances where exceptional circumstances parole may be considered include where the prisoner develops a terminal illness with a short life expectancy or is the sole carer of a spouse who contracts a chronic disease that requires constant attention. Under the now repealed Corrective Services Act 1988, community corrections boards granting exceptional circumstances parole to a prisoner could impose conditions on the prisoner such as reporting to police. With the commencement of the Corrective Services Act 2000, the practice of imposing conditions has continued, although some doubt has recently been expressed as to whether there is explicit legislative authority to do so. 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2981

To remove any doubt about the matter and particularly where any child sex offender is being considered for exceptional circumstances parole, clause 250 of the bill amends section 144 of the Corrective Services Act 2000 to explicitly provide that community corrections boards may impose conditions on parole or exceptional circumstances parole orders. Thus, overall, community safety, especially the safety of children, will be enhanced by these amendments. Change to the legislation should not be perceived as an indication that the government has somehow got it wrong. The amendments are clear evidence of the Beattie Labor government's commitment to ensuring that Queensland's laws are strong, relevant and effective in protecting the community. The government makes no apologies for ensuring that the corrective services legislation is continually amended and improved as such changes will benefit the community. Certainly, the amendments proposed under the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003 will enhance community safety and are in accordance with the government's priority of safer and more supportive communities. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.08 p.m.): I rise to speak to the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Minister for Corrective Services and the Premier for the state-of-the-art Maryborough Correctional Centre. There is always a touch of NIMBY—not in my back yard—syndrome in every community, but on balance this facility has delivered significant economic benefits to my electorate. There is some concern in my community about unnotified releases as they put pressure on emergency accommodation such as the men's refuge. I note with some degree of satisfaction that the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition agree that the proposed detention centre for visa overstayers would be well placed in Maryborough. I would like to add my support for this facility being placed adjacent to the Maryborough Correctional Centre, as this would be an excellent use of existing resources and a major cost saving to ordinary Australians. People who break the terms of the privilege of early release need to be sent a clear message that it will not be tolerated in Queensland. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.09 p.m.): I rise in support of the Corrective Services Amendment Bill to bolster community protection from the risk posed by prisoners released on conditional release or on post-prison community based release programs. The 18- month period over which the act has been in operation has been sufficient to expose operational issues and technical weaknesses in the act. The amendments address current operational problems, improve the clarity and certainty of the legislation and reduce operational risks with the existing legislative framework and will result in the clarification of current powers. Non-violent prisoners are often granted a community release order to assist to integrate them into mainstream society as the end of their sentence approaches. Community release orders are issued with rules or guidelines that must be followed to maintain the privilege of the partial freedom. Should the chief executive officer believe that a prisoner has contravened their release order or has been charged with the commission of an offence, the CEO will have the discretion to amend, suspend or cancel the order. Offences may range from unlicensed driving through to alcohol or drug abuse or failure to report at a specific time. The act details the processes to be followed for the suspension or cancellation of a conditional release order. There are a number of rehabilitated offenders living and working in the Mount Ommaney electorate, and some of them were participants in the community release program. If the CEO receives information that a prisoner on a post-prison community based release order poses an undesirable risk of committing an offence or leaving the state, the chief executive must be able to protect the community by suspending the order and returning the prisoner to custody. Where convincing intelligence information exists, it would be inappropriate to grant a prisoner procedural fairness before suspension because the risk of the prisoner taking flight would be increased. However, a suspension by the CEO can only operate for a period of 28 days. The bill before us clarifies the chief executive's or the corrections board's power to withdraw a post-prison community based release order in situations where a prisoner has been charged with committing an offence or is reasonably believed to pose an unacceptable risk of committing an offence. The authority to suspend an order is also clarified where it is believed that the person is about to or preparing to leave Queensland other than under a written order providing the prisoner leave to travel interstate or out of the country. There have been a number of prisoners who have exploited the system and, while I do not wish to see the privilege withdrawn, if folk abuse the system then tougher measures will be put in place and enforced. 2982 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

An information notice must be given to a prisoner whose order has been suspended or cancelled on their return to prison. The information notice must outline the reason for the decision but should not disclose any details that would, for example, enable an informant to be identified. The prisoner then has 21 days to make submissions as to why the chief executive or the corrections board should change their decision. It must always be remembered that offenders on post-prison community based release are still prisoners serving a period of imprisonment. In balancing the competing interests of the community's need to be protected from unacceptable risks and a government approval enabling prisoners to serve part of their period of imprisonment in the community, the community's need should always prevail if intolerable risks emerge. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (9.13 p.m.): At the core of the Corrective Services Amendment Bill is the need to protect community safety. This must remain the paramount aim of our corrective services system and the management of offenders. Every effort must be made and is being made to prevent further offending. Central to this is the need for offenders to undertake effective education, victim empathy and rehabilitation programs. For many serious violent offenders who have total disregard for humanity, these programs will have no positive effect. But for effective management and rehabilitation of most other offenders, the system must have incentives to encourage participation in programs and opportunities for conditional release. Easing back into community life is very important. There must also be tight controls over these release provisions. I commend this amendment bill and the minister's efforts to make the system much safer. I can recall a time in my life when I got the fright of my life. I was riding a pushbike in Dutton Park to visit a friend. A tall guy in jeans and a blue shirt jumped out from behind some bushes with what looked like a big silver revolver out of a western movie in his hand. He yelled at me to get off the bike and run into a house. I did not know who he was. When I got into the house the woman inside said that there had been a break-out from Boggo Road and that I had better stay calm and stay put. I was in there for four hours because we were hearing reports of how one of the escapees had been recaptured. He was found in a wardrobe, so we went carefully around this house checking all of the wardrobes and looking in corners. I must say that I was very frightened for that four hours until the police came and escorted us out of the house. That highlighted to me the importance of tight security for prisons. It also made me think much more about the fear of crime. I realise that people need to have a reasonable level of caution and fear, but too often and for too long we have actually had escalating fear that is well beyond the reality of the likelihood of people being victimised. This amendment bill is a very important amendment bill because it certainly brings more safeguards into the corrective services system. For instance, if the CEO receives sound intelligence that a prisoner on a post-release order poses an unacceptable risk of fleeing or committing an offence, the post-release order can be suspended. Governments and, I must say, opposition members have a very particular responsibility to reduce the fear of crime experienced by the public to enhance their safety rather than rev up scaremongering about crime being out of control. Ms Nolan: It is very cheap to play on people's fears. Ms STRUTHERS: It is very cheap political point scoring that we have seen over past decades. Thankfully, we have not seen the irresponsible law and order election campaign auctions that have featured in political campaigns in Queensland in past times. These did little more than send the blood pressure levels of the public soaring. They did little more than send the prison and police budgets soaring. They had no real positive effect on crime reduction or prevention. I have been very encouraged by the responsible way in which the Beattie government has focused on being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Crime is at a nine-year low in Queensland, and escapes from custody from correctional facilities in Queensland have been rare in recent years. I commend the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and acknowledge the efforts of the Queensland Police Service, including my own local police in the Acacia Ridge, Calamvale and Forest Lake areas. I commend the non-government agencies and groups such as Neighbourhood Watch for the collective efforts that are resulting in these reduced crime rates. I do not have any particular evidence to back up this claim, but I would not be surprised if the policy directive, programs and funding support to these programs—being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—is contributing significantly to this positive result. I will say a couple of things about community corrections and the prison-as-a-last-resort principle. As I stated, our police and corrective services system must do everything possible to 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2983 prevent crime and protect community safety. Some offenders through our justice system do not pose a threat in a physical or intimidatory way to the public. These kinds of offenders ought to be putting back into the community rather than being locked away behind bars and razor wire at a cost of more than $80,000 to the public purse. I have received recent representations from a local Neighbourhood Watch group. It is supporting a strengthening of our corrective services system to get non-harmful offenders to carry out more supervised community service. Its concern is that there appears to be insufficient supervision resources for the number of available candidates through the system for community service. I would ask that the minister continue to have a good look at this area over coming months and years. These people in the Neighbourhood Watch group support the sentencing principle that prison ought to be the last resort. I am well aware that there is substantial public pressure to lock many offenders up and throw away the key. We have heard from members tonight that there are many people who fit that category, who should never really be released back into the community. But there is also a large number of people who are not of risk to others. There is a delicate balance that must be struck between both ends of this continuum. Our judicial and correctional systems must be able to selectively cater for the no-risk offender through to the serious violent offender. I think the system is getting better at this, but I fail to understand why the offenders who pose no risk and who have the skills that can provide a significant payback to our community are locked away. Tonight as we speak on this bill there are men and women sleeping behind bars who need not be there. They are facing up to their punishment, but they should be serving our community, not costing our community. For example, many people in recent weeks have been disturbed by, and have seriously questioned, our former Chief Magistrate being locked away. Our judicial and corrective systems must be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but fair-minded people in our community are accepting the view that non-violent, low-risk offenders ought to pay back for their crime, serve the community for their crime, rather than doing their time behind bars. Our system must be more responsive to this call into the future. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (9.20 p.m.): It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003. I want to focus in particular on a number of amendments that will affect community corrections boards and enhance community safety. The Queensland Community Corrections Board deals with applications from prisoners serving eight years or more, and six regional community corrections boards deal with prisoners serving less than eight years. A fundamental principle that boards adhere to when determining whether a prisoner should be released is community safety. This principle is made abundantly clear in the guidelines issued by the minister to the Queensland board which state that when considering whether a prisoner should be released from custody on a post-prison community based release order the highest priority for the Queensland Community Corrections Board should always be the safety of the community. The guidelines are equally relevant to the regional boards. At present, even when there is clear information that there is a significant risk that a prisoner is about to breach a release order, it is not possible to suspend the order and return the prisoner to custody and consequently avoid unnecessary risk to the community. The proposed amendments will allow a board to amend, suspend or cancel a post-prison community based release order if the board reasonably believes that the prisoner poses an unacceptable risk of committing an offence or is preparing to leave Queensland without permission. To set the context for those new changes, I want to set out the figures regarding detention and post-prison community release order personnel as at 30 April 2003. There were 1,107 persons on parole, 64 on home detention and 114 on release to work orders. That is 1,283 who were the beneficiaries of post-prison community based release orders. At the same time, there were 4,760 prisoners serving time in Queensland jails. So we are dealing with a significant number of people—1,283—in respect of whom the capacity will be henceforth available to suspend and otherwise act on in relation to their orders when there is a breach. If a board receives reliable information that a prisoner on a release order poses an unacceptable risk of committing an offence or leaving the state without permission, the board must be able to protect the community by suspending the order and returning the prisoner to custody. It should be remembered that a prisoner on a release order is still serving a period of imprisonment. I should make it clear that the trigger for amending or suspending a release order is a board's reasonable belief—not just a suspicion—that the prisoner may be preparing to breach the order. 2984 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

There may be some who are concerned that a board may act upon malicious information. However, the board will not only consider the substance of the information but also the reliability of the information. If after further investigation the evidence is insufficient to justify cancellation of the release order, the prisoner could be released back into the community with whatever, if any, additional conditions on the prisoner's order that the board considers necessary. This process will afford a prisoner sufficient protection from the risk of false complaint. The amendment also enables the board to amend or suspend a release order if the prisoner is charged with committing an offence. Again, the minister has issued a guideline to the Queensland board which states that, where a prisoner on a post-prison community based release order has been charged with a further offence or offences, the board should consider the suspension of the order and seek the return of the prisoner to custody until such time as a court determines the charge. Factors relevant to the exercise of any discretion may include the seriousness of the alleged offence and circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged offence, the prisoner's personal situation, including employment status, the prisoner's response to supervision to date, and the length of time that the hearing and determination of the charge or charges concerned might take. There is some overlap between the role of a court considering whether to grant bail for an offence that a prisoner on a release order may face and a board's role in considering whether to suspend the order after a prisoner has been charged with the offence. However, it should be remembered that the supervision of prisoners in the community is the statutory responsibility of the board and not the courts. It is therefore appropriate that a board should consider the elevated risk to the community that may be indicated by a fresh charge irrespective of a court's approach to bail on that charge. The bottom line is that community safety outweighs the need to give a prisoner the benefit of the doubt. The proposed amendments will also ensure that, as is currently the case with a parole order, a release to work or home detention order is automatically cancelled if a prisoner on a release order is sentenced to another term of imprisonment for an offence committed in Queensland or elsewhere during the term of the order. Previously a board was required to cancel a release to work or home detention order if the prisoner was sentenced to further imprisonment. The proposed amendments will also bring the disqualification criteria for appointment as a member of the Queensland Community Corrections Board more in line with the disqualification criteria for appointment to a regional board. This is fine legislation which is very responsive to one of the Beattie government's five key policy objectives, and that is building safer communities in Queensland. I am happy to commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (9.27 p.m.): First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing the Corrective Services Amendment Bill before the House. I think it is a very timely bill. The Corrective Services Act was about community safety crime prevention—something that affects every single person in Queensland. This bill will make those goals easier to enforce. I would like to reiterate what a previous speaker, the member for Algester, has said. In a lot of communities the fear of crime is— Mr Johnson: No-one would jump out from behind the bushes to get you! Mr PURCELL: They would get a shock if they did. For a lot of people the fear of crime is probably worse than the crime itself. I recently experienced this at the largest Neighbourhood Watch meeting I have ever attended. We could not fit all the people into the meeting place. People were fearful that a person who had been let out on bail might reoffend. People were very, very concerned. The police and I could not give them a lot of information because the matter was before the courts. Therefore, we could not do too much to assure those people that their fear was not grounded in fact. I wrote to the Attorney-General and he put the matter to the DPP, and we will appeal it when the person is available to go before the courts again. I think the appeal will get up. The person does need help, but it was the fear of what that person would do in the community that really caused alarm within the community. Any bill or any act that can help prevent that is very much needed. Other objectives of the bill are to address current operational problems to make it easier for officers to make sure that prisoners within the jail also behave in the correct manner. Not too long after I came to this place there were headlines all the time about prisoners running around. They used to say that we could issue them with running shoes because they were getting out all over the place. Legislation such as this and the security that this government has put in place has 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2985 made sure that when we do lock people up they stay locked up. That has to do with how we control people who come into the prison for all sorts of reasons—that is, how we check them for drugs to ensure that we take that sort of stuff out of our prisons and our system. I also congratulate the minister for the way the system is operating in terms of people who are not jailed but who do community service. It is a great system. On behalf of the Balmoral community group that operate in the Balmoral cemetery, we thank those people for their work in that cemetery. It started with a very small group of people and now we would have probably 30 people who work in that cemetery doing community service. We are making a difference to the cemetery and people feel better about their community. There is less vandalism happening because we are making sure that, together with the council, which is cooperating very well, it is a safer place for people to be and people's loved one's graves are not desecrated but are respectfully restored to what they were when they were first buried and had family members to look after the graves. I also have to say that a few companies have put their hand up when asked to supply materials such as Pioneer and Boral will, I am sure, in the future to bring those graves back to what they should be. In my job before this one I had a lot to do with early release prisoners. I have to say that it is a very good system, and it is still operating. I agree with other members who have spoken, particularly the member for Algester, who said that we only need to have people in jail who need to be there. If they do not need to be there, we are better off having them out in the community doing community work. The early release system got people out of jail and back to work as quickly as we possibly could. When I was with the Builders Labourers union we had the odd member who had had a rest at Her Majesty's pleasure and we would make sure that we found them work when they came out to get them away from those people who may persuade them to transgress again. That word spread throughout some of the prisons near Brisbane. We would have placed something like a couple of hundred people on early release. None of those people, except for one, was a failure and went back to jail. I will not tell you about the one who did—it would identify the person—but it was not his fault, in my opinion. I think people acted too quickly to put him back behind bars. Suffice it to say he was probably the first bloke who went out to Charleville when the floods were on and the clean-up was on. The people out there reckoned he was the greatest thing since sliced bread and he was probably the last bloke to leave after the job was done. If those sort of people are given opportunities, they will take them. There are a few other things in this bill that are important which I want to mention. If a prisoner is asked to give a sample and they do not give that sample, they are deemed to be positive. When people are in prison they do lose certain rights. If they are not prepared to give a sample, there is a pretty good chance that they have not given a sample for a reason. As I said, if they do not give a sample they are deemed to have had a positive test. That is another measure that the minister, through his office, has put in place to make sure that we clean up the drug problem that we did have. I am not saying that there are no problems there now, but it is nothing compared to what it was not too many years ago. With those few words, I congratulate the minister and his staff for the work they have done on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (9.35 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003. Firstly, the Beattie Labor government has made record increases to police numbers, implemented tactical crime squads, introduced tougher laws for dealing with hoons and the targeting of child sex offenders, brought in legislation to seize assets and freeze bank accounts while the criminal has to prove that the cash or property has been gained legally, strengthened the protection for victims of crime, provided the courts with the power to permit the naming of young offenders convicted of the most serious violent crimes, and the list goes on. The list goes on because the Beattie Labor government is tough on crime and big on safe communities, and this bill strengthens that commitment. This bill will allow the chief executive to classify remand prisoners as maximum security if there is a need. If a remand prisoner poses a high risk of escape or inflicting death or serious injury on other prisoners or persons the prisoner may come in contact with or raises a substantial threat to the security or good order of the facility, an order can then be made for the prisoner to be accommodated in a maximum security facility. I do not believe there is anyone in the community who would expect that any staff or another prisoner should be at risk from a particular prisoner just because their court arrangements have not been finalised. There have been cases where prisoners have been on remand, caused mayhem and inflicted physical harm on others. Currently, the law only allows remand prisoners to be classified as high security. This bill will ensure remand prisoners who do pose a high threat of danger can 2986 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 be classified as maximum security and placed accordingly. Currently, prisoners who have been of good conduct and are serving short sentences can receive conditional release. This allows them to be released into the community to serve the last weeks or months of a sentence. This bill clarifies that, if the chief executive reasonably believes that a prisoner under a conditional release order has contravened the order or is being charged with committing an offence, then the chief executive may suspend or cancel the order and issue a warrant for the prisoner's arrest and return to custody. If they are charged with committing a further offence or are in breach of their conditional release, then they can be made to serve out the remaining part of their sentence in custody. I believe this reflects the community expectations and that the community expects consequences for prisoners who abuse privileges such as conditional release. Currently, section 144 of the Criminal Code prohibits a person harbouring, maintaining or employing a person knowing that the other person has escaped from lawful custody. The new section 94 will now expand on that to include prosecution for an offence for those that aided someone who was unlawfully at large, and 'at large' will include breaching a parole or other PPCBR orders and the accused knows or ought to reasonably know that the person they aided was a prisoner who was unlawfully at large. I take this opportunity to welcome Senior Constable Steven Shipman and his family to the Springwood Police Beat. Steve has certainly become known to the community and is encouraging the community to report incidents and help with the collection of intelligence that will eventually lead to more reductions of crime in our area. Constable Peter Wilmott is also doing some very proactive policing at the Rochedale South Police Beat—driving around his patch every morning, working with parents and community groups about trail bike riders in the area and if there is a community event he is usually there. He is certainly known to the community and I commend the work he is doing to ensure that we have a safe community. The Loganholme Police Station is well under way. The building is taking shape and I have been informed that the call for staff has been placed in the Gazette. All the community is looking forward to it opening later this year. I also take this opportunity to thank Senior Sergeant Dave McAully for his work at Slacks Creek Police Station. I know that Dave has moved to the Gold Coast and I wish him well. Recently I visited the Department of Corrective Services at Woodridge. I have been to the office with the minister and I know that he was as impressed with Kevin Kehoe and the staff as I was. I am pleased that the department has community service projects in my electorate and I will be encouraging the sporting organisations and other community groups to participate in these programs. This will certainly be a win-win for the community and for clients of corrective services. While balancing the treatment of prisoners to the community expectations of people paying for a crime committed is not an easy thing to do, I believe that in Australia we probably have got it right. While there will always be situations that make us look at current laws and sometimes test us, we live in a country where we can look constructively at modifying the laws, and I believe this is what this bill does. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.39 p.m.), in reply: Again, I thank the opposition for the support it is giving to this bill and also thank all of the members who participated in the debate. After two years with the current legislation in place we have taken the opportunity to examine some aspects of it and bring these basically technical amendments before the House. My portfolio has responsibility for the three Ps—police, prisons and prostitution. Everybody has an opinion on each one of them, and many members who participated in the debate tonight certainly expressed theirs. The member for Bulimba and the member for Algester made the point that prisoners should in fact be paying society rather than society paying to have people behind bars. As the member for Bulimba pointed out correctly, there are many prisoners in the system who make a contribution back to society under a number of schemes. One of the big debates inside the prison system concerns what these people are there for. Are they there as a punishment or for something else? I take the very strong view that people who have sinned against society have to be punished. But having said that, whilst we have these prisoners inside we also have a responsibility to try, where possible, to rehabilitate them. There are some people who can be rehabilitated and who come out of the prison system as better people. There are others with whom we can do nothing at all. Anybody who does not believe that statement is fooling themselves. 19 Aug 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2987

The member for Gregory mentioned the open door policy of the prison system. I would not say there is an open door policy for prisoners. Certainly, since I have been the minister I have encouraged the media to come inside and see exactly what the prisons are like and to remove the mystique surrounding prisons. An honourable member interjected. Mr McGRADY: I did not suggest that we leave some members of the media behind, as one honourable member suggested. It is important that people understand what the prison system is all about. Mention has been made also of the role of parole boards. Honestly, the parole boards are at arm's length from the minister and indeed from the government. We appoint a number of people to the various parole boards around the state and they are the ones who make many of these decisions. At times, I do not like some of the decisions they make. However, that is the system we have in this state; we have parole boards to make those decisions. Judging by the number of decisions that go before parole boards, they are not always going to get it right. Sometimes I think they make mistakes, but very few. On the whole, the decisions they make are the correct ones. A number of questions were asked tonight. The member for Gladstone said that the wife of a prisoner was strip-searched when visiting her husband. Mrs Liz Cunningham: No, she was told she was going to be strip-searched. She refused. Mr McGRADY: I want to clarify this. I have checked with the department's legal advisers. I am not trying to score points. There is no way that any visitor to a prison would ever be strip- searched. Again, I do not want to name names, but if a visitor came to prison and there was a suspicion that that person had contraband on him or her, the police could be called and they would do the strip-search. But no Corrective Services officer would or could strip-search a visitor. What does happen, though—and this is something that I as the minister introduced—is following a contact visit, or a visit where a visitor makes physical contact with a prisoner, when the prisoner goes back inside he or she is then strip-searched. I make no apologies for that. There were some people at the time who were very opposed to that, and there are still people outside who are opposed to it. But as the Corrective Services Minister, I have a duty of care to the prison staff and also the people inside. I have a duty to prevent contraband, whether it be drugs or anything else, from getting into the prisons. Other honourable members and I know that there are ways and means of getting contraband into the prison system. I have been trying to eliminate the known ones. I do not apologise for strip-searching. I want to clarify the point that I cannot see any circumstances at all in which a visitor to a prison would be strip-searched by a Corrective Services officer. The member for Gladstone also raised a point as to whether community risk is taken into account when granting parole, home detention, release to work or early release. As I mentioned a moment ago, the answer to that is yes. The parole boards act in accordance with the ministerial guidelines made from time to time by various ministers. In the guidelines the safety of the community is paramount; the safety of the community is first, second and third. In relation to decisions to grant remission or conditional release, again, it is set out in the act that community risk must be considered. I make it clear every time I meet parole boards and Corrective Services staff that community safety is first, second and third. The member for Gladstone also asked whether victim impact statements are taken into account when making a decision on early release. Many victims are registered with the Concerned Persons Register established under the legislation we are discussing tonight. This enables the victims to be advised on the prisoner's progress through the system. This also enables victims to make submissions to the parole boards when they are considering whether to grant early release; likewise for conditional release or remission. And they often do. That is all part of the work of the various boards around the state. The final question asked by the member for Gladstone was: what does it mean when the legislation allows prisoners sentenced under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 to be eligible for parole after being detained for half the fixed period? This means that a prisoner who has been detained in custody for half the period set by the court is eligible to apply for parole, home detention or release to work. It does not mean that such a prisoner will automatically be granted release. Only a handful of prisoners in Queensland are in custody under the 1945 legislation. Again, I thank all honourable members who participated in the discussion tonight. I thank also John Stacheel, the department's legal officer, for his role in going through these 2988 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 amendments and bringing them into the parliament tonight. I thank also Scott Singleton, from my personal staff, and Ken Mackay, who has been responsible for a lot of the work that has ended up in the parliament tonight. In conclusion, I thank the opposition for its support. I know this sounds like a mutual admiration society, but I think it is important that we brief the opposition and that, where good legislation comes before the parliament, it supports it. This is the second time tonight the opposition has done so, and I really appreciate that. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 37, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 15 May (see p. 1974). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (9.51 p.m.): The Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2003 is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation in terms of it being a tool for police services not only in Queensland but right throughout Australia. When we talk about crime fighting I believe that, along with modern technology, this is going to put police services at the forefront of detecting criminals who think they are getting away scot-free. Police have added tools at their disposal, including the ability to share DNA information with other jurisdictions. The taking of DNA samples from volunteers, suspects and prisoners was an important initiative introduced within the Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Act Amendment Bill 2000. Initiative two is of equal importance and deals with DNA profiling of persons who commit indictable offences so that they may be quickly identified, apprehended and prosecuted for their crimes. The most important thing here is to make absolutely certain that none of these criminals escape detection from law enforcement. When we look at what is happening around the world—and we discussed it here earlier this afternoon—in relation to crimes of terror on the international stage, I really believe that some of these people who have been masterminding crimes and ways of preventing detection are going to find that this is one way in which they will be caught. This legislation will also provide for the collection of DNA samples from those persons currently serving periods of imprisonment. I ask the minister to tell us in his summary what types of criminals are in question here. Is it all criminals, hard-core criminals or petty criminals? Since the introduction of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act of 2000 Queensland has collected DNA samples from crime scenes and suspects. Again, the PPRA significantly enhanced Queensland's ability to investigate these crimes, extending the circumstances when a DNA sample may be taken, including for the purpose of intelligence. Approximately 50,000 DNA samples are currently stored at Queensland Health's forensic services facility. People might ask: is this legal? But then again, is breaking the law legal? No, it is not. When we make scientific advances in the ways and means of detection of criminals, I believe we have to embrace and implement those changes so that we can give the police services throughout the Australian continent the powers to be able to interact together to make absolutely certain that if a Western Australian criminal's DNA matches up with a DNA sample here in Queensland, that person can be brought to justice. For too long we have seen the problems caused by cross-border issues in that a police officer in this state cannot apprehend a criminal in another state and vice versa. At the end of the day, I believe this legislation is certainly going to be releasing that type of draconian or prehistoric law. It will let us modernise the law and it will let the police do the job that they set out to do in the first place. Since the commencement of DNA sampling in December 2000 to May 2003, a total of 710 crime scenes have been linked to persons through DNA links, and there have been 432 crime 19 Aug 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2989 scene to crime scene DNA links. The advances in technologies have also meant that persons who were wrongly convicted of crimes in the past will now be able to prove their innocence, too. So it has a double-sided effect, and that is a good thing. The linking of DNA profiles is effective in establishing new suspects. For example, from 1 January to 31 March this year the Queensland Police Service gathered evidence in relation to 221 offences as a consequence of performing DNA analysis. While some people have been freed from unjust incarceration because of the more accurate assessment, others have been convicted and are paying for their crimes. At the same time it is freeing up police resources. It is enabling police in this state and other jurisdictions to get on top of this element. I always thought that rape was the worst crime against society, but these terrorists are certainly up there with them. I have no time for murderers, either. In relation to crimes against women in particular and crimes against children, there is no excuse whatsoever. I will do everything in my power as a member of parliament—and I know members of the opposition and members of the government will as well—to give the Queensland Police Service every power possible to detect the people committing these crimes, apprehend them and put them where they rightfully should be, and that is behind bars. In most cases I hope they are there forever. The important factor of this legislation is the Australian government working with the state jurisdictions. The primary purpose of this bill is to facilitate the matching of Queensland DNA profiles with other jurisdictions through the national DNA database administered by CrimTrac. CrimTrac is a major initiative of the Commonwealth government in cooperation with states and territories. The most important factor is to see that the Australian government and the state governments are committed to working together to make certain that they have the best tools possible to use in the apprehension of criminals. Part of the CrimTrac initiative is the establishment of a national criminal investigation DNA database. The NCIDD is commonly referred to as the national DNA database. It is a well-known fact that criminals commit offences in Australia without concern for territory and state borders. This is certainly going to give police the tools to bring those offenders to justice. I believe this is an excellent piece of legislation for an island continent like Australia because it brings us closer together; it brings our police right throughout the continent closer together and gives them the tools needed in the apprehension of the people in question. The outstanding success of the national automated fingerprint identification system—or NAFIS—illustrates the potential benefits for law enforcement of such a national system. I believe that these advances in criminal detection must surely make a lot of would-be criminals think twice about breaking the law. I also believe that this scientific tool that we have in DNA that we can now use in the investigation of crime or the linkage of people to certain heinous crimes—or breaking and enterings for that matter—will certainly save taxpayers a lot of money and enable police to use their energies in other areas. DNA will also certainly make a lot of the real hard-core criminals think twice. While many of us have been waiting for this bill to be introduced, the criminals are probably thinking that some of the scientists in this country are getting too smart for them and that they had better start upholding the law. Tomorrow we will have scientists coming to the parliament. It was a very successful campaign last year and I know that various members of parliament will meet with those people again tomorrow. These scientists have given us the quality of life that we have today—given us the safer environment that we have today. They do that because they are passionate about trying to make the world a better place in which to live. I do not think that these people get enough recognition for their efforts. Those people who work for the Queensland Police Service or in other scientific areas are working all the time to bring about change in the method of identification of criminals to facilitate their apprehension. I think that now is a fitting time to place on record my appreciation of those people who do the hard yards behind the scenes without very much recognition. Queensland has followed the United Kingdom model and introduced legislation that has a high intelligence focus in addition to an evidence focus. I think this is good legislation. I think that it is very fair that the minister has adopted this approach. A lot of do-gooders are going to say, 'This is going too far', but at the same time taking someone's life or violating someone's privacy is also going too far. At the end of the day, the criminals are going to be the ones who will say that they are going to come off second best. Queensland's forensic procedure provisions under the PPRA do not mirror those of the model law jurisdictions. That is also the case with the Northern Territory legislation. A precondition to the exchange of DNA information is the recognition of Queensland's forensic procedure 2990 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 legislation as a corresponding law and the entering into of a ministerial arrangement between Queensland and other jurisdictions for the exchange of DNA information. The minister has advised me that this is the bar that the Commonwealth has set. It is about making all the state jurisdictions set high standards. It is going to give the police in various jurisdictions that power, but at the same time a corresponding law where there is going to be certain heights reached. I believe also that the Commonwealth has required that the Queensland DNA legislation reflect a number of provisions common with other jurisdictions before they will progress the recognition of Queensland's legislation as a corresponding law. As I have just mentioned, the federal government is setting the bar, but it certainly is not the federal government that is out there a lot of times apprehending criminals. But it is very gratifying to see that governments, federal and state, are working together for a common cause. When I was the Minister for Transport, I dealt with a lot of issues that related to national uniformity. I believe that, in many areas, national uniformity has brought about a safer environment. This legislation is certainly another way of enabling the police and other law enforcement agencies to get on with doing the job that they know best and that is the apprehension of criminals. The Commonwealth government's requirement for the creation of a matching table related to the interjurisdictional exchange of DNA information requires Queensland to create a DNA database system and corresponding matching rules relating to this system. Again, with Queensland adopting this process, it shows that the state and federal governments are working together with the information provided to allow these jurisdictions to participate in this national database. I want to touch on the memorandum of understanding for a moment. It outlines how Queensland DNA information and that of the corresponding jurisdictions is to be used on the national DNA database. Additionally, the arrangements allow for the destruction of DNA samples in appropriate circumstances in line with the requirements of the PPRA. I ask the minister to address the operation of this national database in his reply, because I believe that there could be technicalities that we, as lay people, might not understand fully. I believe that people are going to want to know precisely the workings of this operation. In relation to DNA profiling and policing, there is still concern about the potential misuse of a person's DNA profile. On that basis, it is pleasing to see that the government is introducing a range of new offences that relate to the unlawful analysis of DNA samples. We talk about privacy laws and the unfair treatment of people who have been apprehended for DNA testing as such. This is another way to make absolutely certain that people are going to be treated in a fair and proper way. Those new offences relate to the improper inclusion of a DNA profile on a database, the improper disclosure of DNA information and the failure to destroy that DNA information. The creation of these new offences is required by the federal government and they will prevent the misuse of information derived from taking and analysing DNA samples. I ask the minister to elaborate on the finer detail of that in his reply. I think that a lot of the civil libertarians might take offence at the taking of DNA samples. But will they take offence in a situation where they are the victims? CrimTrac will not be provided with other personal details about DNA samples, such as a sample provider's name. If a match occurs, CrimTrac will advise the relevant jurisdictions of the match and indicate the case number. Arrangements may then be made between the relevant jurisdictions to exchange further information, including the source of the DNA profile. I believe that this is a positive initiative and a very advantageous tool in detecting and apprehending criminals. It is a national effort that gives law enforcement agencies a combined resource with which to beat the criminal element. At the same time, the introduction of these new offences for the misuse of DNA information, together with the processes for handling the DNA information on the national database, should alleviate any concern regarding the misuse of a person's DNA information. I believe that this is probably the most important aspect of this legislation—to make it absolutely certain that it is water tight; that the person's privacy is protected and if that person is not convicted of a crime and as their name is not released, they can go about their business as if nothing happened. I think that that is an important facet of this legislation. I mentioned earlier about the cross-border operation of police, whether that be in Queensland, New South Wales, or Western Australia, for that matter. The Commonwealth's final requirement is that PPRA includes a provision to recognise an interstate order for the conducting of a forensic procedure in Queensland. 19 Aug 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2991

I checked with the minister on this, and I think this is probably another very important aspect of this legislation. It would not work if this aspect of the legislation were not in place. If Queensland had a DNA testing operation and was not going to work with the Commonwealth or other jurisdictions, we may as well not even have it. Any person who committed a crime in Queensland would hightail it across the border and think they would not be detected because this aspect of the law is not in place. But it is in place. It is a good, solid part of this legislation. It gives the legislation thrust. It will project the legislation into a very positive and integral criminal detection device. This bill also enables the Police Service to make an application to a magistrate in Queensland in order to take a DNA sample from a suspect in another state or territory. This amendment to the PPRA will enhance the national system for conducting forensic procedures and greatly assist police services throughout Australia, giving Australian police services more integrated resources to solve crimes. That is the thrust of this legislation. We could talk about that aspect all night, but I really believe this is a very good tool in trying to create a safer environment not only here in Queensland but also on the Australian mainland. Another aspect I want to address is the proposal in the bill that a parent or guardian may consent to a forensic procedure on behalf of a child under 14 years or an impaired person. This is something I ask the minister to elaborate on. I know that there is a lot of petty crime that leads to hardcore crime. I know that a lot of that has been committed by children under the age of 14. I think this is a very important aspect of this legislation. It again comes back to privacy laws. People will say, 'How young can a person be apprehended for criminal investigation?' In the United Kingdom a few years ago a couple of young kids murdered a little lad. Those kids were well under the age of 14. This aspect of the legislation has to be in place to allow police to carry out the work they do on a regular basis and to give police the power to solve some of these crimes. If this provision of the legislation is in place, it will eliminate one factor of police inability to detect criminals on that scale. There are probably many other aspects of this legislation we could talk about—we could talk about it all day and all night—but the real issue is that this legislation will be one of the most important tools police services throughout this land can use in the detection of crime. I congratulate the federal authorities, the minister here in Queensland and the other state authorities for bringing this about. I know that a lot of good things result from COAG meetings. This is probably one of the most important issues we have debated in this parliament and probably one of the most important tools that we will present to the Queensland Police Service for the apprehension of criminals—not only in the apprehension of criminals but also in providing a safer place for Queenslanders to reside and go about their business in a free and private way. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (10.13 p.m.): The Beattie government has for some time made clear its commitment to establishing Queensland as the Smart State. The bill before the House, if properly applied, is another example of the government's Smart State strategy in practice. The government's Smart State vision extends beyond medical research and biotechnology to the important area of forensic criminology. There are few better uses for modern technology than in solving crimes, particularly older crimes. The Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2003 introduces legislative changes which are necessary to enable Queensland's participation in the new national DNA database being administered by the CrimTrac agency. This is an important initiative for Queensland and for all states and territories. The database provides the framework for interjurisdictional sharing of DNA information. The minister has already outlined in some detail the changes proposed by this bill to give effect to our participation in the new database. The Beattie government introduced DNA sampling powers in 2000 to allow police to take DNA from volunteers, suspects and prisoners through powers contained in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. It is estimated that by June 2004 Queensland will have about 60,000 DNA samples collected from persons available to be routinely checked against crime scene samples. Since the introduction of DNA procedures, Queensland police have collected more than 41,000 DNA samples. Of these, 5,366 samples have been collected from prisoners at correctional facilities and 36,008 samples have been collected from suspects arrested and charged at watch- houses and from volunteers who have given informed consent. Based on the number of samples collected since June 2001, it is estimated that up to 20,000 samples will be collected by police in 2003-04. Results to date include 727 suspects being matched to DNA at crime scenes, including 160 prisoners whose DNA matched to crime scenes of previously unsolved cases. This is an excellent 2992 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003 measure of the success of DNA sampling here in Queensland. But the government is determined to build on this, both through this bill and through other new initiatives. The 2003-04 budget provides $40,000 for sampling of prisoners on post-prison community release orders. As part of the CrimTrac agreement, the Queensland Police Service will allocate a position in 2003-04 at a cost of $70,000 to manage requests and access to the CrimTrac database as well as control confidentiality and security issues. Four administrative staff will also be provided to manage the increase in workload at a cost of about $200,000. Additional training on DNA will also be provided for police through a computer based training package at an estimated cost of $10,000. The rationale for the sampling is that many of the prisoners are repeat offenders. The statistics show that by taking samples from prisoners and those on post-prison release we actually have a greater hit rate in putting people at the scenes of crimes. This allocation of budget finances clearly demonstrates that the government is committed to the implementation of the legislation and is giving police the necessary funding to ensure it will be of great use to authorities. We are all aware that crime does not stop at a state or territory border. The controlled exchange of DNA information, therefore, has the potential to assist our authorities and authorities in other jurisdictions in so many ways. DNA sampling and matching has already proven of great use here in Queensland. I have no reason to doubt that this bill, which will allow us to share and match information with other authorities, will lead to more positive results. There is, though, one area of concern I wish to raise with the minister. This legislation will of course result in the loss of personal freedom for some people in the same way as, for example, fingerprints. People are providing personal evidence that may be used against them at some future time. I therefore ask the minister what procedures have been put in place to ensure the law is implemented in the manner that we the parliament are voting into law tonight. In the past year or so my family has had experience relating to the exercise of police powers—the very powers that I as an MP voted into law. Yet what my family experienced is not what I as a parliamentarian thought I was voting for in the parliament. With legislation like this we often put in place procedures to monitor the practices which take away a citizen's right. The key to this monitoring process is the practical, day-to-day supervision by middle and upper ranking officers of how this law is being applied. To clarify, I will refer to two police powers that we have in place already—that requiring someone to provide personal details and that requiring someone to provide fingerprints. This giving up of freedom and providing information was done for good reason: to solve serious crimes. Yet I know of one officer who was based at Sandgate who, as a matter of course, for simple offences issued such notices to juveniles and in doing so told the juveniles that they would be fingerprinted. This was never the intent of the introduction of the law. The growing concern I have is that, while we give the Queensland Police Service greater powers based on examples that we believe relate to the most serious crimes, such as rape, murder and terrorism, the law is applied in circumstances which never constituted the rationale for developing these new tougher laws. So, keen to hear what checks and balances are in place in the provision of these laws, I support the bill before the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.20 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill, I believe the community has demonstrated a great interest in forensic science, DNA and the scientific side of policing by a simplistic test such as the rise in interest in shows like CSI and Crossing Jordan, where they use those police tools as entertainment, admittedly, to solve police crime. On the basis of interest shown, it has been able to be demonstrated through TV that forensics play a very important part in modern policing. I believe the community welcomes the responsible use of forensic science and DNA testing in order to solve some of the horrific crimes that are committed against the community today. When I first became a member of parliament, one of the questions we regularly asked in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was whether there was an appropriate devolution of powers to appropriately qualified people. Some of the tests still stick. In looking at the qualification of persons authorised to do forensic procedures—both intimate and non-intimate—the bill clearly defines the appropriate person, including medical doctors and dentists, to do intimate and non- intimate procedures. It then goes on to DNA samplers for the taking of external superficial DNA samples. I commend the minister for ensuring that suitable checks and balances have been put in place regarding the types of people who can take DNA samples. 19 Aug 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2993

I believe the community would have no great problem in the use of DNA sampling and forensics in dealing with people who are convicted of offences. Whilst the bill relies heavily on indictable offences, I think in many instances the community would feel that somebody who has breached the trust of the community by breaking the law should be subject to DNA fingerprinting and sampling, and having that DNA placed on the record because they had shown a disregard for the law. The question that I have for the minister is in relation to mass DNA sampling. We have had several examples of mass DNA sampling being taken. One was in South Australia, I think, where an offence had been committed in a small town. The men in the town were asked—and the procedure was carried out and the majority complied—to supply DNA samples to exclude themselves from the commissioning of the crime. Mr McGrady interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is right, with the girl who was pushed off the bridge. Again, on a voluntary basis, the majority of the community would have no problem with it. There would be some who would express concerns about civil liberties. My concern is that I do not have a clear understanding from the bill that those mass samplings will be destroyed once the person who has donated the sample is excluded from the commissioning of the crime. What I am concerned about, and what I seek clarification from the minister on, is that there seems to be a set of criteria put in place to destroy samples from suspects when the arrest is discontinued, or if it is proceeding for an indictable offence if that is discontinued before a court, or if a person is found not guilty the day the person is found not guilty. However, there seems in my mind to be a lack of clarity as to whether the sample of a person who voluntarily participates in a mass sample will be destroyed at the conclusion of that particular investigation. I just seek that clarification. I have heard the member for Gregory and others talk about the very valuable DNA database that is being accumulated across Australia. I would have difficulties if that DNA database were being collected from innocent people, even those who volunteer samples in an exclusion type situation. If it is from people who have committed offences and their data is retained on the records because of the probability or possibility of their reoffending, then I think there is less cause for concern. I seek the minister's clarification on that. I believe people generally see this as an exciting new tool in their fight for a safe community. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (10.25 p.m.), in reply: Again, I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate tonight on the Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill. Again, I want to thank the opposition for the support it is giving us. I am sure that 100 or so years ago in this chamber a similar debate took place and people expressed their concerns about civil liberties when discussing fingerprints. I see DNA as simply the modern form of fingerprinting to help police in their battle against criminals. Can I emphasise that it is not just a matter of catching criminals. We had an example not so long ago in Bali where we sent over police officers from Queensland to use DNA to identify bodies which had been burnt. We could not identify those bodies. So it is also used for situations such as that. DNA can prove that a person has in fact been at the scene of the crime, but it can also prove that a person was not at the scene of the crime. So it works both ways. What has happened is that over a period of time the federal, state and territory governments have all been working together to secure this database. Not only can we get information from New South Wales, Victoria or the Northern Territory; Scotland Yard, Interpol and the FBI can also contribute information which the police are looking for. It has been a very complex debate and discussion amongst the various government agencies. As the shadow minister pointed out, the Commonwealth was insisting on certain levels. Some of the territories and states had different levels, but we all had to join together to meet the basic guidelines of what the Commonwealth was demanding—and rightly so, too. We have no problems with that. I think it is an important day today. We are giving the Queensland Police Service powers in the form of DNA which enables them to go out there and try to solve crimes. At the end of the day, we are spending $1 billion a year on operational costs for the Queensland Police Service, and if we are able to access a system such as this which will help bring criminals to justice then I believe, as does the opposition, that we should utilise these facilities. 2994 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 19 Aug 2003

A number of questions have been asked by honourable members, and I will do my best to answer them. The first one came from both the shadow minister and the member for Stafford. They basically wanted to know what would happen if people did the wrong thing. What safeguards or balances and checks do we have. As has been said already, any person, whether they be in the Health Department or the Police Service, who misuses DNA samples can in fact face up to two years imprisonment. This is down in the legislation. If it is believed that somebody—whether it be a police officer or somebody from Queensland Health or anybody else—has misused those samples, that person faces two years imprisonment. That is one of the checks and balances. Also under this legislation there are a number of new offences, such as unlawful analysis of DNA samples, improper inclusion of a DNA profile on a database, improper disclosure of DNA information and failure to destroy DNA information. As I said, these offences carry penalties of up to two years. I hope that gives the member for Stafford some comfort. The shadow minister asked the question: what types of criminals can in fact have DNA samples taken? The answer is: all prisoners serving sentences for an indictable offence. As the member knows, they are the serious crimes. They are the crimes that have been tried by a jury. They are the ones we take DNA samples from. They are the ones where we basically get our database from. The member for Gladstone raised the issue of what I call the Bundaberg situation, where the police are searching for information. In the Bundaberg case they asked the males in the city to come forward. The condition there, though, is that when the investigation is finished or the police believe that the DNA samples are of no further use, they will be destroyed. Let me emphasise again the point I made a moment ago. If a person gives a DNA sample based on the belief that that sample will be destroyed after the case is closed or has been completed and somebody does not destroy the DNA sample, then we come back to the two years imprisonment. I am sure that should give the member some comfort in regard to the question she asked. Under this bill the matching table can preclude volunteers being matched with others. I have talked about the volunteers. The question has been asked as to who can in fact give approval to take DNA. It is a commissioned officer. A commissioned officer is the only person who can authorise a DNA sample to be taken. Of course, in regional or remote areas, where no commissioned officer is available, the officer in charge of the station can approve this. Again, that is in the bill. That is basically what we have been discussing tonight. I believe that there are checks and balances in the legislation. I understand and appreciate the civil libertarian concerns which have been expressed but, as other members have pointed out here tonight, when we are involving ourselves in trying to catch criminals and we have this information, regrettably sometimes some civil liberties do have to be put aside. I would like to conclude by thanking Sergeant Rod Charles from the Queensland Police Service, former Superintendent Merle Hinton, who has now left the Queensland Police Service and I am sure was well known to my predecessor, and all of those people, particularly from the Premier's office, who have been negotiating long and hard with the other jurisdictions to ensure that we have reached this agreement. Hopefully from tonight we will be part of this new, exciting, modern era in police work. Again, thankyou to all those people who have assisted. Before closing, the shadow minister did ask whether I could explain a little bit more about how the national database will operate. As has been pointed out, the Commonwealth's requirement for the creation of a matching table relating to the interjurisdictional exchange of DNA information necessitates Queensland creating a DNA database system and corresponding matching rules relating to this system. The database will be administered, as was said before, by CrimTrac. It has been designed on the basis of model law jurisdictions legislation. As we have been saying, as a result of this legislation tonight we will now be able to create this database in our state. I believe that, as fingerprints moved the police into a new era 100 years ago, this will do exactly the same for the members of our Police Service. It will provide them with the tools that they require to ensure that they can go out and catch the people who do wrong to society. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 27, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. 19 Aug 2003 Adjournment 2995

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

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (10.36 p.m.): I move— That this House do now adjourn.

Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (10.37 p.m.): I rise to speak about some of the unsung heroes in the Maryborough electorate. In July 1988 the Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre was originally incorporated by its founder, Maisie Kaufmann, as the Peter Sports and Recreation Club for people with disabilities. In July 1991 it was incorporated as the Peter Pan Literacy Club Inc. to teach literacy, numeracy and everyday living skills to people with a disability. In March 1997 the Peter Pan Literacy Club Incorporated became a registered training organisation. In April 1998 the Peter Pan Literacy Club Incorporated registered its trading name as the Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre in honour of its deceased founder. In February 2003 the Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre opened its training centre doors on a full-time basis, providing accredited literacy and numeracy training to over 70 students with disabilities. The funding to enable the centre to open was secured from the 2002-03 Community Responsive Training Program when the Hervey Bay Cerebral Palsy League submitted a collaborative bid incorporating six other disability organisations' support. Funds were gained to deliver literacy and numeracy training and utilise the Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre as the registered training organisation. The program is operated in rented rooms behind a church where a hive of activity occurs every day. Students undertake a range of programs including small motors, cooking, poetry, crafts, office skills and computers. These programs are the basis for the delivery of literacy, which is an integral part of the success of the program as students are learning hands-on skills while learning reading, writing, oral communication and maths skills. The centre is empowering students to become confident and to participate in everyday activities. Students receive training from the course CNLITNUM, which is a course in adult literacy and numeracy. On successful completion of the program, they receive not only the opportunity to develop their literacy skills but also an accredited certificate. In addition to the literacy programs, the centre also delivers volunteer tutor programs through funds secured under the Community Responsive Training Program. The program trains people who have committed to volunteering their time to assisting people to learn how to read and write. The accredited training program course in volunteer tutoring is delivered in a variety of centres in order to enhance literacy skills in other organisations. This includes youth, through Youth Care, people with a disability, through Endeavour, people of multicultural descent, through neighbourhood centres in Maryborough and Hervey Bay, and in total 45 people are enrolled in a volunteer tutor training class run by the Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre. I congratulate the Maisie Kaufmann Learning Centre on its excellent and compassionate work for people with disabilities in Maryborough.

Proposed Immigration Detention Centre, Pinkenba Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (10.40 p.m.): How opportune it is that my speech follows that of the honourable member for Maryborough, as I am about to talk about the proposed detention centre site at Meeandah, knowing that the people of Maryborough are very interested in having meaningful discussions with Mr Ruddock. We have not had meaningful discussions, but we are about to. In respect of the proposed site for the Queensland based immigration detention centre, there are three things that I would like to highlight. The first is that the federal government believed it had consulted appropriately with members of the nearby community at Pinkenba in respect of the centre it proposed to build on federal land at Meeandah. 2996 Adjournment 19 Aug 2003

Despite numerous public outcries from the community about not wanting the centre to be built close to their community, the federal government through Mr Ruddock, as well as conveniently not acknowledging or consulting those in close proximity to neighbouring suburbs Hamilton, Hendra and Ascot, continued to pursue the proposal. Secondly, the Minister for Immigration, Mr Ruddock, recently met with four executives of BRATS to show the concept plans for the centre. I was encouraged by BRATS President Margo Canavan to attend this meeting, but to no avail. My office contacted the minister's office three times, and not one call was returned. Then in the afternoon on the day of the meeting I was contacted by the minister's office and invited to view the immigration detention centre concept plans the following morning. What perfect timing to ensure that they did not have to deal with my meeting request! But, golly, what a gorgeous, whiz-bang and fabulous plan this new proposed detention centre is. We were told during that briefing that this is state of the art, that the electric fence cannot be seen because of the beautiful shrubs and that it has a swimming pool and a kindergarten. It is huge. To my mind, it is not a centre for visa overstayers; it is a prison for more than 250, upward of 500, people. There must be a hidden agenda. Part 3 of the nonsensical soap opera continued, with the federal government trying to pass the buck of responsibility on to the state government. In a response to the Premier's letter, whom I congratulate on his swiftness to address this issue, the minister has now informed the Premier that the state government should cough up the dollars if we want the detention centre in regional Queensland. However, it appears that Mr Ruddock and his Liberal counterparts are seeking to score political points against our Premier at the expense of the community. The Premier, Peter Beattie, has made an incredible alternative offer that would save the federal government dollars, and he still refuses. There is definitely a hidden agenda. The people of not only Pinkenba but also Hamilton, Ascot and Hendra have said, 'No detention centre in our area!' Mr Ruddock should acquiesce to that and not put it there. There are people in regional areas who have said that they will have it. He should put it there.

Mooloolaba Harbour Entrance, Maintenance Dredging Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (10.43 p.m.): I take this opportunity to speak about an important issue in my electorate of Maroochydore. I refer to the silting up of the Mooloolaba harbour entrance. This important port services a seafood industry worth about $80 million a year. In addition, the recreational boating industry is worth many millions of dollars. However, over the past several months we have seen the worst silting up of this harbour mouth since it was built quite a few decades ago. When I took a deputation to Transport Minister Bredhauer on 26 June, he was against the dredging of the river mouth. He said that he would monitor it. When we asked him to put dredging approvals in place, he claimed that it would take four to six months for the appropriate dredging approvals to come about. It has since been proven that that was not the case. After much public agitation from boaties who were saying this entrance was dangerous—in fact, three days after the deputation—a child almost drowned beneath a capsized boat. After much agitation from the community, the minister finally relinquished and said that the dredging approvals would be put in place. I welcome that announcement; it is what we lobbied for and it is what the community called for. However, we were very disappointed that it took several months to get that undertaking from the minister. We would have preferred a more timely response. This highlights the need for the government to have a clear program of ongoing maintenance dredging to ensure that such incredible delays never occur again. The commercial fishermen knew that the bar was dangerous and that one of the safest ports in Queensland had become almost impossible to navigate 24 hours a day in most tidal conditions. This is a serious issue. They were saying that it was dangerous and that the port was virtually closed. Finally, the minister relinquished and agreed to dredge. However, it should not have reached this point. I call on the government to commit to a regular program of maintenance dredging of this important harbour so that we never again see commercial fishermen threatening to go to New South Wales because that state is prepared to put out the welcome mat and provide a safe harbour. It is important to understand that this has been a trained river mouth for decades. It was one of the safest river mouths. However, under this government regular maintenance dredging has fallen by the wayside. This should not be allowed to happen again. We urge the government to fast-track the approvals and ensure that the appropriate dredging is undertaken and that this important commercial industry and recreational boaties have a safe, navigable channel. 19 Aug 2003 Adjournment 2997

Government Spending, Nerang Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (10.46 p.m.): I rise to speak on the renewal and reinvigoration of the township of Nerang, the principal township in my electorate. Nerang is an inland town that for years was neglected by the previous Liberal Party member and the Gold Coast City Council. Since my election in 2001, I have made it a priority to obtain much-needed funds for Nerang, and the results are now everywhere to be seen. If people walk down the newly landscaped streets of the CBD they will see a hive of building activity. The new library building is progressing rapidly. This government has allocated more than $567,000 for this project. Across the road is a huge new cinema complex nearing completion. Close by, the Nerang RSL Club recently increased its building size and included a sportsmen's bar. It is a wonderful contributor to the community. I commend it for its activities. Also, the government has allocated $931,000-odd to construct a 25-metre, 10-lane swimming pool and redevelop the existing pool complex. This government has also allocated a further $6 million for roadworks on the Beaudesert-Nerang Road down to Oak Street to improve communications further into the Gold Coast hinterland and duplicate the bridge. Nerang is a thriving and bustling town. The town is optimistic about its future. The increase in housing prices in Nerang has been the highest of any place on the Gold Coast. This is a vote of confidence in Nerang by home buyers and businesses alike. It is also the cleanest town on the Gold Coast and is led by a team of local businesses and concerned citizens that have managed to eradicate unsightly graffiti from its streets. More recently, the Beattie government has given more than $8,000 to the Nerang Community Association to also continue its fight against graffiti. Nerang is located next to the M1 freeway and is only 80 kilometres from Brisbane. The Nerang Railway Station is part of the popular and well patronised Gold Coast rail link. The station has a marvellous bus interchange to service surrounding suburbs and districts. However, the Leader of the Opposition sneeringly refers to the rail service as the 'Bombay express'. Has he ever caught the train? Of course not! He would not have a clue. I am proud to have played a role in the revival and redevelopment of the great town of Nerang.

Dr B. Warnock; Cardwell Community Health Centre Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.49 p.m.): I have been requested by the Cardwell Community Health Centre support group to advise that at the last Cardwell health consumers network meeting, held on 25 June 2003, the proposed naming of the soon to be erected health centre in Cardwell was discussed. The support group voted that the health centre should be named after Dr Warnock and would like support in the form of a letter addressed to Kain Donily, District Manager of the Innisfail Health Service District. Dr Warnock was highly regarded in the Cardwell community for his care and concern for the health and welfare of Cardwell people. The Cardwell health clinic was on Dr Warnock's agenda during the 1970s when many letters were written to the state member of parliament, the Premier, the Minister for Health and many others. The fruition of the clinic came at the end of Dr Warnock's life, and the community of Cardwell would like to show their last respects to him by having the clinic named after him. Dr Bob Warnock, BA, MB, B.Chir, B.Obs, RCOG, received much of his medical training in England. He spent some time in Babinda in the early seventies. He moved to Cardwell and provided a medical service for the district for some 20 years. When he retired he decided to stay in Cardwell as he had developed strong links with the district and its residents. It would be appropriate that this centre recognise the dedication of Dr Warnock and what he gave to the district during the period he provided a health service. Dr Bob Warnock was highly respected for the service he provided to Cardwell. Hopefully, the Minister for Health will acknowledge the commitments and requests for the naming of this centre, which is so important to the future of the people of Cardwell. There are many issues that are important in Cardwell, but of course health is one of them. I know that for some time they have been hoping for a health care centre. This finally appears to have come to fruition and it will be extremely important that a well-known resident and a person who works so much for the health of people in Cardwell is recognised. 2998 Adjournment 19 Aug 2003

Crime Prevention; BSCATs Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.52 p.m.): I wish tonight to continue what has been a very popular theme in the House today, and that is crime prevention. Today we have passed legislation dealing with issues such as terrorism, about those who have already been convicted of crimes, about those who aid and abet criminals and about other such important issues. I think it is quite true that we expect our police force to be in place to deal with this type of crime at what I call the top end of the spectrum. While we live in an age of relative civil harmony and safety, any crime committed against an individual is rightly viewed as unacceptable. Indeed, it can be a really traumatic experience for people and for victims of crime. I do believe that, as members of a community, we all share a responsibility for the prevention of crime. That is why the Beattie government has vowed to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Indeed, in 1999 the Beattie government launched the Queensland crime prevention strategy Building Safer Communities. This strategy highlighted the role of the community in finding solutions to crime through the close collaboration between government and business. More recently, we have released the strategic framework for community crime prevention, which has developed the notion that when it comes to crime prevention there is no 'one size fits all' recipe. This framework has drawn on the features of good practice available nationally and internationally to provide a clear framework that makes best use of existing infrastructure and programs with the clear aim of addressing crime at the community level. The strategic framework introduces the concept of local Building Safer Community action teams, fondly known as BSCATs. These teams are sourced from within regional communities with the aim of working together to develop and implement sustainable solutions to crime prevention and safety issues through local action and coordination of resource investment across government programs. BSCATs are being developed to provide the opportunity to take positive action to prevent crime through the development of local crime profiles and local crime prevention action plans. I am very proud that the first BSCAT in Queensland met in the Whitsunday region last week under the guidance of the regional crime prevention resource officer, John Mallett. The BSCAT comprises an impressive group of local business, community and local government leaders, including representatives from the Whitsunday Shire Council, Proserpine and Whitsunday police force, Education Queensland, Proserpine Hospital, Tourism Whitsundays, Chamber of Commerce, neighbourhood centre and the Whitsunday Women's Service. These are all really busy people. The fact that they have given up their time to participate in the BSCAT bodes well for the potential of this group to work together with government to address the issues of local crime prevention.

Sugar Industry Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.55 p.m.): Just when we all thought that the sugar industry could not get any worse it suddenly has; it has gotten far worse. A couple of weeks ago in the Mackay district we experienced a black frost, which is the most devastating of all frosts. Early estimates indicate that in the two nights of that very severe frost more than 500,000 to 750,000 tonnes of cane were badly damaged, with more than 10,000 to 15,000 hectares badly frost affected. In some paddocks it looked as if it had been sprayed with Roundup. The crop was absolutely dead and still is. I believe that less severe damage was reported around Bundaberg. Early estimates show that more than 30 per cent of the Mackay district crop was affected, with damage varying from mild to very severe. Of course, rain at this time will cause the cane to rot. There is a real urgency to have the crop harvested before it deteriorates further. As each day goes by the crop is deteriorating. The harvest is continuing as quickly as possible and the cane is being moved as quickly as possible, but unfortunately it is deteriorating. The worst affected areas were Wagoora, Silent Grove, Gargett, Septimus, Mount Charlton, Victoria Plains, Blue Mountain, Mount Christian and Koumala Range. Some growers advise that it is the worst frost damage that they could ever remember, and that goes back a hell of a long time. For an industry that is already demoralised by low prices and the drought, this devastating blow is a real impediment to farmers. It is a very serious situation for individual growers and the industry. This comes after six years of continued terrible weather conditions throughout the district that have affected unbelievably the crop outlooks. 19 Aug 2003 Adjournment 2999

Inspections of damaged cane were undertaken quickly by BSES, Mackay Sugar, CSR Plane Creek and the Productivity Board. Strategies were put in place to identify and prioritise harvesting of the affected cane. This unexpected event is just another massive blow to the industry that has only served to exacerbate the pain and misery of recent seasons. Legislation before this house to deregulate the industry will certainly not help in this time of need. We all hope that the legislation may change the weather conditions, because that really is the only way that this industry can move forward in the Mackay district. The industry cannot afford—and certainly cannot face—any more seasons of this adverse weather. The farmers in the Mackay district look forward to seasons in the future that are a little more sympathetic to their plight. Hopefully, the industry will move forward in future years.

Disability Action Week Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (10.58 p.m.): I would like to congratulate two people in my electorate who have been making a significant contribution to the community. Recently I was honoured to attend the official Disability Action Week awards. My esteemed colleague the Minister for Disability Services, Judy Spence, presented awards to people who had made a difference to the lives of those living with disabilities, and there were some terrific stories. The Disability Action Week awards give recognition to many who do extraordinary work and they top off a week of activities and events designed to raise the profile of people living with a disability and the many successes they enjoy. There is also an emphasis on the efforts of those who work with people with a disability. It is heartening to find out how many people are concerned with improving the lives of others. Two of the winners were teachers in the Special Education Unit at Miami State High School. I have spoken before of the wonderful work done at the Special Education Unit and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so again. Teachers Andrew Shepherd and Jonathon Locke are making a real difference for students with special needs. Andrew and Jonathon were jointly nominated as individuals rather than as a group within the one nomination as they operate different programs in the fields of mechanics and community readiness training. The programs, while having separate goals, collectively provide students with work readiness, lifelong learning, retention at school and entry into full-time employment upon exit from school. The teachers' efforts and personal commitment have resulted in students staying at school until they are equipped to secure full-time employment. Most importantly, they have raised the status of their students within the community to such an extent that the SEU is actively approached for student placements. Andrew and Jonathon are highly committed teachers who devote many out-of-school hours to making links with the wider community. They have received strong praise from many quarters for demonstrating excellence in teaching. There can be few professions more challenging than educating young people with special needs. That these two men are able to succeed so spectacularly speaks well not only of their own abilities but also of the school itself, the wider community and Education Queensland. I have some experience of the wonderful school community at Miami State High School and the Special Education Unit. The staff are totally committed to the school and its students and many families are actively promoting the SEU and campaigning on its behalf for a better deal for these special students. I am proud to be associated with them. I offer both Andrew and Jonathon my sincere congratulations.

Lockyer Race Club; Queensland Racing Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (11.01 p.m.): Last week Gatton, in the heart of my constituency, held a race meeting. But it was more than just another galloping event; it was the first time for many years that the Lockyer Race Club had to hold a meeting without the support of the TAB. The meeting was held on the Ekka holiday and due to the extraordinary efforts of the race club drew a bumper crowd. The meeting was an act of defiance by the hardworking officials and volunteers of the race club, local trainers, strappers, jockeys and racing fans. The club can hold its head up high, but Queensland Racing can hang its head in shame. After Queensland Racing stripped Gatton and many other provincial centres of the benefit of TAB meetings, the TAB rubbed salt into the wound by carrying its business interstate. For instance, last Monday the TAB 3000 Adjournment 19 Aug 2003 fielded on races at Tatura, Scone and Queanbeyan. Most punters would be hard pressed to find these places on the map. The irony is that Queensland punters have never had so many races to bet on. On Saturday, they can bet on races at obscure New Zealand racetracks, on a Victorian bush track, on a dirt track in Darwin or Alice Springs and on races in Perth as well as on eastern city races. On Sunday, punters can bet on up to eight gallops meetings, mostly on indifferent country tracks as far afield as Swan Hill and Launceston. Punters can bet mid-week on dozens of tracks from Berrigan to Bourke as the TAB money machine rolls on from morning until night. But punters cannot bet on the Gatton races. The high standard of the Gatton track itself is a tribute to the hard work of the committee members who have maintained a quality racing venue, which is an important adjunct to the Doomben and Eagle Farm races, among many. Gatton is on Brisbane's doorstep. This track is a nursery for horses that go on to race on metropolitan tracks. Yet the TAB in its wisdom thinks that Gatton is not worth a punt. Last Monday, the Lockyer Race Club pulled out all stops to prove the TAB wrong in its judgment of one of Queensland's best provincial tracks. I am sure that the opposition is wringing its hands over the state that Queensland racing is in. But it only has its federal counterparts to blame. The TAB, which was chartered to nurture the Queensland racing industry, was sold off to what has become an interstate gambling machine answerable only to its shareholders. The Queensland government was faced with the choice of a loss of national competition policy payments from Canberra or to privatise racing and betting. As if our racing people do not know what competition is all about! The result is that the TAB can import races from rough country tracks in the backblocks of New South Wales and Victoria where nobody has heard of the horses or trainers. The TAB fields at meetings where races are frequently delayed because the ambulance is off on other duties, or the running rail has fallen down, or the gates are stuck in mud. Recently, one race was delayed because there was an echidna on the track! But punters cannot bet on races that they know and trust. They cannot support the industry on their own doorstep—the one that will die if it is not supported. I suggest that if the TAB does not get behind our own racing industry it will wither on the vine as punters lose interest in minor interstate events.

Stroke Association of Queensland Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (11.04 p.m.): With Stroke Awareness Week just around the corner, now is an appropriate time to highlight the issues surrounding stroke survival. In the five-year period from 1995 to 2002 inclusive, there were 44,000 strokes in Queensland accounting for 516,879 occupied bed days. The average age of male stroke victims is 69 years and for females it is 74 years. However, according to hospital admissions, one-quarter of all stroke admissions are under 65 years of age. Many are still raising young families or are teenagers or mere children themselves. Broadly speaking, there are two groups of stroke sufferers. Fifteen per cent of them are haemorrhagic stroke sufferers. That involves a bleed. This group has the highest mortality rate. Until recently, nature took its course with this group. Recently, research has begun with drugs that are used for haemophiliacs. The second group, the remaining 85 per cent, suffer clots or blockages. This is the ischaemic stroke group. With modern drugs, this group can be helped if correctly diagnosed and treatment commenced within the first few hours, as there is a very narrow window of opportunity. The type of stroke has to be correctly identified before treatment begins. The incorrect treatment may well prove fatal. Stroke is a medical emergency. Treatment must begin within a very short space of time. Statistics show that about one-third of stroke victims will die within 12 months. A further one-third of stroke victims are permanently disabled. Stroke is a leading cause of chronic disability in adults. The number of people trained in stroke diagnosis treatment and rehabilitation is grossly inadequate and these people are concentrated in the south-east corner of the state. People in the north of the state and those inland from the coast have to travel great distances for diagnosis, treatment and any rehabilitation. This results in great financial hardship, family dislocation and often breakdowns. Because of the delay in diagnosis and treatment, the outcome is worse than it might have been. Due to the lack of available resources, currently not enough is aimed at trying to help young people reclaim their lives. Many wind up on the scrap heap prematurely in the mistaken belief that their condition is final. Carers and loved ones need counselling on what is happening to the stroke 19 Aug 2003 Adjournment 3001 survivor and what to expect when they are discharged from hospital. No formal program exists for this process, leaving a frightening void. Carers, loved ones and families need to be educated about what to expect when the stroke survivor comes home. The Stroke Association of Queensland on request supplies literature of a very high standard. It is available by phone four days a week for guidance, information and emotional support. With very modest funding, the association maintains a minimalist office with a telephone, fax, computer, Internet and one paid worker working Mondays to Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The association produces or reproduces most of the literature that it distributes to carers and in support of more than 30 voluntary stroke support groups around the state. The association president routinely performs educational talks to carers, nursing home staff and clients, HACC staff and Blue Care workers. He survived three major strokes himself in his 50s. In the years following, he has been on a crusade to change the culture surrounding a stroke victim by removing the victim tag and demanding that the medical profession change its attitude to the post-hospital stroke survivor. It has to stop killing hope in survivors by telling them that they are as good as they will get. Experience has shown that stoke survivors in a support group can still be showing improvement many years later. Those who get ongoing therapy usually do much better than those who have a limited period of retraining. The brain takes time to learn to use different parts of itself to do the jobs that dead parts of the brain used to do. No funds exist to advertise or promote the association's services, which means that many people who could benefit from the association never get to hear of it. An open rail pass could be of immense assistance for a representative of the Stroke Association of Queensland to access regional areas. It is a small cost that could bring enormous benefits. Respite is a big need in all areas, but especially in the regional and remote areas. Without it, carers have no time for themselves to attend to all the other things that need their attention, including other family members and children, or even to reduce their own burn-out rate. Support groups are badly needed in most areas. The biggest problem is in establishing them, as people who have had a major stroke are usually lacking the capacity to plan and initiate such an undertaking. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.08 p.m.